1052 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 155

[CGD 91–034]

RIN 2115–AD81

Vessel Response Plans

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adopting

with some changes, as final, the interim

final rule which establishes regulations

requiring response plans for certain

vessels that carry oil in bulk as cargo

and additional requirements for certain

vessels operating in Prince William

Sound, Alaska. These regulations are

mandated by the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as

amended by the Oil Pollution Act of

1990 (OPA 90). The purpose of

requiring vessel response plans is to

enhance private sector planning and

response capabilities to minimize the

impact of spilled oil.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to in this preamble

are available for inspection or copying

at the office of the Executive Secretary,

Marine Safety Council (G–LRA/3406),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., room 3406,

Washington, DC 20593–0001, between 8

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR Mark Hamilton, Project Manager,

Response Division, (202) 267–1983.

This telephone is equipped to record

messages on a 24-hour basis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are Marcia

Landman, Project Manager, and

Jacqueline Sullivan, Project Counsel,

Office of the Chief Counsel.

Regulatory History

On August 30, 1991, the Coast Guard

published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled

Vessel Response Plans and Carriage and

Inspection of Discharge-Removal

Equipment in the Federal Register (56

FR 43534). The Coast Guard received

172 letters commenting on the proposal.

On November 14, 1991, the Coast

Guard held a public workshop in

Washington, DC, concerning the

development of proposed regulations for

vessel response plans. A total of 196

persons participated in the workshop.

On November 18, 1991, the Coast

Guard published a Notice of Intent to

Form a Negotiated Rulemaking

Committee in the Federal Register (56

FR 58202). On January 10, 1992, the

Coast Guard published a notice in the

Federal Register announcing the

establishment of the Oil Spill Response

Plan Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

(the Committee) (57 FR 1139). Twentysix organizations and the Coast Guard

were members of the Committee. The

Committee met between January 8 and

March 27, 1992. Copies of the

Committee’s final report and all

documents considered by the

Committee are available in the public

docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

On June 19, 1992, the Coast Guard

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Vessel

Response Plans’’ in the Federal Register

(57 FR 27514). A correction notice

concerning portions of the NPRM was

published on July 1, 1992 in the Federal

Register (57 FR 29354). The Coast Guard

received 246 letters commenting on the

proposal. Additional comments were

received after the close of the comment

period. They were considered in

developing the interim final rule (IFR).

The Oil Spill Response Plan

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

reconvened August 18–20, 1992, after

the close of the public comment period

on the NPRM, to review the comments

received on its recommendations. The

Committee did not amend its final

report. All documents considered by the

Committee during the final meeting are

available in the public docket where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard released Navigation

and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC)

No. 8–92 on September 15, 1992.

Change 1 to NVIC No. 8–92 was released

on December 4, 1992. NVIC No. 8–92

and Change 1 to it provided immediate

guidance to the marine industry for

preparing response plans covering

certain vessels to meet the February

1993 deadline established by the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).

On February 5, 1993, the Coast Guard

published an Interim Final Rule (IFR)

entitled ‘‘Vessel Response Plans’’ in the

Federal Register (58 FR 7424). The

Coast Guard received 68 letters

commenting on the IFR. These

comments were considered in

developing this final rule.

Background and Purpose

Section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33

U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)), as amended by

section 4202 of OPA 90, requires the

owner or operator of a facility, or a tank

vessel as defined under 46 U.S.C. 2101,

to prepare and submit to the President

a plan for responding, to the maximum

extent practicable, to a worst case

discharge, and to a substantial threat of

such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous

substance. The worst case discharge for

a vessel is defined in section 311(a)(24)

of the FWPCA as the loss of the entire

cargo in adverse weather conditions (33

U.S.C. 1321(a)(24)).

Oil spill response plan regulations for

marine transportation-related onshore

facilities are the subject of a separate

rulemaking project (CGD 91–036).

Although OPA 90 requires response

plans for oil or hazardous substance

spills, section 4202(b)(4) establishes an

implementation schedule only for oil

spill response plans. Response plans for

hazardous substance spills will be the

subject of a separate rulemaking [Tank

Vessel and Facility Response Plans, and

Discharge Response Equipment for

Hazardous Substances; CGD 94–032 and

94–048].

Section 311(a)(1) of the FWPCA

defines oil as including but not limited

to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse,

and oil mixed with waste other than

dredge spoils (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(1)).

While the most common oils are the

various petroleum oils (e.g., crude oil,

gasoline, diesel, etc.), non-petroleum

oils such as turpentine and the various

animal fats (e.g., tallow lard, etc.) and

vegetable oils (e.g., corn oil, sunflower

seed oil, palm oil, etc.) are included

within the ambit of this regulation when

carried in bulk as cargo by tank vessels.

The vessel response plan

requirements are applicable to all

vessels certificated under 46 CFR

chapter 1, subchapter D, vessels that are

required to have a Certificate of

Compliance or Tank Vessel Examination

Letter, other certificated vessels that are

permitted to carry limited quantities of

oil, and uninspected vessels that carry

oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue. The

requirements are also applicable to

vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo or

cargo residue pursuant to an

International Oil Pollution Prevention

(IOPP) or Noxious Liquid Substance

(NLS) certificate required by 33 CFR

151.33 or 151.35, and dedicated

response vessels carrying oil in bulk as

cargo or cargo residue when not engaged

in response operations. The Coast Guard

Authorization Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–

587, November 4, 1992) removed

offshore supply vessels, and certain

fishing or fish tender vessels from the

definition of ‘‘tank vessels’’; therefore,

those vessels do not fall under the

FWPCA’s vessel response plan

requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1053

Section 5005 of OPA 90 sets

additional oil spill removal planning

requirements for tank vessels and

facilities operating on Prince William

Sound (PWS), Alaska. On October 5,

1992, section 5005 was amended by the

Department of Transportation

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 102–388,

106 Stat. 1520). The only vessels to

which the enhanced requirements of

section 5005 now apply are tankers

loading cargo at a facility permitted

under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline

Authorization Act (TAPAA) (43 U.S.C.

1651 et seq.).

Section 311(j)(5)(C) of the FWPCA

requires that response plans must—

(1) Be consistent with the

requirements of the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR part

300) and Area Contingency Plans

(ACPs);

(2) Identify the qualified individual

with full authority to implement

removal actions, and require immediate

communications between that

individual and the appropriate Federal

official and the oil spill removal

organizations providing personnel and

equipment;

(3) Identify and ensure the availability

of, by contract or other approved means,

private personnel and equipment

necessary to remove to the maximum

extent practicable a worst case discharge

and to mitigate or prevent a substantial

threat of such a discharge;

(4) Describe the training, equipment

testing, periodic unannounced

exercises, and response actions of

persons on the vessel to be carried out

under the plan to ensure the safety of

the vessel and to mitigate or prevent the

discharge, or the substantial threat of a

discharge; and

(5) Be updated periodically and

resubmitted for approval of each

significant change.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received 68

comments on the IFR. The following

discussion summarizes the comments

and explains substantive changes made

to the regulation in response to the

comments. Comments are categorized

by the specific section of the IFR to

which they apply. In addition to these

changes, editorial changes have been

made to clarify the rule or standardize

terminology. The authority citation and

the following sections have changes

which are purely editorial: §§ 155.1025,

155.1026, 155.1052, 155.1062, 155.1115,

155.1125, and tables 1 and 6 of

Appendix B to subpart 155. For the

convenience of the public, subparts D

and E have been reprinted in their

entirety.

Section 155.140 Incorporation by

Reference

One comment concerning the possible

American Society of Testing and

Materials (ASTM) revision of

incorporated equipment standards was

received in response to this section of

the IFR. This comment expressed

concern that the Coast Guard might at

some time incorporate revised ASTM

equipment standards that could result

in more stringent standards.

Standards that are incorporated by

reference into regulations do not change

automatically when new standards are

issued by ASTM or other third party

standards-setting organizations.

Extensive review of revisions to an

incorporated reference, such as those

from the ASTM, is done prior to

considering changing the incorporated

reference in a regulation.

If the Coast Guard determines that a

change is warranted, a notice of the

change will be published in the Federal

Register. While the possibility does

exist that a requirement increase would

occur from the future incorporation of

revised standards, careful consideration

of the overall effectiveness of the initial

requirement is the primary benchmark.

Incorporation of revised or new

standards is not proposed unless such

change is warranted. If a change is

considered necessary, a notice will be

published in the Federal Register, and

material made available to the public for

public comment.

Section 155.1010 Purpose

Three comments were received

responding to this section. One

comment supported the clarification of

purpose in the preamble.

One comment asserted that the

purpose of OPA 90 is to establish a

National Contingency Plan to devise

mechanisms for oil spill cleanup. The

National Contingency Plan was

established under section 311(d) of the

FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321) and is the

responsibility of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). This

rulemaking does not affect the National

Contingency Plan, but is complementary

to it. As stated in the preamble to the

IFR, a major objective of section

311(j)(5) of the FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321)

is to create a system in which private

parties supply the bulk of equipment

and personnel needed for an oil spill

response. It also requires the vessel

owner or operator to be responsible for

promptly and properly removing oil and

minimizing environmental damage from

a discharge without the active

participation of any Federal personnel

or equipment. The Coast Guard made no

revisions to this section of the rule.

Section 155.1015 Applicability

Six comments addressed the issue of

applicability of the regulations to

animal fats and vegetable oils. One

comment stated that tank vessels

transporting edible oils should be

exempt from these regulations because

their inclusion would be contrary to the

legislative intent of OPA 90. Five

comments suggested that response and

removal methodologies for nonpetroleum oils be the subject of a

separate rulemaking.

Section 311 of the FWPCA defines

‘‘oil’’ to be oil of any kind or in any

form, which includes non-petroleum

oils. The Coast Guard does not have the

authority to define ‘‘oil’’ differently and

must address non-petroleum oils in any

response plan requirements. The Coast

Guard agrees, however, that separate

subparts for animal fats and vegetable

oils and for other non-petroleum oils is

appropriate and has created new

supbarts F and G in this rule. Changes

to response plan requirements for these

oils are contained in the discussion of

those subparts.

Three comments contended that

fishing vessels should be exempt from

the definition of tank vessel for the

purposes of applicability of these

regulations. As stated previously,

section 321 of the Coast Guard

Authorization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–

206, 107 Stat. 2419) has essentially

resulted in the exemption of fishing

vessels or fish tender vessels engaged

only in the fishing industry and of less

than 750 gross tons from the definition

of tank vessel and, consequently, from

these requirements. Another comment

stated that it was not the intent of OPA

90 to regulate fishing tender vessels

carrying light fuel products. The

applicability of these requirements to

fishing vessels was revised by section

321 of the Coast Guard Authorization

Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat.

2419). When fishing vessels or fish

tender vessels are engaged only in the

fishing industry and are less than 750

gross tons, they are not deemed to be

tank vessels. Accordingly, these vessels

are now excluded from vessel response

plan requirements.

One comment argued for the

exemption from these regulations of

inland river towboats operated by the

same person conducting fuel transfers.

This comment further contended that

these vessels should be exempted as a

secondary cargo carrier for the same

reason Congress exempted certain

foreign vessels. The Coast Guard

disagrees. Because certain towboats

meet the definition of tank vessel in 46

U.S.C. 2101, owners and operators of

these vessels must meet these
1054 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

requirements. Accordingly, the Coast

Guard does not have authority to allow

towboats to conduct fuel transfers

without a vessel response plan.

One comment urged negotiations

between the United States and Canada

to minimize the burdens of meeting

both nations’ requirements for vessel

response planning. This comment stated

that a vessel may transit the water of

one country only incidentally enroute to

the other country. This comment further

stated that inadvertent rerouting might

entail additional collision and pollution

risks. The Coast Guard agrees with this

comment; however, there is no authority

for the Coast Guard to waive the vessel

response requirements for vessels

transiting the internal waters of the

United States enroute to or from

Canadian ports. The Coast Guard is

currently working with the Canadian

government to develop a bilateral

agreement on vessel response plan

requirements.

Section 155.1020 Definitions

In order to accommodate new

provisions regarding non-petroleum

oils, the Coast Guard has added several

definitions to this section of this final

rule. These definitions are for the terms

‘‘animal fat’’, ‘‘other non-petroleum oil’’,

‘‘petroleum oil’’, and ‘‘vegetable oil’’.

Average most probable discharge.

This definition was modified in the

final rule to include a discharge of the

lesser of 50 barrels of oil or 1 percent

of the cargo to be consistent with the

facility response plan requirements. One

comment was received responding to

this definition in the IFR. It stated that

the threshold for this definition should

be lowered to 25 barrels for the Great

Lakes. The Coast Guard disagrees with

this comment. The 50-barrel response

planning requirement was based on

national operational spill data over a 5-

year period and an evaluation of

historical trends in smaller size spills.

Substantial data supporting a reduction

to this requirement for the Great Lakes

area was not provided by the comment.

The Coast Guard further clarified the

definition of average most probable

discharge in this final rule by limiting

it to 50-barrel discharges occurring

during transfer operations to or from the

vessels rather than making the

definition applicable to vessel

offloading operations alone.

Cargo. Although no comments were

received addressing this definition, the

Coast Guard modified this definition in

this final rule to exclude oil transferred

from a towing vessel to a vessel in its

tow to operate installed machinery other

than the propulsion plant. The IFR

contained a similar provision, but this

final rule version further clarifies the

type of transfer which is excluded and

clarifies that the propulsion plant does

not qualify as installed machinery for

the purposes of this definition.

Contract or other approved means.

Nine comments responded to this

definition in the IFR. Four comments

generally agreed with the definition,

especially concerning the addition of

the alternatives to a formal contract.

One comment contended that legal

contracts would be too restrictive and

burdensome. The Coast Guard

recognizes the burden of legal

contracting, and the IFR provides an

alternate means to ensure the

availability of response resources. As

discussed in the IFR, a document that

provides the following information will

be considered to provide acceptable

assurance that the response resource

provider has the capability to respond:

(1) Clear identification of the goods and

services to be provided; (2) provision of

the parties’ acknowledgment that the

resource provider intends to commit its

resources in the event of a response; and

(3) permission for the Coast Guard to

verify the response resources identified

through tests, inspection, and exercise.

One comment argued that the Coast

Guard would have difficulty monitoring

the identification of resources in a

vessel response plan by merely relying

on a contractor’s written consent. The

Coast Guard recognizes the problem of

identifying resources that have not been

contracted. The Coast Guard has an

ongoing effort to ensure that all

response plans are valid. Measures are

taken whenever the Coast Guard finds

false statements in response plans. The

Coast Guard encourages continued

classification of OSROs in accordance

with Navigation and Vessel Inspection

Circular 12–92 (NVIC 12–92; December

4, 1992) to ensure organizations

identified by the response plan have the

equipment necessary to deliver the

services in accordance with what they

have promised to vessel owners or

operators.

Three comment writers believed that

the definition of ‘‘contract or other

approved means’’ should be expanded:

one comment writer believed it should

include a document designating each

party’s responsibilities; one comment

writer believed that the definition

should include a presumption in favor

of demonstrating capability; and one

comment writer suggested that ‘‘active

membership’’ be clarified or that

language that confirms commitment of

response resources to the member of a

local or regional oil spill removal

organization within this definition be

included.

The Coast Guard disagrees. A

concerted effort has been made to keep

this definition from creating an onerous

burden to vessel owners and operators.

The legal aspects of the response

arrangements must meet the described

specific criteria for response resources

and their arrival time contained in this

rule, but a dictation of specific

‘‘responsibilities’’ should be left to the

discretion of the owners or operators.

Finally, while the term ‘‘active

membership’’ is general, it can be easily

assessed and verified by the Coast

Guard during tests, inspections,

exercises, or a combination of these

three methods of evaluation.

Although nine comments responded

to this IFR definition, the Coast Guard

has determined that no substantive

revisions to this definition in the final

rule are necessary. However, technical

revisions were made to reference correct

section numbers in the final rule.

Dedicated response vessel. There

were no comments received responding

to this definition. However, the Coast

Guard revised this definition to be

consistent with escort vessel regulations

that are being developed under a

separate rulemaking project [Escort

Vessels for Certain Tankers; CGD 91–

202].

Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive

Environments. This final rule adds the

definition of the term ‘‘Fish and

Wildlife and Sensitive Environments.’’

Although not specifically used in this

regulation, it is added for the vessel

owners and operators information when

dealing with facilities. This term is used

by the marine transportation-related

facility response plan final rule and by

the EPA in its final rule. For more

information on these areas and how

they affect response planning

requirements, see the Coast Guard

marine transportation-related facility

response plan final rule (CDG 91–036),

the EPA final rule (59 FR 34070; July 1,

1994), or the ‘‘Notice’’ published by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) entitled

‘‘Guidance for Facility and Vessel

Response Plans Fish and Wildlife and

Sensitive Environments’’ published in

the Federal Register on March 29, 1994.

(59 FR 14714).

Great Lakes. One comment was

received in response to this IFR

definition. This comment was

concerned that the definition did not

clearly address the rivers tributary to the

Great Lakes. The Coast Guard disagrees.

The definition for the Great Lakes

specifically includes tributary waters

and is consistent with definitions found

in Coast Guard regulations governing

navigation and navigable waters. This

definition treats the Great Lakes as an

entire ecosystem, including their

connecting and tributary waters which
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1055

would be adversely affected by an oil

spill. Accordingly, the Coast Guard has

not modified this definition in this final

rule.

Higher volume port area. One

comment was received in response to

this definition. The comment contended

that the material in § 155.1050(h) of the

IFR should be relocated to the

definitional section rather than crossreferenced. The Coast Guard agrees and

has relocated the material to the

definition for higher volume port area.

Inland areas. Although not

specifically requested by any IFR

comments, the Coast Guard has revised

this definition in this final rule. A

sentence has been added to this

definition in the final rule to clarify that

the Great Lakes are not included under

this definition.

Maximum extent practicable. One

comment expressed concern over the

meaning of the word ‘‘practicable’’ as

used in the statute, and the meaning of

the word ‘‘possible’’ as used in this IFR

definition at 33 CFR 153.305. The

definition used in this rule pertains to

the planned capability to respond to an

oil spill within the time frame and

equipment guidelines for the worst case

discharge in adverse weather, whereas

33 CFR 153.305 reflects methods for oil

spill cleanup to be applied after a spill

has occurred. Because this final rule

provides for contingencies prior to a

spill, the difference in wording between

the two regulations is necessary and

appropriate.

Maximum most probable discharge.

Two comments were received in

response to this definition. One

comment disagreed with this definition,

indicating that the 2,500-barrel

assignment is excessive for Great Lake

operators. This comment argued that, in

the past 10 years, the largest spill in the

Great Lakes was only 500 barrels of oil.

The other comment suggested that the

maximum most probable discharge be

set at 500 barrels. The maximum most

probable spill has been defined as 2,500

barrels based on a statistical analysis of

Coast Guard tank vessel spill data for

the years 1985 through 1989. The figure

of 2,500 barrels encompasses

approximately 99% of the number of

spills which occurred during that

period. It would not be feasible to

change the definition of maximum most

probable discharge on a per-location

basis.

Nearshore areas. The Coast Guard

revised the wording of this definition

slightly. Although the language was not

substantively changed, the definition as

it appears in the final rule is now

consistent with that which appeared in

the IFR for marine transportation-related

facilities (58 FR 7352; February 5, 1993).

Non-petroleum oil. One comment was

received in response to this definition.

The comment argued that nonpetroleum oils should be addressed

separately. The Coast Guard agrees and

has added new subparts F and G to this

rule addressing animal fats and

vegetable oils in subpart F and other

non-petroleum oils in subpart G. These

new subparts are discussed

subsequently in this section of the

preamble.

Oil field waste. The Coast Guard

added this definition in the final rule,

which means non-pumpable drilling

fluids with possible trace amounts of

metal and oil. Reference to response

plans for barges carrying nonhazardous

oil field wastes is made at § 155.1030(f)

of this final rule, which permits owners

or operators of such barges to submit

response plans under § 155.1045 rather

than submitting plans under § 155.1035

or § 155.1040. This definition was

added to distinguish this type of

material from other types of material, as

owners or operators of these vessels

need only plan as secondary carriers in

accordance with § 155.1045 of this final

rule.

On-scene coordinator or OSC. One

comment was received in response to

this definition. The comment requested

clarification that the on-scene

coordinator (OSC) will coordinate

Federal actions with the vessel owner’s

actions while the vessel owner remains

in charge of the spill response. The

duties of the OSC are set forth in the

National Contingency Plan (40 CFR part

300.120) and may include directing of

all response operations.

Operator. Two comments were

received, both of which stated that the

definition should be the same as it

appears in 33 CFR 130.2(q). The

wording for this definition has been

modified to parallel or more closely

follow the wording in 33 CFR 130.2(q).

The only difference from the 33 CFR

130.2(q) definition is the deletion of the

words ‘‘including, but not limited to.’’

This text was not included because the

Coast Guard has determined that the

present definition properly limits the

parties affected by this rule.

Persistent oil. Three comments were

received in response to this definition as

it appeared in the IFR. All contended

that petroleum oils with specific gravity

of less than 1.0 should be divided into

two, not four, categories. The Coast

Guard disagrees. The four categories

developed for this regulation are

consistent with the protocol developed

by the International Tanker Owners

Pollution Federation (ITOPF) which

reflects differences in persistence. The

use of the four categories, rather than

two, makes the rule more flexible and

facilitates compliance with the

requirements. The definition of

persistent oil was not changed from its

definition in the IFR.

Qualified individual and alternate

qualified individual. Three comments

were received which addressed this

definition. One comment suggested that

qualified individuals who are also

owners and operators should have the

same protection from liability that

contracted qualified individuals have.

As stated in the preamble to the IFR, the

Coast Guard has no authority to provide

a blanket exemption from liability to

any persons, including qualified

individuals designated for response

plan purposes.

One comment suggested that this

definition be expanded to allow the

qualified individual to reside in Canada.

Although this definition was not revised

in the final rule, the Coast Guard

modified § 155.1026 of the interim final

rule to allow Canadian vessels to

identify Canadian-based qualified

individuals if these individuals meet the

same requirements under § 155.1026(b)

for individuals based in the Untied

States. This provision only applies to

Canadian flag vessels while they are

operating on the Great Lakes, the Strait

of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound, WA.

In any other environment, the qualified

individual must be based in the United

States. The close proximity, reliable

communication, and the common water

boundary shared by the United States

and Canada create a unique situation,

which allows a Canadian-based

qualified individual to be as effective as

a qualified individual based in the

United States. In addition, the Coast

Guard is presently working with the

Canadian government to reach a

bilateral agreement on response plans.

When this agreement is finalized, an

amendment to this definition may be

more appropriate.

One comment stated that the

requirement that the qualified

individual have oil or hazardous

materials experience be clarified in this

definition. The Coast Guard disagrees.

The Coast Guard has left the definition

broad so that the owner or operator has

the flexibility to designate the qualified

individual they feel is most suitable for

this responsibility. The Coast Guard has

only required that the qualified

individual be trained in the

responsibilities of the particular

response plan he or she will be

coordinating.

Response area. One comment was

received regarding this definition. It

stated that this definition should

include predetermined areas. The Coast

Guard’s experience has proven that the

‘‘response area’’ is very difficult to
1056 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

define accurately and fairly. Therefore,

this definition has been deleted, and

replaced with the term ‘‘response

activity.’’ This change will allow the

Captain of the Port more flexibility in

describing the area, vessels, and

equipment involved in a spill cleanup.

Rivers and canals. Two comments

suggested changes to this definition.

One comment suggested that the

definition include rivers and tributary

waters of the Great Lakes. The Coast

Guard disagrees. The definition for the

Great Lakes, including its connecting

river and tributary waters, is consistent

with definitions found in rules

governing navigation and navigable

waters. This definition treats the Great

Lakes as an entire ecosystem, including

their connecting and tributary waters

which would be adversely affected by

an oil spill.

The other comment suggested that the

project depth of 12 feet or less be

changed to 18 feet to allow for use of

offshore response vessels described in

the plans. As discussed in the IFR, the

Coast Guard disagrees with increasing

the project depth from the 12 feet or less

mark. The Coast Guard intended the

definition to only cover narrow, inland

bodies of water that are reasonably

protected and typically have wave

heights of 1 foot or less on which only

shallow draft vessels operate.

Further, the Coast Guard simplified

this definition in the final rule by

removing the words, ‘‘the outer

boundaries of.’’ Because this definition

covers bodies of water confined within

the inland area, which would, by

implication, include its outer

boundaries, these additional words were

removed as redundant.

Specific gravity. Several comments

encouraged the Coast Guard to define

specific gravity in the final rule. The

Coast Guard agrees and has used the

definition of specific gravity found in

ASTM Standard D 1298 entitled

‘‘Standard Practice for Density, Relative

Density (Specific Gravity), or API

gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid

Petroleum Product by Hydrometer

Method.’’

Tier. Because this concept is

referenced throughout these regulations

and because a number of comments

asked for clarification on this term, the

Coast Guard has developed a detailed

definition to facilitate a clearer

understanding of these regulations.

Vessels carrying oil as a secondary

cargo. The applicability section of the

final rule (33 CFR 155.1015) now

excludes oil spill response vessels

involved in response activities from the

requirement for response plans. This

revision reflects a reduction of the

previous requirements which provided

for these vessels to have approved

response plans in accordance with

§ 155.1045 (vessels carrying oil as a

secondary cargo) when not involved in

response operations. Under this final

rule, these vessels are no longer

required to have response plans unless

they are carrying oil as cargo outside a

response operation. The Coast Guard

has therefore removed oil spill response

vessel from this definition.

Vessel of opportunity. One comment

suggested that this definition include

any vessel, used in an emergency

situation, that carries oil as a primary

cargo. The comment further suggested

that if the vessel is responding to a spill

of an oil from a different group from that

which it carries, that vessel be

temporarily relieved from the

requirement of revising its vessel

response plan. This subpart does not

apply to vessels of opportunity. The

clause in this definition that excludes

vessels that carry oil as a primary cargo

was intended to ensure vessels are not

used for grades of oil they are not

classed to carry. For overall safety, even

in an emergency situation, a tank vessel

should not load higher grade fuels than

it is designed to carry. A vessel that

carries oil as a primary cargo must

already have a vessel response plan. A

vessel of opportunity that is also a

primary oil carrier could assist in an oil

spill response activity of an oil other

than the one for which it holds an

approved response plan without

approval of a new response plan, as long

as this exemption has been granted by

the Captain of the Port (COTP). Section

155.1070(c)(4) has been changed to

address this situation.

Section 155.1025 Operating

Restrictions and Interim Operating

Authorization

The Coast Guard modified paragraphs

(a) and (b) in § 155.1025 of the final rule

to remove the statutory date of

compliance which has now passed.

The IFR stated that the Coast Guard

was still studying the issue of whether

the provision in section 311(j)(5) of the

FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)), which

allows the Coast Guard to authorize

vessels to continue operating for up to

two years while the response plan is

undergoing detailed review, is

applicable to both initial submission of

response plans and future plan revisions

and required resubmissions. After an indepth evaluation, the Coast Guard has

determined that this provision is

applicable to all submittals. Therefore,

there is no need to revise the regulatory

text.

Three comments were received

addressing this section. One comment

focused on the provision allowing

vessel operation for 2 years after

submission of the response plan,

pending approval, for those vessels

granted written authorization for

continued operations. The comment

suggested that this provision be limited

in application to vessels with standards

approved by the Secretary of

Transportation. One comment urged

that the Coast Guard be reasonable and

realistic in granting the 2-year interim

operation authorization. The Coast

Guard evaluates each submittal on a

case-by-case basis. This evaluation

method ensures that the time frame

given for operating in accordance with

a response plan that does not have full

Coast Guard approval is appropriate for

the given vessel and operating

conditions.

One comment stated that requiring

certification letters before the 6-month

allowance provided in OPA 90 nullifies

legislative intent and suggested that the

Coast Guard rewrite § 155.1025(d) of the

IFR. Section 155.1025(d) has been

rewritten to eliminate this provision as

the 6-month grace period has already

ended, and all vessels must be operating

in accordance with an approved

response plan. Additionally,

§ 155.1025(e) of the IFR has been

reworded to potentially allow a vessel

owner or operator to have a vessel make

one voyage to transport or handle oil in

a ‘‘geographic area’’ rather than a

‘‘port.’’ This change was made to make

this provision more flexible in that such

authorization could be granted for

voyages other than those to ports.

Section 155.1026 Qualified Individual

and Alternate Qualified Individual

The Coast Guard has modified

§ 155.1026(a) and § 155.1026(b) to

clarify that a qualified individual must

be available on a 24-hour basis, but it is

not necessary to have both the qualified

individual and the alternate qualified

individual available coincidentally.

In response to requests for

clarification, the Coast Guard has

modified § 155.1026(d)(1) in this final

rule to make explicit the previously

implied concept that the qualified

individual must have the authority to

activate or contract for all appropriate

response resources, in addition to

activating or contracting with oil spill

removal organizations. Fifteen

comments were received addressing this

section of the IFR. Five of these

comments addressed the general

requirements of this section. One

comment urged the exemption from this

provision of vessels carrying light fuel

as secondary cargo. The Coast Guard

does not have the authority to exempt

any type of oil from these regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1057

One comment urged the exemption

from this provision of fishing tender

vessels. As discussed previously, the

applicability of response plan

requirements to fishing vessels was

revised by legislation subsequent to the

IFR which essentially excludes most

fishing vessels from these response plan

requirements (Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat.

2419). However, it is appropriate to

require identification of a qualified

individual for fish tender vessels over

750 gross tons as the same legislative

change did not affect these vessels.

Three of the comments supported the

Coast Guard’s revision of paragraph (d)

of this section of the IFR so that the

qualified individual’s authority would

be ‘‘full’’ rather than ‘‘unconditional,’’

and argued against the requirement that

a qualified individual be an individual

rather than an organization. With regard

to the latter argument, these comments

argued that this provision should be

revised because the employees of an

organization change frequently. The

Coast Guard included in § 155.1026(e)

of the IFR a provision which allows the

vessel’s owner or operator to designate

an organization to carry out the

responsibilities of the qualified

individual. However, the designated

organization must have identified

specific individuals to act as the

qualified individual and the alternate.

The individual that assumes this

responsibility must be familiar with the

implementation of the vessel response

plan and be trained in the

responsibilities of the qualified

individual under the response plan.

In regard to this section, the Coast

Guard would like to clarify that it does

not intend to limit the discretion of the

vessel owner or operator to designate a

substitute to assume the full range of

responsibilities of the qualified

individual named in the response plan.

The requirement to designate a qualified

individual and at least one alternate is

to ensure prompt implementation of the

response plan. The owner or operator of

a vessel may designate any person to

assume the duties of the qualified

individual at any time provided the

requirements of this section are met. If

the substitution takes place during the

response to a discharge, there must be

no break in availability of the person

acting as the qualified individual. The

substituted qualified individual must

have a document designating them as

the qualified individual.

Nine comments suggested new

language for this section which would

limit the liability of qualified

individuals and alternative qualified

individuals. Six of these nine comments

suggested that the Coast Guard add

language to this section stating that the

qualified individual or alternate

qualified individual would not, per se,

be considered the vessel’s owner,

operator, or demise charterer when

acting in the capacity of a qualified

individual. As stated in the IFR, a

person does not become a responsible

party under the FWPCA by being

designated a qualified individual for

response plan purposes. Under 33

U.S.C. 1321(c)(4), a person other than a

responsible party is not liable for

removal costs or damages which result

from actions taken or omitted in the

course of rendering care, assistance, or

advice consistent with the National Oil

and Hazardous Substance Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP) or otherwise

directed by the President.

Notwithstanding, such a person whose

acts or omissions are grossly negligent,

or who engages in willful misconduct

may, as a result, become liable for the

resulting removal costs or damages. The

qualified individual is not, however,

responsible for the adequacy of response

plans prepared by the owner or operator

nor is the qualified individual

responsible for contacting response

resources beyond the authority

delegated from the owner or operator.

Four of the comments suggesting

revisions in this section supported the

addition of language distinguishing the

role of qualified individual from the role

of the responsible party. One comment

suggested that the rules clarify that the

qualified individual would generally

not be responsible for the adequacy or

the sufficiency of the response and

suggested that this section limit the

liability of the person acting in the

capacity of qualified individual. As

stated in the IFR, the Coast Guard has

no authority to provide a blanket

exemption from liability to any persons,

including qualified individuals

designated for response plan purposes.

For vessels, the term ‘‘responsible

party’’ is defined in section 1001(32)(A)

of OPA 90 as any person owning,

operating, or demise chartering the

vessel (33 U.S.C. 2701(32)(A)). Section

1001(26)(A) of OPA 90 defines owner or

operator of a vessel as any person

owning, operating, or chartering by

demise the vessel (33 U.S.C.

2701(26)(A)). The IFR states that a

person does not become a responsible

party under FWPCA by being

designated a qualified individual for

response plan purposes. This rule

preserves § 155.1026(g) which states

that the liability of a qualified

individual is considered to be in

accordance with the provisions of 33

U.S.C. 1321(c)(4). Under this section, a

person other than a responsible party is

not liable for removal costs or damages

which result from actions taken or

omitted in the course of rendering care,

assistance, or advice consistent with the

NCP or as otherwise directed by the

President. However, as noted in the IFR,

even a qualified individual may be

liable for the resulting removal costs or

damages if it is established that there

was gross negligence or willful

misconduct while acting in this

capacity.

Two comments addressed this section

as it relates to dealings with Canada.

One comment suggested that residents

of Canada be permitted to be qualified

individuals. The other comment stated

that the Canadian government recently

introduced legislation similar to OPA 90

and suggested that the United States and

Canada work closely in promulgating

their respective regulations regarding oil

pollution prevention. The Coast Guard

is currently working with the Canadian

government to develop a bilateral

agreement on vessel response plan

requirements. In addition, the Coast

Guard modified the IFR to allow

Canadian vessels to identify Canadianbased qualified individuals if these

individuals meet the same requirements

of § 155.1026(b) for individuals based in

the United States. This provision only

applies to Canadian flag vessels while

they are operating on the Great Lakes,

the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Puget

Sound, WA. In any other environment,

the qualified individual must be based

in the United States. The close

proximity, reliable communication, and

the common water boundary shared by

the United States and Canada create a

unique situation, which allows a

Canadian-based qualified individual to

be as effective as a qualified individual

based in the United States.

Section 155.1030 General Response

Plan Requirements

Required format. One comment

supporting the required response plan

format was received. The Coast Guard,

however, amended the language of this

section to further clarify response plan

requirements. The Coast Guard has

determined that references to

§§ 155.1035, 155.1040, and 155.1045

were redundant in that the requirements

were repeated in each specific section.

Therefore, these references have been

deleted.

Paragraph (c)(11) of this section was

reworded to delete specific references to

vessels carrying oil as a primary cargo

and unmanned tank barges. Because this

section is supposed to address general

requirements of response plans, this

subparagraph now addresses the general

requirements for inclusion of a vesselspecific appendix for the vessel or

vessels covered by the plan.
1058 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

The requirements of paragraph (d)

have been clarified to indicate that

vessel owners or operators with

multiple vessels may now submit one

plan for each class of vessel (i.e.,

manned vessels carrying oil as primary

cargo, unmanned vessels carrying oil as

primary cargo, and vessels carrying oil

as secondary cargo).

The Coast Guard has added a new

paragraph (f) to this section in this final

rule in response to questions in

comments concerning barges carrying

non-hazardous oil field wastes. Further,

this paragraph has been reworded to

make following the format requirements

of § 155.1045 optional in lieu of

following the requirements of

§ 155.1035 or § 155.1040. In the IFR,

paragraph (f) of this section required oil

spill response vessels to have response

plans in accordance with § 155.1045

when operating outside a response area.

The applicability section of the final

rule (33 CFR 155.1015) now excludes oil

spill response vessels involved in

response activities from the requirement

for response plans. This revision reflects

a reduction of the previous

requirements which provided for these

vessels to have approved response plans

in accordance with § 155.1045 (vessels

carrying oil as a secondary cargo) when

not involved in response operations.

Under this final rule, these vessels are

no longer required to have response

plans unless they are carrying oil as

cargo outside a response operation.

The references to ‘‘February 18, 1993’’

in paragraph (g) of this section have

been deleted. That date has passed and,

consequently, is no longer relevant to

these regulations.

The Coast Guard has added language

to subparagraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this

section to allow notarized copies of

Coast Guard approval letters to

substitute for the actual approval letters

which are to be on board vessels under

this provision. This provision satisfies

the Coast Guard’s need for

authentication of the document through

the notarization requirement while

allowing a vessel owner or operator to

keep the original approval letter in a

place where it would less likely lost or

misplaced.

Plan consistency. Nine comments

were received which addressed the

issue of consistency between the

National Oil and Hazardous Substance

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Area

Contingency Plan (ACP), and vessel

response plan (VRP) requirements.

One comment asserted that State and

Federal authorities would probably not

agree upon a uniform format for

response plans. This comment argued

that because the authority of States with

regard to response plans is not

preempted, they will be unwilling to

relinquish their authority merely to

standardize the format. The Coast Guard

has provided for as much flexibility as

reasonably possible. The owner or

operator is permitted to insert sections

as necessary to satisfy any additional

State or International Maritime

Organization (IMO) requirements.

However, the required sections and

specific information described in those

sections must remain distinct, and the

appendix or table of contents must

provide sufficient detail on the location

of these distinct sections. This standard

format eases the administrative burden

in reviewing the plans and creates

uniformity for responders who may not

be familiar with a particular plan.

Further, negotiations with various States

having response plan requirements have

been generally successful in minimizing

differences.

Five comments addressed the Coast

Guard’s development and

implementation of the ACPs. One of

these comments argued that the existing

NCP and LCPs are not adequate nor are

they consistent with the legislative

intent of OPA 90. This comment writer

also expressed concern regarding the

IFR’s silence on Coast Guard response

duties. Another two of these comments

also urged consistency between the

ACPs and the NCP. Still another

comment additionally argued that ACPs

should be subject to public comment.

One comment concerned the

development of ACPs and their impact

on planning for shoreline protection,

firefighting, and lightering resources.

All of the comments discussed in this

paragraph are beyond the scope of this

rulemaking.

One comment recommended the

revision of all VRPs 6 months after the

ACPs and the NCP are completed. The

Coast Guard disagrees. To provide time

for owners or operators to prepare their

response plans, the Coast Guard

requires consistency with the applicable

plans (ACP/NCP) in effect 6 months

prior to the submittal date. If the ACP

or NCP changes after submittal of the

response plan, the plan must be

adjusted accordingly when submitted

for reapproval.

One comment urged vessel response

plan consistency with ACPs so that the

Coast Guard could easily identify the

inconsistencies between what is stated

in the response plan and what is

required by the ACP. Another comment

stated that vessel response plans may

need to be revised in order to remain

consistent should ACPs identify

equipment or personnel deficiencies in

the future. The Coast Guard disagrees.

All of these plans will be subject to

continuous updating. Periodic

resubmittal of vessel response plans will

ensure that inconsistencies with ACPs

are minimized.

Provisions concerning Regulation 26

of MARPOL. In order to facilitate

response plan review, the Coast Guard

has modified § 155.1030(j) to require

that, when submitting response plans

that include provisions of Regulation 26

of Annex I to the International

Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified

by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/

78), a cross reference section must be

included to identify the location of the

general response plan requirements. Six

comments were received addressing the

portion of this section permitting an

owner or operator of a U.S. flag vessel

to address the requirements of

Regulation 26 of Annex I to MARPOL

73/78 if certain conditions are met.

Three comments supported the

change in the rule to make compliance

with Regulation 26 optional, two of

them arguing that the vessel response

plan regulation required planning for

responses to discharges of oil carried in

bulk as cargo whereas MARPOL applies

to all oil discharges, including the ship’s

fuel oil. One of these three comments

continued by contending that the

requirement for the master to notify the

coastal state and secure its authorization

before undertaking mitigating actions is

misleading, confusing, and not within

the spirit of MARPOL 73/78 or OPA 90.

This comment writer stated that such

notification is an obvious step.

The Coast Guard agrees that this may

have caused some confusion. Therefore,

this paragraph has been modified to

clearly state that the plan should

address the notification of the coastal

state to determine whether

authorization is required. With

reference to all three comments, this

section of the regulation blends the

requirements for Regulation 26 and the

U.S. response requirements. This option

will ease the burden on the industry in

that a single plan can be used for both

requirements. The notification

procedures are a requirement of

MARPOL 73/78; therefore, the Coast

Guard does not have the authority to

change them.

The Coast Guard has, however,

amended the provision regarding

submission of modified Regulation 26

response plans in lieu of response plans

under this rulemaking. This provision

has been further clarified to indicate the

procedure by which a vessel owner or

operator may address Regulation 26

provisions in his or her response plan.

This paragraph, as revised, also

references § 155.1065 which provides

procedures for plan submission. These

changes make the procedures for
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1059

exercising this option clearer for vessel

owners or operators who want to take

advantage of this provision.

Also, the Coast Guard has added a

new paragraph (k) to this section. This

new paragraph will allow secondary

carriers having response plans approved

under Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78

to comply with § 155.1045 if

identification of the qualified individual

and alternate, identification of an oil

spill removal organization,

identification of an oil spill

management team, and a geographic

specific appendix are added to the

Regulation 26 response plan. This

revision would elicit the information

needed by the Coast Guard while

eliminating the need for owners and

operators of secondary carriers to

duplicate their efforts.

One comment argued that the Coast

Guard should reinstate the requirement

for planning for fuel oil discharges,

contending that the Coast Guard has the

authority to issue such regulations

under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)

(33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C)). The Coast

Guard disagrees. The intent of OPA 90

was to have vessel owners and operators

plan to respond to a spill of oil carried

in bulk as cargo. Fuel oil is not

considered a cargo. The issuance of

regulations that address fuel oil

discharges is outside the scope of this

rulemaking. Planning for response to

such discharges is covered by

Regulation 26 of Annex I to MARPOL

73/78.

One comment urged the Coast Guard

to withdraw Coast Guard Navigation

and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 2–93

(NVIC 2–93; March 5, 1993), arguing

that it hampers industry by further

regulations. The Coast Guard disagrees.

This NVIC only provides guidance on

how to address the requirements of

Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78. It

pertains only to vessels which are

subject to Annex I of MARPOL (e.g.,

U.S. flagged seagoing vessels wherever

located, and foreign flagged vessels

located within the navigable waters of

the United States) and are already

required to meet the provisions of

MARPOL 73/78. Regulation 26 is the

subject of a separate but coordinated

rulemaking (CGD 93–030) entitled

‘‘Shipboard, Oil Pollution Emergency

Plans’’ which was published in the

Federal Register on October 7, 1994 (59

FR 51332).

Plans submitted prior to effective date

of final rule. The Coast Guard has

written a provision into the final rule

that requires vessel owners or operators

making initial response plan

submissions after April 11, 1996, the

effective date of this final rule, to

comply with the requirements of the

final rule. As indicated in the IFR, the

Coast Guard is not requiring vessel

owners or operators who submitted

response plans under the IFR or NVIC

to revise their response plans to

conform with the requirements of the

final rule until the plan’s 5-year

resubmission date. However, a vessel

owner or operator who has prepared a

response plan under the NVIC or the

IFR may comply with any of the

provisions of this final rule by revising

the appropriate section of the previously

submitted plan in accordance with the

revision and amendment procedures in

§ 155.1070. An owner or operator who

elects to comply with all of the

requirements of the final rule must

resubmit the entire plan, for review and

approval if appropriate, in accordance

with § 155.1065.

Section 155.1035 Response Plan

Requirements for Manned Vessels

Carrying Oil as a Primary Cargo

General information and

introduction. The Coast Guard has

revised this section to require an

indication of a vessel’s IMO

international number in the response

plan, if applicable. This international

number will provide the Coast Guard

with a means of accessing Marine Safety

Information System (MSIS) data on the

vessel. This information already is

required in both 33 CFR 151.26 and 33

CFR 160.207.

Notification procedures. Two

comments were received which

addressed the requirement that a

response plan include certain

information on notification procedures.

One comment called the requirement

cumbersome and unrealistic, arguing

that all notifications should be the

responsibility of the qualified

individual. This comment continued by

arguing that this paragraph required

unnecessary information such as

information on ship and crew size, and

the date and time of the next report. It

contended that this type of information

is already known by the owner or

operator and that the response plan

should only list the procedures needed

for the qualified individual to activate

the plan. Another comment contended

that requiring notification of State

authorities is not within the purview of

the Coast Guard unless the State

specifically required the Coast Guard to

do so.

As stated in the IFR, and repeated in

the final rule, only the qualified

individual must be notified. However,

other statutes and regulations establish

oil spill reporting requirements, and the

Coast Guard has determined that the

owners or operators should address

procedures for these notifications in

their response plans.

The Coast Guard amended

§ 155.1035(b)(4), the provision in this

section which required that descriptions

of primary and secondary

communications methods be included

in response plans. This provision was

clarified by now stating that such

descriptions should be consistent with

§ 155.1035(b)(1), the provision requiring

a checklist of the notifications to be

made in the event of an oil spill. This

change was effectuated to clarify the

instructions regarding descriptions of

communications methods in vessel

response plans.

To minimize the burden on vessel

owners and operators and facilitate

rapid notification of a spill, most of this

information can be provided in a

checklist, which is consistent with

Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78. To

ensure consistency with IMO Resolution

A648(16), the Coast Guard revised the

rule to require that response plans

include various additional items that

must be identified in the initial

notification and to establish guidelines

for follow-up reports.

Shipboard spill mitigation

procedures. Five comments were

received in response to this provision.

Three comments supported the

subparagraph requiring the inclusion in

the response plan of the location, crew

responsibilities, and procedures for use

of shipboard equipment which may be

carried to mitigate an oil discharge. Two

comments opposed this provision,

arguing that vessels lacked storage room

for the equipment, that having the

equipment on board would reduce crew

size, that there would be a lack of

trained personnel to use the equipment,

that maintenance and inspection of

equipment in a special store room

would be difficult, and that the crew

would have other overriding priorities.

The carriage of spill removal equipment

is the subject of a separate rulemaking

(CDG 91–068). This final rule only

requires that procedures be spelled out

in the response plan so that the crew

knows what its responsibilities are to

mitigate an oil discharge.

An IFR entitled ‘‘Discharge Removal

Equipment for Vessels Carrying Oil’’

was published (58 FR 67995; December

22, 1993). This IFR contains

requirements to include in response

plan procedures for deployment of

discharge removal equipment carried

onboard the vessel and for internal

transfers of cargo as provided in the

discharge removal IFR. Additionally, a

provision was added requiring

identification in the response plan of

the shore location and 24-hour access

procedures for the computerized shore-
1060 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

based damage stability and residual

structural strength calculation programs.

These computer programs are required

by 33 CFR 155.240, which was added to

33 CFR part 155, subpart B by the

discharge removal equipment IFR.

Shore-based response activities. The

Coast Guard made slight revisions to the

provision regarding inclusion in the

responses plans of information

concerning the organizational structure

that will be used to manage response

actions. In the IFR, this provision

merely required the listing of

enumerated functional areas in that part

of the response plan. The provision, as

revised, requires the inclusion of

information regarding key components

within each of these enumerated

functional areas. This information is

currently required for approval of

response plans.

This paragraph regarding shore-based

response activities have also been

reworded so as to require the inclusion

in the response plan of the functional

job descriptions for each oil spill

management team position within the

organizational structure. These added

requirements will better clarify the

responsibilities of those involved in oil

spill cleanup, thereby promoting more

efficient implementation of response

plans.

List of contacts. Two comments were

received in response to this paragraph

requiring inclusion of 24-hour contact

information in response plans. One

comment addressed the provision

requiring inclusion of applicable

insurance representative contacts in

vessel response plans and wanted the

Coast Guard to clarify that U.S.

correspondents identified by P and I

(Protection and Indemnity) clubs are

independent firms and not

representatives of the particular clubs.

The Coast Guard confirms this comment

writer’s interpretation; however the list

of contracts is appropriate, and no

modification to the regulation is

necessary.

The other comment recommended

that vessel owners and operators be

required to demonstrate that they have

a contractual agreement with wildlife

response contractors or that the owners

and operators demonstrate that they

have the equipment, training, and

permits to conduct wildlife response

efforts themselves. The Coast Guard

disagrees. The vessel owner or operator

is responsible for treatment or care of

damaged natural resources, but the

Coast Guard is not requiring a contract

for these resources as this is beyond the

scope of this rulemaking. However, in

order to facilitate wildlife response

efforts in the event of oil spills, owners

and operators are encouraged to assist in

financing qualified volunteer wildlife

rescue organizations which would be

responding to such spills.

The Coast Guard has added a

subparagraph to this provision requiring

the list of contacts to include persons to

notify for activation of the spill

management team for average most

probable, maximum most probable, and

worst case discharges. This requirement

will elicit the necessary information

regarding the oil spill management team

so that the appropriate person could be

contacted promptly in the event of

certain oil discharges.

Plan review, update, revision,

amendment, and appeal procedure. The

title of this section was changed from

‘‘Plan review and update procedures’’ to

more clearly define the contents of this

section.

Geographic-specific appendices for

each COTP zone in which a vessel

operates. Two comments were received

addressing this paragraph which

requires the inclusion of geographicspecific appendices in vessel response

plans and provides for the contents of

such appendices.

Both comments called for more

stringent requirements on the OSROs

required to be identified in these

geographic-specific appendices. One

comment argued that the Coast Guard

should set nationwide standards for

OSRO inspection, approval, and

certification. This comment continued

by contending that under current

regulations OSROs may avoid the

voluntary evaluation process. The

comment also expressed concern that

vessel owners or operators may be left

legally responsible for ensuring the

adequacy and regulatory compliance of

the OSROs identified in their

geographic-specific appendices. The

other comment urged the Coast Guard to

ensure through the certification process

that OSROs identified in these

appendices have adequate resources to

respond on behalf of each of their

members. This comment also expressed

concern about over-commitment of

resources by OSROs. The Coast Guard

understands these concerns, but, as

previously stated, it is the ultimate

responsibility of the owner or operator

to ensure that the private resource for

which it contracts and upon which it

relies in the event of a spill, is qualified

and prepared to meet the response

capability needed by the vessel. The

Coast Guard does have a program for

classifying contractors (NVIC 12–92;

December 4, 1992) which takes into

account the quantity of equipment, its

designed purpose, the planning capacity

of the resources, and the number of

trained personnel the contractor has. A

listing of these classified oil spill

removal organizations is available from

Commanding Officer, National Strike

Force Coordination Center; (Attn: OSRO

Classification Review); 1461 U.S. 17

North; Elizabeth City, NC 27909;

telephone number: (919) 331–6000.

The Coast Guard has amended the

provision under this paragraph

regarding certain information which is

repeated for each geographic area in

which the vessel operates. As revised in

the final rule, the vessel owner or

operator has the option of specifying the

location of such information in the plan

or providing the information in the

particular geographic-specific appendix.

This revised measure should save time

in the development of vessel response

plans in that information would not

have to be duplicated.

The Coast Guard also added a

subparagraph to this paragraph

elaborating upon the requirement to

include dispersant capabilities in the

geographic-specific appendix if the

owner or operator elects to include use

of dispersants in the response plan. This

subparagraph provides that the

appendix, if applicable, must identify

dispersant capability, areas of

preapproval, and procedures for

employing the dispersant. Although, in

the IFR, this paragraph previously

required the appendix to include

information on dispersant capabilities,

this new subparagraph reiterates the

requirements that were previously only

specified in section 8 of Appendix B of

this part. It requires the plan to further

elaborate upon dispersant capabilities

by providing information concerning

preapproval areas and dispersant

employment procedures. This date will

inform the Coast Guard not only about

the availability of dispersants but also

about where and how such dispersants

may be used in an oil spill situation.

Section 155.1040 Response Plan

Requirements for Unmanned Tank

Barges Carrying Oil as a Primary Cargo

General information and

introduction. One comment was

received regarding the general

requirements of this section. This

comment urged the Coast Guard to

establish requirements for towboat

operators, tankermen, and fleeting and

facility operators in addition to those

requirements for owners or operators of

tank barges. This comment argued that

towboat operators, tankermen, and

fleeting and facility operators often fail

to notify authorities, cause damage to

the barges, and fail to implement

cleanup activities. This comment

contended that these shortcomings leave

a barge owner responsible despite his or

her lack of knowledge. It is the onus of

a barge owner to ensure that the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1061

towboat’s operators are familiar with the

response plan and can handle a spill

situation.

The Coast Guard has also amended

this paragraph to clarify that the list of

tank barges in the response plan must

include each tank barge’s country of

registry, call sign, and IMO international

number, if applicable, as well as its

official number. These added

requirements will further assist the

Coast Guard in identifying a vessel in

the event of an oil spill.

Notification procedures. One

comment was received addressing this

paragraph. It contended that a

requirement to notify State authorities is

not within the purview of the Coast

Guard unless the State has specifically

required the Coast Guard to do so. The

Coast Guard disagrees. As stated

previously, other statutes and

regulations establish oil spill reporting

requirements, and the Coast Guard has

determined that owners or operators

should set procedures for these

notifications in their response plans. To

minimize the burden on vessel owners

and operators and facilitate rapid

notification of a spill, most of this

information can be provided in a

checklist, which is consistent with

Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78. To

ensure consistency with IMO Resolution

A648(16), the Coast Guard revised the

rule to require that response plans

include various additional items that

must be identified in the initial

notification and to establish guidelines

for follow-up reports.

Shipboard mitigation procedures. No

comments specifically addressing this

paragraph were received. However, as

the procedures in § 155.1035 regarding

shipboard spill mitigation were affected

by the subsequent rulemaking on

discharge removal equipment (58 FR

67995; December 22, 1993), the

procedures regarding shipboard spill

mitigation have been affected for

unmanned vessels under this section.

Consequently, the Coast Guard has

amended this paragraph to require the

inclusion of procedures for deployment

of discharge removal equipment in

response plans, and the inclusion of

procedures for internal transfer of cargo

in response plans as provided in the

discharge removal equipment IFR.

Additionally, a provision was added

requiring identification in the response

plan of the shore location and 24-hour

access procedures for the computerized

shore-based damage stability and

residual structural strength calculation

programs. These programs are required

by 33 CFR 155.240, which was added to

33 CFR part 155 by the discharge

removal equipment IFR.

Shore-based response activities. The

Coast Guard amended this paragraph by

adding a subparagraph requiring the

inclusion in the response plan of any

applicable procedures for transferring

responsibility for direction of response

activities from towing vessel personnel

or tankermen to the shore-based spill

management team. Additionally, the

Coast Guard amended the paragraph to

require inclusion of more detailed

information concerning the

organizational structure of response

actions. In the IFR, this provision

merely required the listing of

enumerated functional areas in this part

of the response plan. The provision as

revised requires the inclusion of

information regarding key components

within each of these enumerated

functional areas. This information is

currently required for approval of

response plans. This paragraph has also

been reworded so as to require the

inclusion in the response plan of the

functional job descriptions for each oil

spill management team position within

the organizational structure. These

added requirements will better clarify

the responsibilities of those involved in

oil spill cleanup, thereby promoting

more efficient implementation of

response plans.

List of contacts. No comments

specifically addressing this paragraph

were received. However, the Coast

Guard has added a subparagraph to this

provision requiring the list of contacts

to include persons to notify for

activation of the spill management team

for average most probable, maximum

most probable, and worst case

discharges. This requirement would

elicit the needed information regarding

the oil spill management teams so that

the appropriate person could be

contacted promptly in the event of

certain oil discharges. This information

is currently required for approval of

response plans.

Plan review, update, revision,

amendment, and appeal procedure. The

title of this section was changed from

‘‘Plan review and update procedures’’ to

more clearly define the contents of this

section.

Geographic-specific appendices for

each COTP zone in which a tank barge

operates. The Coast Guard has amended

the provision under this paragraph

regarding certain information which is

repeated for each geographic area in

which the vessel operates. As revised in

the final rule, the vessel owner or

operator has the option of merely

specifying the location of such

information in the plan, rather than

duplicating the information in the

appendix. This revised measure should

save time in the development of vessel

response plans in that efforts would not

have to be duplicated.

One comment was received

addressing this paragraph which

requires the inclusion of certain

geographic-specific appendices with

vessel response plans. This comment

objected to the provision requiring that

these appendices certain information on

the volume and type of oil on which the

required response resources are

calculated. It argued that the

requirement is burdensome and

redundant in that this information is

readily available on the Certificates of

Inspection for barges which already list

the cargo that the barges carry and have

set allowances for the volumes. The

Coast Guard disagrees. This information

needs to be included in the response

plan to have a consolidated, easy, quick

reference to use in a spill situation.

However, as stated above, the Coast

Guard has eliminated the previously

required duplication within the plan by

changing the language of paragraph (j) to

allow the barge owner or operator to

specify the location of volume and type

of oil information in the vessel response

plan itself rather than including it in the

geographic-specific appendix.

If the owner or operator has proposed

in the response plan the use of

dispersants, the dispersant capabilities

must be listed in the geographic-specific

appendices. This discussion should

identify the following: Dispersant

capability; areas of preapproval; and

procedures for employing dispersants.

This data will inform the Coast Guard

not only about the availability of

dispersants but also about where and

how such dispersants will be used in an

oil spill situation.

Appendices for barge-specific

information. Two comments were

received in response to this section. One

comment argued that the requirement to

amend the vessel response plan to

include required drawings for bargespecific appendices each time an inland

barge is chartered or released is an

administrative burden. This comment

suggested that, as an alternative, the

Coast Guard could allow a crossreference to the drawing submitted in

the barge owner’s vessel response plan,

or the barge owner could submit a letter

to the Coast Guard citing changes in lieu

of amending the vessel response plan.

The Coast Guard agrees. Separate

response plans do not need to be

submitted for sister vessels and this

exclusion holds true for barges.

One comment objected to the

provision requiring that these

appendices contain information on the

volume and type of oil on which the

required response resources are

calculated. It argued that the
1062 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

requirement is unclear, burdensome,

and redundant in that this information

is readily available on the Certificates of

Inspection for barges which already list

the cargo that the barges carry and have

set allowances for the volumes. The

Coast Guard disagrees. Although this

information is provided in the

certificate of inspection, for ease of use

during a cleanup, this information

should also be listed in the response

plan.

In this final rule, the Coast Guard has

added the requirement for a list of

principal characteristics (i.e., length,

beam, gross tonnage, etc.) of the vessel

to be included in appendices for bargespecific information. This information

will assist the responder in gaining a

better understanding of the design of a

vessel and will assist in the efficient

implementation of a response plan

should the need arise. This information

is readily available and, therefore,

places no extra burden on the plan

submitter. It simply presents a

clarification of the information required

to be submitted in the interim final rule.

Section 155.1045 Response Plan

Requirements for Vessels Carrying Oil

as a Secondary Cargo

General information and

introduction. No comments specifically

addressing this paragraph were

received. However, the Coast Guard has

made various amendments to this

paragraph.

Paragraph (a) of the IFR has been

revised and placed in new paragraph

(a)(6), and the remaining paragraphs

redesignated accordingly. In addition to

other basic vessel information required

to be included in the response plan,

paragraph (a)(6), as revised, requires the

inclusion of the vessel’s IMO

international number. This additional

requirement will better assist the Coast

Guard in identification of vessels which

might be involved in an oil spill.

The provision in paragraph (a)(3)

requiring inclusion of identification of

geographic areas covered by the plan

has also been reworded in this final

rule. The provision has simplified the

requirements so that, with regard to

identification of geographic areas under

this section, the submitter of the plan

need only include a list of COTP zones

in which the vessel intends to handle,

store, or transport oil. Because the COTP

zones would encompass any geographic

area covered by the plan, the Coast

Guard determined that the additional

wording in this provision was

redundant.

The provision requiring a vessel

owner or operator to develop his or her

plan based on the total volume of oil

carried in bulk as cargo, which appeared

as a separate paragraph (a) in the IFR,

has been changed to require that the

vessel owner or operator specify in his

or her response plan the total volume of

oil carried in bulk as cargo [See

paragraph (a)(6)]. This revision will

result in the Coast Guard receiving

specific information about how much

oil a vessel has on board. This

information enables the Coast Guard to

better analyze the appropriateness of

response measures.

Notification procedures. One

comment was received addressing this

paragraph which requires the inclusion

of certain notification information in the

response plan for a secondary cargo

vessel. This comment contended that

requiring vessel owners and operators to

notify State authorities is outside of the

purview of the Coast Guard unless the

State has specifically required the Coast

Guard to do so. The Coast Guard

disagrees. As stated previously, other

statutes and regulations establish oil

spill reporting requirements, and the

Coast Guard has determined that the

owners or operators should set

procedures for these notifications in

their response plans. To minimize the

burden on vessel owners and operators

and facilitate rapid notification of a

spill, most of this information can be

provided in a checklist, which is

consistent with Regulation 26 of

MARPOL. To ensure consistency with

IMO Resolution A648(16), the Coast

Guard revised the rule to require

response plans to include the IMO

international number, when applicable.

Shipboard spill mitigation

procedures. No comments specifically

addressing these paragraphs were

received. However, the Coast Guard

revised this paragraph by condensing

the classifications regarding required

information about shipboard spill

mitigation procedures to be included in

response plans. These vessels which

would fall into the IFR’s classification

covering vessels carrying more than 100

but less than 1000 barrels of oil would

be covered by the classification for

vessels carrying over 100 barrels but less

than 5000 barrels of oil. Because even a

discharge of over 100 barrels could

potentially cause significant

environmental damage, more detailed

information than that which was

previously required will assist the Coast

Guard in ascertaining the response

capabilities of vessels falling within this

category.

Shore-based response activities. Two

comments were received in response to

this paragraph requiring certain

information on shore-based response

activities. One comment recommended

that vessel owners be required to

demonstrate either that they have a

contractual agreement with wildlife

response contractors or that they have

the equipment, training, and permits to

conduct wildlife response efforts

themselves. The Coast Guard disagrees.

However, as stated before, owners and

operators are encouraged to financially

assist volunteer wildlife rescue

organizations who would generally

respond to the needs of wildlife in the

event of and oil spill.

The other comment objected to the

requirement to specify a qualified

individual and a spill management team

in the response plan as these

requirements apply to fishing industry

tender vessels. The comment contended

that the typical spill from a fishing

tender vessel is 10 to 20 gallons, and

this spill would be too small to warrant

use of such resources. Additionally, this

comment argued, this provision would

be costly to the fishing industry in that

OSROs usually want a retainer of

$20,000 annually. The applicability of

these requirements to fishing vessels

was revised by section 321 of the Coast

Guard Authorization Act of 1993 (Pub.

L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2419). When

fishing vessels or fish tender vessels are

engaged only in the fishing industry and

are less than 750 gross tons, they are

deemed not be tank vessels.

Accordingly, such vessels are now

excluded from vessel response plan

requirements.

The Coast Guard amended this

paragraph by adding a subparagraph

requiring the inclusion in the response

plan of any applicable procedures for

transferring responsibility for direction

of response activities from vessel

personnel to the shore-based spill

management team. Additionally, the

Coast Guard amended this paragraph to

require inclusion of detailed

information concerning the

organizational structure that will be

used to manage response actions. The

provision requires the inclusion of

information regarding key components

within each of these enumerated

functional areas of the organizational

structure. This paragraph has also been

reworded so as to require the inclusion

in the response plan of the functional

job descriptions for each oil spill

management team position within the

organizational structure. These added

requirements will better clarify the

responsibilities of those involved in oil

spill cleanup, thereby promoting more

efficient implementation of response

plans. All of these provisions are

currently required for approval of

response plans.

List of contacts. The Coast Guard has

added a subparagraph to this provision

requiring the list of contacts to include

persons to notify for activation of the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1063

spill management team. This

requirement would elicit the needed

information regarding the oil spill

management teams so that the

appropriate person could be contacted

promptly in the event of an oil spill.

Training procedures. One comment

was received which addressed this

paragraph regarding the listing of

training procedures in response plans

for secondary cargo vessels. This

comment recommended that the Coast

Guard allow a reasonable amount of

time of acquire refresher training for

each individual with response duties

under the vessel’s response plan. The

Coast Guard agrees. These time frames

are addressed by other regulatory

requirements.

The Coast Guard added a

subparagraph to this paragraph

clarifying that nothing in § 155.1040 is

meant to relieve the vessel owner or

operator from meeting the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) standards for emergency

response operations in 29 CFR

1910.1200.

Plan review, update, revision,

amendment, and appeal procedure. The

title of this section was changed from

‘‘Plan review, update, and appeal

procedures’’ to more clearly define the

contents of this section. Although no

comments were received addressing this

paragraph of § 155.1045, the Coast

Guard has greatly simplified this

paragraph by cross-referencing

§ 155.1070 which contains similar

requirements. This change should

facilitate interpretation and

implementation of these regulations.

Geographic-specific appendices for

each COTP zone in which a vessel

operates. The Coast Guard amended this

provision by requiring inclusion in the

geographic-specific appendix of a list of

the spill management team(s) available

to respond to the vessel’s worst case oil

discharge in each COTP zone in which

a vessel operates. This requirement will

elicit information needed by the Coast

Guard to determine the vessel’s

response capabilities.

If the owner or operator has proposed

in the response plan the use of

dispersants, the dispersant capabilities

must be listed in the geographic-specific

appendices. This discussion should

identify the following: Dispersant

capability; areas of preapproval; and

procedures for employing dispersants.

This data will inform the Coast Guard

not only about the availability of

dispersants but also about where and

how such dispersants will be used in an

oil spill situation.

Appendices for vessel-specific

information. The Coast Guard added

this paragraph to this section in the final

rule. It requires certain information

concerning a vessel and its cargo be

provided in an appendix to the vessel

response plan. This additional

information will assist the Coast Guard

in determining a vessel’s response

capabilities. This information is

currently required for approval of

response plans.

Section 155.1050 Response Plan

Development and Evaluation Criteria for

Vessels Carrying Groups I Through IV

Petroleum Oil as Primary Cargo

Equipment operation criteria. Eight

comments were received in response to

equipment operation criteria. Five

comments addressed the issue of

inspection and operation of oil spill

response vessels (OSRVs) while

responding to spills of different grades

of oil.

One comment suggested that the

Coast Guard modify Table 1 of

Appendix B, to which this section

refers, to require that 80% recovery

devices operating in wave heights up to

4 feet in the Great Lakes be capable of

accommodating the required 20%

shallow water (6 feet or less) response

capability. Another comment suggested

that the Coast Guard amend the

nearshore response equipment

requirement to exempt shallow water

equipment from the operating

requirements of Table 1 of Appendix B

to which this section refers.

The Coast Guard is aware that it may

be difficult to have equipment that

meets both the wave height requirement

and the shallow water requirement at

the same time. The Coast Guard has

modified Table 1 to specifically state

that the equipment provided for

operation in the shallow water depths

are exempt from the significant wave

height requirements. In other words, the

Table 6 response requirement

capabilities could be met by separate

pieces of equipment: the specified

amount of shallow waters equipment

must be available, and the complement

of equipment necessary to recover the

Table 6 volumes must be capable of

operating in the specified wave heights.

One comment requested clarification

of the requirement to match response

equipment with the grade of oil carried.

As discussed in the NPRM, the

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

originally recommended using two oil

categories: persistent and nonpersistent.

They also recommended that the Coast

Guard consider the relative persistence

of oils and emulsification.

The Coast Guard has divided

persistent oil into four groups based on

a protocol developed by the

International Tanker Owners Pollution

Federation (ITOPF) to account for the

differences in persistence. The Coast

Guard has defined oil in five groups:

nonpersistent and four other groups

based on their specific gravity. While

inspection of the response vessel is

more appropriately based on specific

grades of oil related to volatility;

recovery capabilities are more

dependent on the specific gravity.

Use of 35% as standard for

reclassifying. Three comments were

received which addressed this issue.

One comment urged that reclassification

of the operating environment by a COTP

be subject to a national level review and

approval in order not to compromise the

one nationwide standard which was

cited in the ‘‘Discussion of Comments

and Changes’’ section of the IFR.

Another comment suggested lowering

the reclassification threshold from 35%

to 10% to ensure that the equipment

identified in the response plan would be

available to operate during all seasonal

variations. Another comment suggested

that the criteria for reducing the

classification of a body of water should

be set at 85% rather than 35%. The

COTP is authorized to change the

classification of a body of water based

on 35% of the existing conditions. As

discussed in the IFR, the Coast Guard

has based the criteria on 35% as this

figure is considered to be the most

appropriate.

Requirements for response resources.

One comment was received which

addressed this issue. It requested

clarification on how grades of oil

correspond to groups of oil and argued

that the grade of oil spilled may not be

the same as the grade of oil recovered.

The Coast Guard recognizes that oil

characteristics may change with time

and weathering. Basing the response on

the grade of oil carried is a starting

point. A well-formulated response plan

will recognize these possible changes

and provide for the recovery of

weathered oil.

Average most probable discharge

requirements. Eleven comments were

received responding to the provision in

this paragraph for a waiver for vessels

moored at facilities. Four comments

supported the provision. One comment

supported the provision with

reservations: This comment suggested

that the requirement that the response

resources include a containment boom

in a quantity equal to twice the length

of the largest vessel involved in the

transfer be amended to include an

alternative to this requirement. This

comment also suggested that, in the

alternative, the quantity of the

containment boom be in the quantity

needed to contain a 50-barrel discharge.

The Coast Guard disagrees. Recognizing

that oil will react differently depending
1064 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

on the environmental conditions, the

Coast Guard has elected to base the

average most probable discharge boom

requirements on the length of the vessel.

Two comments objected to this

waiver provision for vessels moored at

facilities, on contending that a vessel

response plan should require that

vessels plan for an average most

probable discharge and other

contending that this provision exposes

terminal operators to additional legal

and financial liability for acts of thirdparty vessel operators. The Coast Guard

agrees that a vessel owner or operator

should plan for responding to such

discharges, and has amended the rule to

reflect this change. This change will not

require the contracting of resources. A

vessel’s response planning requirements

are independent of the legal and

financial liability of the terminal

operator.

The Coast Guard has determined that

it is not necessary to require both the

facility and vessel owners or operators

to ensure, by contract or other approved

means, that resources are available to

respond to an average most probable

discharge. Requiring the facility to plan

for and ensure the availability of these

resources is consistent with 33 CFR

154.545, which already requires

facilities to have access to discharge

containment equipment to control an oil

discharge from operations from that

facility. If the facility has identified

these response resources, the Coast

Guard has determined that they will be

readily available to respond to an

average most probable discharge from

the vessel occurring during transfer

operations. The wording of the

regulation has been modified to clarify

the responsibilities.

One comment questioned the

provision allowing vessels to name

terminals as resources available for

vessel discharge response, arguing that

the OSRO is placed in a position of

initiating work for a party (vessel owner

or operator) with whom financial

assurance mechanisms have not been

established. Likewise, another comment

disagreed with this provision,

contending that the IFR seems to amend

the statute by imposing on terminal

owners and operators the duty to

respond to any spill during a transfer,

even if the spill is from a vessel. This

comment argues that the Coast Guard

cannot alter respective duties imposed

by OPA 90. The Coast Guard agrees. The

response plan regulations have not

relieved the responsibility of either

party from responding to a spill. The

responsible party is always required to

promptly respond to a spill. Paragraph

1050(d)(3) applies only to average most

probable discharges and simply

provides that the vessel owner or

operator need not ensure the availability

of resources to respond to an average

most probable discharge through a

contract or other approved means.

One comment suggested that the

delivering lightering vessel be treated as

a vessel delivering at a facility and be

granted a waiver from the requirement

of identifying resources necessary to

respond to an average most probable

discharge. This comment further

suggested that the receiving vessels be

assigned the responsibility of

identifying the response resources. The

Coast Guard disagrees. Both vessels

engaged in cargo transfer operations

must plan and ensure resources for an

average most probable discharge. These

resources may be the same; however,

they must be identified and ensured

available by contract or other approved

means by each vessel.

One comment requested that the

Coast Guard clarify that a vessel

transferring oil at a facility with a plan

in accordance with NVIC 8–92 does not

have to secure the resources to respond

to an average most probable discharge.

This comment further stated that NVIC

8–92 makes this clear, but it is not clear

in the IFR. The Coast Guard agrees, and

the wording has been changed to clarify

this situation.

One comment was received in

response to the applicability of the

average most probable discharge

requirements to bunkering. This

comment sought clarification as to

whether barges would have to plan for

twice the length of the longest vessel in

the transfer and whether a waiver could

be obtained from the boom deployment

requirement when barges are supplying

fuel to vessels in the Mississippi River.

This comment stated that it would

appear more logical to focus efforts on

collecting oil where it would be instead

of where it was and argued that the

containment boom fails in currents

greater than 1 knot. It is most effective

to contain and remove the oil at the

source, not to wait until the oil has

flowed down stream and dispersed

throughout a wider area. Measure can be

taken in currents greater than 1 knot to

ensure that response equipment is

deployed in an effective manner so that

current has as little impact on the

equipment as possible.

Ten comments were received in

response to the applicability of the

average most probable discharge

requirements to lightering. One

comment urged that tank vessels less

than 100 feet long be exempt from the

requirements of § 155.1050(d)(1)(i) of

the IFR. This comment also suggested

that the language of the paragraph

regarding the containment boom

requirement be amended to require

deployment of the containment boom

within 2 hours of oil spill detection. The

Coast Guard does not consider it

appropriate to exempt vessels under 100

feet long from this requirement. Cargo

transfer operations involving any vessel

pose a risk to the environment;

therefore, it is necessary to require

equipment to mitigate the effects of that

spill. Rapid containment is an essential

element of minimizing impact and

providing for efficient removal.

Therefore, the 1-hour maximum arrival

time is appropriate.

Several comments were received

regarding lightering operations. They

argued that most lightering operations

occur at distances in excess of 12 miles

offshore. At these distances, they argued

that the practical result of requiring an

owner or operator to plan for the

deployment of boom and skimmers

within 1 and 2 hours, respectively, of an

operational spill is that the equipment

must be maintained on-scene. They

further argued that this provision will

either require the carriage of the

equipment on board one of the vessels

engaged in the lightering operation or

on board a support vessel which stands

by and assists the operation.

These comments stated that the costs

of modifying a support vessel with the

necessary equipment would be between

$400,000 and $600,000, and the costs of

having the support vessel stand by onscene would be in excess of $3,000 per

day. They maintained that these costs

are not justified by the relatively

minimal benefits of having response

equipment immediately available onscene to recover a 50-barrel spill in the

open ocean environment. The

comments also argued, that for a small

operational spill there would be ample

time to mobilize the necessary response

equipment prior to the spill reaching

any sensitive areas. These resources

would be the same ones already

identified in the response plan, and

ensured by contract or other approved

means, to respond to a maximum most

probable discharge and worst case

discharge.

For a maximum most probable

discharge or for Tier 1 of the worst case

discharge, resources must be capable of

arriving on-scene in the open ocean area

within 24 hours plus travel time from

shore. A further argument presented is

that, in a lightering situation, the two

vessels are lashed together with large

fenders between them, creating positive

containment for any oil that may spill.

A 50-barrel spill will be captured

between the two vessels until voluntary

action is taken to separate the vessels

and allow response activity to begin.

Many comments argued that the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1065

containment created in this manner is

more effective than the use of ocean

boom.

A number of comments to the docket

also recommended that the quantity and

size of the required boom be reduced.

No specific changes were

recommended. The Coast Guard agrees

that the time limits for responding to

spills beyond 12 miles are

inappropriate. However, as stated above,

the use of boom is a major factor in the

effective cleanup of a spill. The amount

of boom required is based on an

estimate of how much boom would be

needed for initial containment of a 50-

barrel oil discharge either alongside or

between two vessels involved in an oil

transfer operation.

During the course of plan review, the

Coast Guard received several requests

for waivers from the response time

planning requirements for the average

most probable discharge for vessels

engaged in lightering operations, noting

that, for lightering operations well

offshore, response equipment would

either have to be prestaged or a support

vessels would have to be on scene. The

costs of a support vessel with the

necessary equipment are estimated to be

between $400,000 and $600,000. Having

the support vessel stand by on-scene

would be in excess of $3,000 per day.

The regulatory text in the final rule has

been modified to make the response

time a function of the distance from the

nearest shoreline for lightering

operations that occur 12 or more miles

offshore. For discharges occurring

between 0 and 12 miles offshore, no

additional travel time is permitted, as

these operational transfers occur in the

typically more environmentally

sensitive areas close to shore. Even in

this zone, this may mean that

equipment will have to be prestaged

and/or on-scene in order to meet these

short time requirements. From 12 to 200

miles, the allowed response time is 1

hour plus travel time, using an assumed

transit speed of 5 knots. For example,

the required response time for boom and

skimmers for a vessel lightering

anywhere from 0 to 12 miles from shore

is 1 and 2 hours, respectively. For a

vessel lightering at 12.5 miles, the

required response time for both boom

and skimmers is 3.5 hours (1 hour plus

12.5 miles/5 knots). The available data

on lightering operations and spills

incident to these operations did not

indicate an obvious break point which

could be used to determine which

operations should be subject to the

stricter response times. The 12 mile

distance was selected, in part, because

it would have limited impact on

industry and, in part, because it is a

recognized international boundary for

pollution purposes. Since virtually all

lightering takes place greater than 12

miles from the shoreline, this change

should facilitate response planning for

most vessel operators by allowing them

to factor in travel time. Vessel operators

who contemplate lightering within 12

miles of shore will have to balance the

convenience and cost savings of closein operations against the cost of meeting

the short response times specified. The

provisions of this change have already

been allowed for owners and operators

who have submitted written requests for

response time alternatives.

One comment questions the

advisability of requiring vessels engaged

in lightering to plan for a 50-barrel spill

by requiring a containment boom of

twice the length of the largest vessel and

suggested that the average most

probable discharge requirements for

lightering be combined with the

maximum most probable discharge

requirements for lightering. The Coast

Guard disagrees. The response times

required for maximum most probable

spills are inappropriate for smaller

average most probable discharges.

Response to smaller spills may require

less equipment; therefore, it is

reasonable to expect that the

deployments in response to these more

frequent spills be extremely timely.

Several comments have encouraged

that the Coast Guard address contracting

of specific resources for transfer

operations. The Coast Guard has

amended § 155.1070(c)(5) to permit

owners or operators to change the OSRO

who has been contracted to provide

AMPD response coverage for a transfer

operation without having to change the

response plan. The vessel response plan

must identify a contracted resource for

this coverage, however, the owner or

operator may substitute another OSRO

who is capable of responding in the

appropriate operating environment,

within the required response time.

Maximum most probable discharge

requirements. Three comments

suggested the elimination of the

language in the preamble stating that

response resources should be in an

adjacent COTP zone. One of these

comments argued that there should be

no provision dictating where resources

should be located as long as response

times are met. The two other comments

merely suggested deletion of the word

‘‘adjacent’’ from the COTP zone

reference in the preamble, citing that the

rule itself does not require that

resources be located in an adjacent

COTP zone. The Coast Guard agrees

with these comments that the rule does

not include any reference to ‘‘adjacent

COTP zone’’ in the text. No limitation

on the location of these resources was

intended.

Worst Case Discharge Requirements

General requirements. Four comments

were received in response to worst case

discharge requirements in general. One

comment requested clarification as to

whether the amount of boom identified

by the owner or operator of a vessel as

sufficient to respond to a worse case

discharge would also be considered

sufficient to respond to a discharge of

lesser size. The Coast Guard has

changed the wording of the regulations

to clarify that the boom should be

sufficient to respond to a discharge up

to and including a worst case discharge.

One comment objected to the

omission of credit in the form of

reduced planning standards or response

times for taking preventive measures

such as having vessels with double

hulls, double bottoms, protective cargo,

and ballast pumping. The Coast Guard

disagrees with this suggestion. While

these preventive measures would

probably reduce the likelihood of oil

spills and mitigate the damage

therefrom, preparation for response to

oil spills is still a necessary factor in oil

pollution prevention. Accordingly,

requirements should not be waived

merely because an owner or operator

has taken additional precautions against

oil pollution.

This comment further asserted that a

statement in the ‘‘Summary of Benefits’’

section of the IFR that the principle

benefit of the vessel response plan

requirement is the potential reduction

in oil spilled is false and argued that the

IFR dealt exclusively with response

rather than prevention. The Coast Guard

disagrees with this assertion: the goal of

preparing for response to oil spills

would be to mitigate the amount of

pollution resulting from an actual oil

spill. Mitigation of oil pollution is

prevention; therefore, the IFR is dealing

with prevention in that it is providing

regulations for preparing for response

with the goal of preventing extensive oil

spill damage to the marine environment.

One comment recommended that the

Coast Guard require owners and

operators to ensure availability of

response resources for potential spills

which would be smaller than a worst

case discharge. They argued that such a

requirement would minimize the

majority of impact on the environment

which occur before the 12–24 hour Tier

1 response time is met.

The Coast Guard agrees. The intent of

the regulation has always been to have

response resources for the full range of

spill volumes up to and including a

worst case discharge. The Coast Guard

has modified the language in the
1066 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

regulation to clarify that the

responsibility of an OSRO for a specific

condition (i.e., maximum most probable

discharge) is also responsible for

response to spills of lesser amounts of

oil.

With reference to prepositioned

equipment in the State of Washington,

one comment recommended that

offshore response equipment be staged

in Port Angeles until Neah Bay can

support offshore response vessels. This

comment is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking project.

Shallow water response equipment.

Seven comments responded to the worst

case discharge requirements as they

apply to shallow water activities. One

comment stated that it was reasonable

for the Coast Guard to require 20% of

the response equipment to operate in 6

feet or less water depth; however, the

comment continued by arguing that the

requirements in Table 1 of Appendix B

should be reduced to require that only

80% recovery devices operate in wave

heights up to 4 feet. As stated

previously, the Coast Guard has

modified Table 1 of Appendix B to

clarify that equipment designed to

operate in water of less than 6 feet does

not necessarily have to meet the

significant wave height planning

requirements. The regulatory text of this

provision has also been changed to

reflect this exemption from the

significant wave height planning

requirements of Table 1 of Appendix B

of part 155.

One comment argued that the

requirement may be counterproductive

in that it may result in the reduction of

the amount of available response

equipment capable of operating up to 12

miles offshore. The comment further

states that this reduction might be

especially likely on the West Coast

where deep water and rough conditions

are typical. The Coast Guard disagrees

with this statement. The response plan

must account for the total volume of the

response capability caps in Table 6 of

Appendix B. The fact that some

equipment will be capable of operating

offshore and some in shallow water

does not detract from this accountability

requirement. However, it remains the

responsibility of the owner or operator

to ensure that the proper equipment

necessary for a spill is available. This

assurance may include contracting for

additional equipment if it is anticipated

that it will be needed.

One comment recommended the

addition of a provision requiring a

minimum level of sorbent material as

part of the recovery capacity to support

mechanical equipment used in shallowwater operations. The comment argued

that because sorbents are the best means

of recovery in some areas such as

marshes and cattails, failure to include

such a requirement would make it

difficult or impossible to comply with

the 20% standard of this section. The

Coast Guard does not dispute the value

of sorbent material. The availability of

this material and the ease of getting it

to the shallow water areas make it

unnecessary for the Coast Guard to

include it in the regulated planning

requirements. A well-developed

response plan will recognize the

potential benefits of this material and

provide for its procurement and use.

One comment agreed that the shallow

water requirements were reasonable for

the Great Lakes but not for shallow

water with waves measuring 4 feet

breaking on the shoreline. This

comment stated that no recovery

equipment capable of operating in these

shallow water bodies exists and

recommended that the Coast Guard

amend the nearshore response

equipment requirement so that shallow

water equipment would not have to

meet the operational requirements of

Table 1 of Appendix B. The Coast Guard

agrees. As discussed previously, the

Coast Guard is aware that it may be

difficult to have equipment that meets

both the wave height requirement and

the shallow water requirement at the

same time. Therefore, the Coast Guard is

allowing response requirement

capabilities of Table 6 of Appendix B to

be met by separate pieces of equipment.

One comment generally supported

these requirements but not as they apply

to operation in waters of 6 feet or less.

This comment stated that such

application was overly restrictive in that

if the vessel owner or operator was

responsible for identifying a large

number of shallow water skimming

systems and shallow water shuttle

barges to meet the 20% requirement, the

result might be a potentially complex

and unsafe operation. The comment

suggested that the Coast Guard specify

a more practical operating range, such

as 6–12 feet of water depth, to allow for

the use of crafts with deeper drafts and

all the benefits of larger displacement.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The

requirement for being able to operate in

water of 6 feet or less is necessary to

allow for cleanup in the area between

the 6-foot point and the shoreline. It is

not appropriate to ignore this portion of

the cleanup area.

One comment questioned the basis for

establishing the percentages of response

equipment mandated to operate in

certain water depths because the

majority of equipment available today is

capable of being deployed in waters of

less than 6 feet. Therefore, this comment

states, by necessity, the response

equipment will be part of most vessel

response plans. The Coast Guard agrees.

Because use of this equipment is already

a consideration in a properly prepared

planning document, inclusion of

information on this equipment should

not be a burden on industry.

One comment supported the

requirement as it applied to shoreline

and nearshore operations.

Response times for tiers. Three

comments were received regarding

response times for the three response

tiers established by the IFR. One

comment stated that the response times

in the IFR were more realistic than in

the NPRM, but believed that more time

may be required for cascading in larger

items (i.e., boats) to remote locations.

Prior to the enactment of OPA 90, this

belief may have been warranted.

However, a basic goal of this rulemaking

project is to enhance response resources

availability, and for the most part, the

project has been successful in this

regard. The response tiers in the IFR are

reasonable and set realistic goals.

One comment stated that the Great

Lakes response times as required in this

section of the IFR are a significant

improvement over those in the NPRM,

but further argued that neither volumes

transported, vessel traffic, nor spill

history justify more rapid response

times than for other inland areas. Due to

the confined nature of the Great Lakes

system and the imminent impact of

spills on the surrounding shoreline, the

response times for the Great Lakes are

justified and reasonable. The maximum

allowable response times provided in

the tiers for the other inland areas are

based on the remote nature of some of

these areas and the difficulty of

deploying equipment to those areas.

One comment suggested that the

Coast Guard clearly state that the

planned-for response times do not

include time for deployment of the

response equipment. The Coast Guard

feels this point is clearly stated in

§ 155.1050(g). Where it is intended that

equipment be deployed in a specific

time, as with average most probable

discharge requirements in § 155.1050(d),

it is specifically stated.

Higher volume port area. In this final

rule, this paragraph was moved to

§ 155.1020. However, six comments

were received in response to this

paragraph in the IFR. Two comments

agreed with these designations.

Two comments suggested designating

Cape Flattery as the reference point for

the 50-mile seaward arc for the high

volume port of Puget Sound. One of

these comments suggested that this area

be designated in lieu of Port Angeles,

WA. The other comment also suggested

that the tugs necessary for use with the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1067

response vessels in these areas should

have the dual capability to rescue

disabled ships within a 6-hour response

time. One comment urged the inclusion

of Cook Inlet as a higher volume port

area. One comment argued that the

definition of a higher volume port area

avoids the concept of environmental

sensitivity.

The higher volume port areas were

determined by the Coast Guard based on

a study of persistent and non-persistent

oil movement by vessels, tank ship and

tank barge transits, and overall vessel

transits in a port area. Methods for

determining the higher volume port

areas were addressed in the notice of

proposed rulemaking for these

regulations (57 FR 27514; June 19,

1992). For a uniform national standard,

the Coast Guard has determined that the

overall volume of shipped oil, and not

environmental sensitivity, is the best

indicator of those areas requiring an

enhanced standard for response

equipment. The area contingency plans

may contain additional strategies based

on unique local consideration,

including environmental sensitivity.

Notification and mobilization times.

Two comments were received in

response to these provisions. One

comment requested clarification as to

whether the IFR required that all Tier 1

resources be capable of the initial

mobilization within 2 hours after notice

as required in this section. All Tier 1

resources must be mobilized within a

maximum of 2 hours. Because of the

nature of oil spill cleanup, all

equipment should be mobilized and

deployed on scene as quickly as

possible.

The other comment recommended

that the Coast Guard require Tier 1

resources to be located within the COTP

zone for which the resources are

required. The Coast Guard disagrees.

The Tier 1 equipment does not have to

be located within the COTP zone;

however, it must be on the scene within

the specified Tier 1 times. The tiered

time frames are provided as maximum

time frames for the minimum amount of

equipment. The equipment should be

on-scene and deployed as soon as

possible to allow for the most efficient

cleanup.

Dispersants. Eight comments were

received in response to this paragraph of

the IFR. Four comments supported the

inclusion of a provision allowing credit

for using dispersants. One of these

comments also supported making use of

dispersants optional. Another of these

four comments also recommended

allowing a credit as high as 100%. The

Coast Guard disagrees. Mechanical

recovery is the preferred method as it

provides for the removal of the oil from

the environment, and the 25% credit

value in preapproved areas was a

recommendation of the Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee. The final rule

also retains the language indicating that

identification of dispersant capability in

a response plan provides no assurance

that their use will be authorized during

a spill response.

One comment strongly opposed

permitting credit, claiming that allowing

this credit will not lessen the amount of

oil released into the environment. This

comment further contended that caps

already severely limit on-water

mechanical recovery and that

mechanical recovery should not be

further reduced through dispersant

credits. This comment also argued that

if dispersants are allowed, the Coast

Guard should shorten the required

response time to 8 hours to ensure

application during the optimal window

of opportunity for dispersant use. Two

comments recommended that the 12-

hour response time be increased to 24

hours. One comment claimed that this

increase is supported by current

research. The writer of the comment,

however, did not reference such

research. The other comment argued

that the 12-hour response time would

only be feasible if a fleet of dedicated

aircraft were chartered to respond to the

spill. Another comment also

recommended shortening the response

time to 6 hours, arguing that responding

to an oil discharge within 12 hours

would be too late. One comment

recommended that the final rule provide

that during the first day of response

activity, dispersants must arrive on

scene within 12 hours, and, during the

remainder of the response activity,

dispersants should be available as

needed to sustain the assumed rate of

dispersant application.

The Coast Guard disagrees with the

comments discussed in the previous

paragraph regarding dispersants and

response times. The specified caps do

not limit mechanical recovery, they only

provide a minimum requirement for

ensuring equipment by contract or other

approved means. Increases in the caps

are scheduled for 1998 and possibly in

2003 if further increases are justified.

The Coast Guard also disagrees with

changing the minimum on-scene arrival

time for dispersants. Comments to the

NPRM indicated that the recommended

arrival times on-scene are between 6

hours to an unspecified time less than

24 hours. The Coast Guard required that

dispersants arrive on scene within 12

hours of discovery of the discharge. As

with many aspects of oil spill response,

early action facilitates efficient cleanup

and, if use of dispersants is appropriate,

dispersants should normally be applied

as soon as possible. However, there is

no justification for mandating the

shorter time period for planning

purposes.

One comment does not support the

use of dispersants but argued that, if

their usage is permitted, it is not

sufficient to merely require

identification of dispersants. This

comment continued by contending that

the Coast Guard should require that

sources of dispersants be purchased or

contracted for and that the owner or

operator of a vessel should be required

to contract for equipment, such as

planes, that are necessary for the

dispersant application. The Coast Guard

partially agrees. Although the rule does

not require that a supply of dispersants

actually be purchased, it does require

the owner or operator to make firm

arrangements to have dispersants

available when needed and authorized.

This provision [now § 155.1050(j)]

clarifies that the dispersants and the

necessary resource to apply them must

be ensured by contract or other

approved means in order to receive the

25% credit.

Salvage and firefighting. Twelve

comments were received responding to

this paragraph. One comment supported

the Coast Guard’s intent of ensuring

adequate marine salvage and firefighting

capability in the United States.

Four respondents to the IFR

commented on the 24-hour required

response time for firefighting and

salvage resources. Three of these

comments stated that they were

uncertain whether this 24-hour response

time would be realistic in 1998. One

comment suggested reducing the time to

a maximum of 1 hour for high volume

ports and 12 hours in the open ocean.

The Coast Guard recognizes that private

salvage and marine firefighting

capability is currently limited in the

United States. Complying with this

requirement has been delayed until

1998 to provide sufficient time for the

industry to assess the existing capability

fully and to take steps to address any

shortfalls. As stated many times

previously, early action is imperative to

efficient cleanup. The Coast Guard,

however, does not find justification for

shortening the response time planning

requirement for firefighting and salvage

equipment.

Three comments urged that the Coast

Guard provide adequate time for public

comment when issuing regulations

upgrading salvage requirements in 1998.

The Coast Guard agrees that, in the

event it intends to increase salvage

requirements in excess of the already

stated 1998 levels, it will allow for

adequate time for public comment.
1068 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Two comments expressed concern

that implementation of the regulation

regarding salvors would result in more

owners and operators contracting with

non-capitalized salvors rather than

legitimate salvors with adequate

equipment to conduct salvage

operations. Two comments argued that

the imposition of minimum standards

on salvage and firefighting contractors

named in the vessel response plans is

consistent with the clear intent of OPA

90. These comments suggested more

stringent requirements with regard to

salvage contractors, especially in the

areas of salvage assets, performance, and

response. The Coast Guard did not

specify requirements for salvage and

firefighting contractors as each situation

will require different types of

equipment. The salvage or firefighting

contractor will need to have sufficient

expertise and equipment available to

respond to various situations. A prudent

owner or operator will ensure that the

identified contractor has the ability to

respond to his or her anticipated needs.

One comment supported the

identification of salvage and firefighting

resources as opposed to contracting for

these resources. One comment stated

that ship incidents requiring salvage

and firefighting response occur too

infrequently to support the resources

that would be necessary to meet

proposed response times. The Coast

Guard disagrees. Although these

incidents may be rare as this comment

argued, the damage resulting to the

environment from the absence of

salvage and firefighting equipment

where such equipment is needed could

be quite significant.

One comment argued that firefighting

and salvage resources should be

guaranteed by contract and

recommended that resources be on

scene within 24 hours. The Coast Guard

would like to first point out that the

writer of this comment misunderstood

the IFR to be requiring contracts after

1998. The IFR requires that owners and

operators currently have these resources

available through contract or other

means. Secondly, the Coast Guard

disagrees with this comment’s assertion

that the salvage and firefighting

resources should be on scene within 24

hours of a discharge. While this will

essentially be the requirement in 1998,

time is needed to establish available

firefighting and salvage resources in

geographically remote areas.

Emergency lightering. Seven

comments were received in response to

this provision. One comment agreed

that these requirements appear to offer

a practical means of controlling a spill

at its source. Three comments argued

that this requirement to ensure the

availability of response resources for

lightering operations through contract or

other approved means should require

assurance through identification of

lightering resources rather than

contracting for lightering resources. One

of these comments asserted that the

contracting requirement would require

owners and operators to contract with

thousands of barge owners to provide

adequate response on all coasts.

OPA 90 specified that response

resources should be ensured.

Identification of resources for offshore

areas is not adequate assurance because

this capability is not as readily available

as in river and canal areas of operation.

The Coast Guard is aware that ensuring

adequate emergency lightering

capability may require contracting with

more than one vessel broker for storage

capacity.

Three comments argued that the

requirement for availability of portable

pumps and ancillary equipment

necessary to offload the vessel’s largest

cargo tank in 24 hours of continuous

operation should be altered to require

that there be adequate equipment to

offload the vessel’s largest cargo tank in

36 hours of continuous operation for

vessels displacing 80,000 deadweight

tons or more. The Coast Guard

disagrees. It is equally, if not more,

important to expeditiously offload cargo

from the larger tank vessels as it is from

the smaller tank vessels. This

equipment is readily available in areas

where these vessels operate.

One comment disagreed with the

provision that resources reach open

ocean locations within 36 hours of

notification. This comment argued that

meeting this requirement would not be

possible, particularly for fendering

equipment, larger pumps, and power

packs which may be beyond the

capability of air delivery. The Coast

Guard disagrees. The effective

mitigation and prevention of further

discharge of rapidly escaping oil is

dependent on quick response to the

incident: 36 hours is deemed to be a

reasonable maximum time for arrival of

this equipment in the offshore operating

area.

Shoreline protection. Three comments

were received in response to this

paragraph regarding the assurance of

availability of response resources for

shoreline protection operations. One

comment recommended that

requirements for vessel response plans

and facility response plans be the same.

The Coast Guard disagrees. Because

vessels operate in a variety of

environments including offshore, the

equipment necessary to provide

shoreline protection as identified in

Table 2 of Appendix B is appropriate for

vessels but would not necessarily be

appropriate for facilities.

One comment supported the

recognition of a national standard rather

than resources identified in the area

contingency plans; however, this

comment takes exception to the

preamble text in the IFR which stated

that the Coast Guard may adjust

requirements if the area contingency

plans indicate such a need. This

comment asserted the Coast Guard

should decide either to have a national

standard or to allow the area

contingency plans to create area specific

standards. The Coast Guard appreciates

the concerns expressed in this

comment; however, it would not be

prudent to adhere to stringent national

requirements without being flexible

enough to make exceptions where they

are warranted.

One comment generally supported the

shore protection requirements of this

paragraph, particularly the Louisiana

Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) exemption.

However, this comment also

recommended that the area contingency

plans adopt a uniform national standard

for shoreline protection measures. The

Coast Guard does not consider it

appropriate to restrict the strategies in

the area contingency plans. They are the

appropriate forum for addressing local

needs.

Shoreline cleanup. Four comments

were received in response to this

paragraph dealing with assurance of the

availability of response resources for

shoreline cleanup operation. One

comment pointed out that this

paragraph fails to address the Great

Lakes. The Coast Guard has noted this

omission and has included the Great

Lakes in the corresponding paragraph in

the final rule.

One comment supported the

recognition of a national standard rather

than resources identified in the area

contingency plans; however, this

comment takes exception with the

preamble text in the IFR which stated

that the Coast Guard may adjust

requirements if the area contingency

plans indicate such a need. This

comment asserted the Coast Guard

should decide either to have a national

standard or to allow the area

contingency plans to create area specific

standards. Another comment generally

supported these requirements with

particular support for the LOOP

exemption. However, this comment

recommended that area contingency

plans adopt a uniform national standard

for shoreline cleanup. The Coast Guard

appreciates the concerns expressed in

these comments; however, it would not

be prudent to adhere to stringent

national requirements without being
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1069

flexible enough to make exceptions

where warranted.

One comment asserted that national

standards for shoreline cleanup might

be inadequate because of the unique

circumstances of a particular area. This

comment further argued that the

national standard may be too rigid for

one area and leave gaps in another area.

The Coast Guard agrees that this may

pose a potential problem and, therefore,

may adjust these requirements, by the

rulemaking process, for specific areas if

found to be necessary.

Oil spill removal organizations.

Although no comments were received

which specifically addressed this

provision, the Coast Guard has added

the Great Lakes to the enumerated

bodies of water in § 155.1050(n) where

owners or operators of vessels transiting

with primary cargoes of groups I

through IV petroleum oil must identify

and ensure the availability of oil spill

removal organizations. The Great Lakes

was inadvertently excluded from this

provision in the IFR.

Caps. Nine comments were received

in response to this paragraph that

references Appendix B of part 155,

which establishes the caps recognizing

the practical and technical limits of

response capabilities for which an

individual vessel owner or operator can

contract in advance.

One comment supported the 1993

caps. Two comments argued against the

1998 caps as established in the IFR,

contending that the caps established

were arbitrary. The Coast Guard

disagrees. The caps were established to

provide a clear upper target for which

the vessel owners or operators and the

oil equipment response industry must

plan. The proposed increase of 25% has

already resulted in encouraging industry

to increase their response capability.

The Coast Guard will evaluate the

proposed cap increases before they

become effective to determine if they

remain practicable. These evaluations

will be conducted through public notice

and comment before the cap increases

become effective.

Two comments recommended that the

Coast Guard drop the time requirement

of this provision. One of these

comments contended that this time

requirement overstates the intent of the

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

agreement. The Coast Guard disagrees.

The concept of response tiers was

defined during the regulatory

negotiation process. The Coast Guard

added the time requirements as they are

a critical component of the intended

response capability. To eliminate this

portion of the requirement would result

in greatly reducing the effectiveness of

the planning requirements.

One comment asserted that the

reduction of the Great Lakes caps in the

IFR compared to those in the NPRM are

an improvement; however, the comment

continued by arguing that the levels of

2,000, 4,000, and 8,000 feet should be

considered. The Coast Guard disagrees.

The existing caps were developed

through public discussions and

comment, and it was determined that

they are reasonable.

One comment expressed concern over

the additional costs which would be

incurred by owners and operators by

having to comply with this requirement.

The Coast Guard is aware of the possible

costs of this requirement; however, the

Coast Guard did a cost and benefit study

prior to developing this regulation, and

determined that the benefits justify the

costs.

One comment argued that it is

impractical for every tank vessel to list

all needed equipment above the caps

and suggested that the Coast Guard use

the data collected by the Coast Guard

National Response Center at Elizabeth

City, NC in lieu of requiring this listing.

Another comment suggested that the

availability of any additional resources

should be determined in the area

contingency plans, and the results

should be available to all planholders

within a given area. The Coast Guard

does not want owners and operators to

identify each piece of equipment

available above the caps. It only wants

the identification of organizations, their

locations, and their capabilities

(classification), not specific detailed

lists of equipment. The source of this

additional equipment may be the same

provider as that which is providing the

contracted capability. The Coast Guard

has clarified that the additional

resources above the caps must be

provided by a commercial source.

One comment asserted that the caps

should be at least doubled, arguing that

the current level will not be able to

respond to a worst case discharge. This

comment also suggested that caps for

2003 be set now and be under contract

by 1993, 1998, and 2003. The Coast

Guard disagrees with increasing the

caps at this time. The caps have been set

considering the amount of equipment

that can reasonably be expected to be

available and contracted for as of these

effective dates. The Coast Guard has

modified the regulations in

§ 155.1050(o) to require the

identification of additional resources,

for all three tiers, equal to two times that

which has already been ensured

available by contract.

One comment argued that identifying

equipment in excess of only the Tier 3

cap is inadequate and contrary to the

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

agreement. This comment continued by

contending that equipment to respond

to the entire worst case discharge

planning volume must be identified.

The Coast Guard has clarified the

language of the regulation to reflect that

certain vessel owners and operators

shall identify sources of additional

equipment equal to twice the cap listed

for each tier or the amount necessary to

reach the calculated planning volume,

whichever is lower. This policy was

published in NVIC 8–92 and has been

followed in reviewing plans submitted

under the IFR.

One comment asserted that the

requirement to identify sources of

additional equipment is not practicable.

This comment continued by arguing

that there will not be sufficient

resources in a given area to both satisfy

the contracting cap requirement and any

additional equipment above the cap

which might be required to be identified

by the regulations. The response

resources above the caps need only be

identified to the extent that the

equipment is available. The final rule

has been changed to clarify this

requirement. However, the Coast Guard

contends that a prudent owner or

operator will research the equipment

outside their specific geographic area so

that in the event of a spill, the

equipment can be located easily to

ensure the entire spill is cleaned up.

One comment asserted that the caps

may not reflect what is practicable to

accomplish in the United States. This

comment continued by arguing that

there is no information in the IFR to

justify that the caps represent the

‘‘maximum extent practicable.’’ This

comment urged the Coast Guard to

reject caps and reevaluate the objective

of this provision using rational analysis

to determine what is practicable. This

comment did not specify to what other

methods they were referring. The Coast

Guard disagrees with eliminating the

concept of caps. The caps were

developed through two rulemaking

documents and various public meetings,

including the Negotiated Rulemaking

Committee meetings, to determine what

is practicable. There have been no

compelling arguments to change these

requirements at this time.

Cap review process. Five comments

were received in response to this

paragraph regarding the review of cap

increases and other requirements

contained within subpart D that are

scheduled to be phased-in over time.

One comment supported the Coast

Guard’s initiating review of the

practicality of future cap increases.

Three comments supported using

factors such as improvement of

technology and research and
1070 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

development efforts in reviewing the

caps for determination of possibly new

caps in 1998. Four comments urged the

Coast Guard to clarify in the final rule

that the scheduled increases for

equipment in 1998 will not exceed 25%

of the current requirement.

There will be a review process prior

to the 1998 increase. The possibility

exists that the caps could increase above

the specified 25% if it is found to be

appropriate.

Two comments supported the changes

from the NPRM in the language of this

review process requirement.

Section 155.1052 Reponse Plan

Development and Evaluation Criteria for

Vessels Carrying Group V Petroleum Oil

as a Primary Cargo

Four comments were received

addressing this section. One comment

expressed concern that the IFR was

requiring equipment and technology

which may not be available, proven, or

practicable. One comment questioned

the need to address this issue with

regard to offshore and open ocean

operations. One comment supported the

different plan requirements applicable

to various situations; however, this

comment disagreed with the stringent

response times required by this section.

This comment argued that a 24-hour

response time is unnecessary in that

once oil sinks it does not migrate. This

comment continued by arguing that the

longer oil sits, the harder it becomes,

and the easier it is to recover by means

such as cutting the oil and raising it by

nets suspended from a crane. One

comment requested that the Coast Guard

consider not imposing minimum

response standards on salvors.

Group V oils encompass a wide

variety of oils which behave differently

in the marine environment. The

response plan regulations require

procedures, strategies, and

identification of equipment to locate,

recover, and mitigate discharges of these

substances. This equipment does exist

and has been cited in numerous

response plans received to date. The

response time for this equipment is

considered to be reasonable. The 24-

hour deployment requirement applies to

the equipment arriving at the port

nearest the area where the vessel is

operating, not the actual spill location.

Minor editorial changes have been made

to this section, but no substantive

requirements are affected.

Section 155.1054 Response Plan

Development and Evaluation Criteria for

Vessels Carrying Non-Petroleum Oil as

a Primary Cargo

This section covered the specific

response plan development and

evaluation criteria for vessels carrying

non-petroleum oil as a primary cargo.

The Coast Guard received nine

comments on this section.

One comment argued that Congress

did not intend edible oils to be

regulated under OPA 90 and that these

oils are already adequately regulated by

the FWPCA. One comment stated that

owners or operators of vessels carrying

Group V and non-petroleum oils should

be subject to the same planning

requirements as vessels carrying other

types of oils. The comment suggested

that the Coast Guard change Tables 3

and 4 of Appendix B to include these

oils or allow the owner or operator to

submit a formula for determining the

worst case discharge planning volume.

One comment recommended that the

Coast Guard should delay response

requirements for non-petroleum oils

until more information about these oils

is available.

Five comments stated that response

and removal methods for non-petroleum

oils should be addressed in a separate

rulemaking. In response to the

comments received, the Coast Guard has

removed this section and replaced it

with new Subparts F and G to

specifically address non-petroleum oils.

These new subparts are discussed

subsequently in this section of the

preamble.

Section 155.1055 Training

The Coast Guard received several

comments on this section. One

comment recommended that the Coast

Guard provide in the final rule enough

time for individuals to receive refresher

training. The Coast Guard agrees that

refresher training is needed; however,

these time frames have already been set

in 29 CFR 1910.120.

One comment stated that owners or

operators should not be liable for the

training of shore-based personnel. That

comment and one other stated the

requirement that owners ensure that oil

spill removal organizations (OSROs)

maintain training records is sufficient.

However, five comments stated that the

3-year training record maintenance

requirement would be an unreasonable

burden on the owner or operator, and

that this requirement should be the

OSRO’s or Coast Guard’s responsibility.

Two of those comments also stated if

the Coast Guard certified the OSROs,

then recordkeeping would not be

necessary. The Coast Guard disagrees. It

is the responsibility of the owner or

operator to ensure that the organizations

upon which they rely for spill response

are adequately prepared.

One comment stated that the final

rule should clarify that training and

drill requirements apply solely to

employees and contractors hired by

unmanned tank barge owners or

operators and not to auxiliary

personnel. The Coast Guard disagrees.

The training requirements apply to

anyone contracted to have involvement

in a spill cleanup.

One comment recommended that the

word ‘‘or’’ be added after

§ 155.1055(b)(1). Addition of the word

‘‘or’’ after § 155.1055(b)(1) is not

necessary as the listing of possible

locations of training records is in the

disjunctive, meaning that the records

must be located in one of the three

places listed.

One comment suggested that the

Coast Guard maintain a list of approved

contractors which includes information

on equipment and personnel. The Coast

Guard does have a program for

classifying contractors (NVIC 12–92;

December 4, 1992) which takes into

account the quantity of equipment, its

designed purpose, the planning capacity

of the resources, and the number of

trained personnel the contractor has. A

listing of these classified oil spill

removal organizations is available from

Commanding Officer, National Strike

Force Coordination Center; (Attn: OSRO

Classification Review); 1461 U.S. 17

North; Elizabeth City, NC 27909;

telephone number: (919) 331–6000.

One comment recommended that the

final rule state that the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) has the authority to enforce

shore-based response personnel working

conditions. Although the Coast Guard

acknowledges that OSHA does have this

authority, there is nothing in these

regulations which discredits this

authority. Additionally, the language of

this section clearly states that nothing in

the response plan requirements relieves

the shore-based organizations from

complying with the OSHA requirements

regarding training for emergency

response operations. It is the

responsibility of the vessel owners and

operators contracting with the

individual OSROs to ensure that the

OSHA requirements are being met.

The Coast Guard has amended this

section of the final rule. This section has

been reworded to provide for

identification of training for persons

having responsibilities under the plan,

regardless of whether or not such

persons are members of the vessel crew.

This change was made to ensure that all

persons involved in oil spill cleanup

operations are adequately trained. Also,

the Coast Guard added a subparagraph

to this final rule which provides that a

training plan may be prepared in

accordance with ‘‘Training Elements for

Oil Spill Response’’ to satisfy the

requirements of this section. This
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1071

publication along with the added

Appendix C to this rulemaking will

provide guidance and clarification of

the training requirements to owners and

operators in the development of the

training portions of response plans, no

additional requirements have been

added.

Section 155.1060 Exercises

The Coast Guard has extensively

revised § 155.1060 which was

previously entitled ‘‘Drills’’ and is now

entitled ‘‘Exercises.’’ The changes make

the terminology in the final rule

consistent with the National

Preparedness for Response Exercise

Program (PREP). In response to the need

to provide owners or operators with

additional direction on conducting

exercises, the Coast Guard has revised

this section to specify that compliance

with PREP fulfills all exercise

requirements. The National

Preparedness for Response Exercise

Program (PREP) was developed through

a joint effort of the Federal agencies

implementing OPA 90 response plan

regulations and other Federal

representatives (e.g., natural resource

trustees), State agencies, members of the

regulated community, and oil spill

removal organizations. These efforts

resulted in the creation of unified

guidelines that reduce the possibility of

owners and operators having to

participate in numerous duplicative

exercises. Following the PREP

guidelines has been determined to be an

acceptable means to satisfy the OPA 90

requirements. The changes to the final

rule were based on the PREP; therefore,

participation in the PREP will result in

compliance with this final rule.

However, participation in the PREP

itself remains voluntary. If owners or

operators do not choose to participate in

the PREP, they may develop their own

program for compliance with the

exercise requirements in the regulation.

The changes to the wording of the

regulatory text provide consistency with

the PREP and have resulted in reduced

requirements.

Three comments stated that the owner

or operator should determine the extent

to which the OSROs and spill

management teams participate in drills

rather than the COTP, while another

comment recommended that the

qualified individual should decide. One

comment suggested that the phrase

‘‘Need not participate’’ in § 155.1060(d)

be changed to read ‘‘Shall not be

required to participate.’’ The Coast

Guard has determined that in a

‘‘government initiated unannounced

exercise,’’ the parameters of which are

set by the COTP, it is appropriate for the

COTP to determine who will participate

in the exercise and to what extent they

will participate, as this determination

will facilitate accurate tests of the

preparedness of the responders.

Several comments were received

regarding drill credit. Six comments

requested that credit for participation in

unannounced drills be extended from

24 to 36 months. Credit for participation

in a ‘‘government initiated

unannounced exercise’’ has been

extended to 36 months. Three

comments stated that the provisions for

drill credit need to be clarified. Two

comments proposed that credit be given

for announced drills with unannounced

scenarios. Two comments suggested

credit should also be given for responses

to actual spills, while another comment

recommended credit for table top drills

and further suggested combining drills

for both vessels and facilities annually.

One comment recommended that the

Coast Guard should conduct an

unannounced drill in higher volume

ports once a year and that a vessel

should receive credit only if a drill were

completed satisfactorily.

Equipment deployment exercises are

vital for maintaining readiness and for

testing the effectiveness of a response

plan. The variety of required exercises

test different aspects of a response plan.

However, if an exercise includes

components which fulfill the

requirements for some other type of

required exercise (e.g. an equipment

deployment exercise that includes a

qualified individual notification) then

both requirements may be fulfilled by

the single exercise. Both announced and

unannounced drills are required by the

PREP. This promotes full familiarization

with the response plans. Under PREP,

vessels which have an actual response

situation may get exercise credit. The

standards in the rule are in accordance

with the requirements of the PREP

program. For more detailed information,

the PREP guidelines should be

consulted.

Three comments were concerned with

the scope and resulting costs of

unannounced drills. These comments

suggested that a vessel owner or

operator be required to ensure that each

element of a plan is exercised at least

once every 3 years rather than to ensure

a drill which exercises the entire plan.

One of the comments also stated that

many drill exercises are redundant

because most companies employ the

same OSROs. This comment also

requested 24–48 hour advance notice for

unannounced drills. There is usually no

advance notice of a spill. Unannounced

exercises serve an important purpose in

maintaining response resource

readiness. The revised exercises section

of the final rule includes requirements

for unannounced exercises. Section

155.1060(a)(5) states that annually, one

of the required exercises (emergency

procedures, spill management team

tabletop, equipment deployment) must

be conducted unannounced.

Additionally, the owner or operator may

be required by the Coast Guard to

conduct an unannounced exercise,

which would involve equipment

deployment to respond to an average

most probable discharge spill scenario.

If a vessel participates in an

unannounced exercise initiated by the

Coast Guard, they will be exempt from

participating in another Coast Guard

initiated unannounced exercise for at

least 3 years.

One comment stated that drill

planning requirements should be

delayed pending further guidance from

the Coast Guard. Two comments

suggested that drills should be closely

coordinated and coincide with local and

State activities. As discussed

previously, the PREP was developed, in

part, to coordinate all the various drill

requirements. This coordination should

alleviate some of the burden of the drill

requirements.

In response to the need to provide

owners or operators with additional

direction on conducting exercises and to

ease the burden of meeting the OPA 90

requirements, the PREP was developed

through a joint effort of the Federal

agencies implementing OPA 90

response plan regulations with

involvement from other Federal

representatives (e.g., natural resource

trustees), State agencies, members of the

regulated community, and OSROs.

These efforts resulted in the creation of

unified guidelines that reduce the

possibility of owners and operators

having to participate in numerous drills.

Following the PREP guidelines has been

determined to be an acceptable means to

satisfy the OPA 90 requirements. The

changes to the final rule were based on

the PREP; therefore, participation in the

PREP will result in compliance with

this final rule. However, participation in

the PREP itself remains voluntary. If an

owner or operator does not choose to

participate in the PREP, they may

develop their own program for

compliance with the exercise

requirements in the regulation. The

changes to the wording of the regulatory

text provide consistency with the PREP,

and have resulted in reduced

requirements.

One comment agreed with the

requirement that vessel owners and

operators ensure that the OSROs’

records for drills be maintained. Two

comment writers felt that this places an

excessive burden on owners and

operators. The Coast Guard disagrees
1072 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

that this burden is excessive. Although

the owners and operators are still

responsible for ensuring that the

exercise records are maintained under

the final rule, the final rule also

maintains the provision allowing

records of exercises conducted off the

vessel to be maintained at the United

States location of either the qualified

individual, the spill management team,

the vessel owner or operator, or the

response organization. The response

plan must specify the location of the

drill records.

Section 155.1062 Inspection and

Maintenance of Equipment

Six comments were received on this

section. Four comments stated that the

owners or operators, especially overseas

shippers, should not be responsible for

the inspection and maintenance of

shore-based response equipment. One of

these comments recommended that the

Coast Guard should inspect and certify

OSRO response equipment and

personnel, while the other three

comments did not specify who should

be responsible in these areas. One

comment stated that the Coast Guard

should notify and require the

contractor’s permission before the

OSRO is named in a response plan.

Another comment stated that if the

Coast Guard classified OSROs, then the

owners and operators would not have to

keep records of equipment maintenance

and inspection.

The Coast Guard disagrees with the

comments suggesting that responsibility

for inspection and maintenance of

equipment be shifted to someone other

than the owner or operator. It is the

ultimate responsibility of the vessel

owner or operator to ensure that the

OSRO which he or she has listed is

capable of providing the oil spill

cleanup services it claims it can

provide. The Coast Guard does have a

voluntary program to classify OSROs,

and the Coast Guard encourages OSROs

to participate in this program; however

listing an OSRO does not guarantee the

capabilities of the OSRO’s future

performance. The guidelines for

classification and inspection of OSROs

are contained in the Coast Guard’s

Navigation and Vessel Inspection

Circular No. 12–92 (NVIC 12–92;

December 4, 1992) and may be used by

vessel owners and operators to evaluate

the OSROs they have under contract.

Alternatively, the vessel owner or

operator may ensure the OSRO’s

equipment is being maintained properly

by having third party inspection of the

OSRO by a classification society.

Section 155.1065 Plan Submission,

Approval and Appeal Procedures

Several comments were received on

this section, and although not discussed

in the regulation, the topic of plan

review by regional citizens advisory

councils (RCACs) has been a topic of

previous preamble discussions. One

comment argued that the RCACs should

not review response plans because of

their lack of technical knowledge and

objectivity. The Coast Guard disagrees.

The RCACs have a particular interest in

the adequacy of oil spill prevention and

response plans for tankers operating in

Prince William Sound or Cook Inlet.

The mode of review is to have vessel

owners and operators submit plans

directly to the RCACs, not via the Coast

Guard, and the RCACs provide any

comments they may have regarding a

specific plan directly to the applicable

vessel owner or operator. This method

of review provides an opportunity for

valuable interaction between the RCACs

and the vessel operators or owners.

One comment suggested that the 60-

day waiting period for vessels which

have submitted response plans be

reduced to 30 days for newly-built

vessels and for vessels with interim

assignments in U.S. waters. One

comment requested that response plan

submission and approval procedures be

shortened for vessels carrying oil as a

primary cargo so that the 60-day waiting

period could be reduced. One comment

requested that the item to correct

response plan deficiencies be extended

from 45 to 60 days.

The Coast Guard performs a two stage

review of vessel response plans in order

to expedite authorization of vessel

operation in U.S. waters. The initial

review provides the vessel owner or

operator the list of deficiencies. The

Coast Guard has removed the specific

time frame of 45 days to respond to

deficiencies and has changed this

response time to that which is specified

in the written deficiency notice

provided by the Coast Guard. This

revision will allow the Coast Guard to

determine the appropriate time frame on

a case-by-case basis according to the

specific circumstances. The time frame

allowed is intended to provide the

owner or operator sufficient time to

address any deficiencies. Nothing in the

regulations prohibits operation in U.S.

waters during that time frame permitted

for rectifying deficiencies if the Coast

Guard has issued a letter authorizing the

vessel to operate under the provisions of

§ 155.1025(c).

One comment expressed concern that

contractors reviewing response plans

were unfamiliar with fishing vessel

tender operations and that, because of

work schedules, crewmen would not

have the opportunity for redress prior to

the implementation of response plans.

The applicability of these requirements

to fishing vessels was revised by section

321 of the Coast Guard Authorization

Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat.

2419). When fishing vessels or fish

tender vessels are engaged only in the

fishing industry and are less than 750

gross tons, they are not deemed to be

tank vessels. Accordingly, such vessels

are now excluded from vessel response

plan requirements.

The Coast Guard has modified the IFR

provisions to reduce the number of

copies of the plan to be submitted to one

and to indicate in the certifying

statement accompanying the response

plan whether the vessel or vessels

covered by the plan are primary

manned, primary unmanned, or

secondary carriers. This added

information will facilitate an efficient

plan review process.

The Coast Guard has also added two

paragraphs to this section in this final

rule. One paragraph allows the

submission of a request for acceptance

of alternative planning criteria for

owners or operators of a vessel who

believe that national planning criteria

contained elsewhere in 33 CFR part 155

are inappropriate. The provision should

lessen the burden of owners or operators

by providing the possible option of

using alternative planning criteria.

The other added paragraph allows an

owner or operator to meet the response

plan requirements of Regulation 26 of

MARPOL and subparts D, E, F, and G

by stating this intention in writing when

submitting the response plan. This

provision should also alleviate the

burden of owners and operators in that

they would not have to duplicate their

efforts.

OPA 90 requires a vessel owner or

operator to resubmit response plans to

the Coast Guard for information or

approval, as appropriate. In the IFR, the

Coast Guard required that response

plans must be resubmitted every 5 years

regardless of whether any revisions have

been made. In his memorandum of

April 21, 1995, President Clinton

directed agencies to reduce by one-half

the frequency of regularly scheduled

reports that the public is required to

provide to the Government. An

exception to this requirement is

provided when the agency head

determines that such action would not

adequately protect the environment or

would impede the effective

administration of the agency’s program.

The Coast Guard has reviewed the need

for resubmission of response plans at 5-

year intervals, and has concluded that

extending this to 10 years would not
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1073

ensure that plans were still viable and

would not meet the goal of OPA 90, to

improve the response to spills of oil.

Changes in technology and in available

response resources over a 5-year period

may make a response plan fall below

acceptable standards. To effectively

administer an oversight program and

ensure that the maximum practicable

response capability is being utilized,

review of response plans at 5-year

intervals is considered to be an

appropriate balance between program

needs and reporting burden. The

Secretary of Transportation has

approved retaining the requirement to

submit response plans at a maximum

interval of 5 years.

Section 155.1070 Procedures for Plan

Review, Revision, Amendment, and

Appeal

A number of comments were received

on this section. One comment requested

clarification as to whether the Coast

Guard could complete review of

response plans within 60 days after a

new certification has been submitted

due to a change in the owner or operator

of a vessel. With reference to this

section, neither the IFR nor this final

rule imposes any definite time frame

within which the Coast Guard must

complete review of a response plan.

Additionally, such a time frame could

not be definitely established because the

length of the review process would be

dependent upon unknown factors such

as how many response plans would be

submitted at a given time, and how

many deficiencies would be discovered.

One comment stated that the

requirement for response plans to be

revised only if significant changes had

occurred was too vague and needs to be

better defined. The Coast Guard

disagrees. The rule specifies many

events which will require revisions of

the response plans. The provisions

covering ‘‘significant’’ changes apply to

those areas which are uniquely within

the knowledge of the vessel owner or

operator, such as the vessel’s

configuration or emergency response

procedures, and include a residual

requirement for unanticipated changes

which may occur. The vessel owner or

operator is responsible for knowing

what is sufficiently significant to require

updating of the plans.

Two comments stated the Coast Guard

should evaluate response plans in the

broader context of the company’s

overall response capabilities rather than

focusing only on the response

requirements of the vessel’s crew. The

Coast Guard agrees. The means of

ensuring effective preparation and

actual response to a spill is dependent

upon the total preparation of both the

vessel crew and the company’s support.

In evaluating a response plan, the Coast

Guard does consider all these factors.

The Coast Guard has made various

changes to this section of the IFR to

clarify what must be submitted. Under

this final rule, revisions to a plan must

include a cover page that provides a

summary of the changes being made and

the pages being affected. Revised pages

must further include the number of the

revision and date of that revision. This

amendment will help facilitate efficient

review of response plans in that Coast

Guard reviewers will not have to search

the entire document to ascertain what

revisions have been made.

The Coast Guard has also amended

the procedures regarding when an entire

plan must be resubmitted to the Coast

Guard for reapproval. Although the IFR

provided for resubmission for

reapproval 6 months before the end of

the Coast Guard approval period

identified in the initial approval letter

from the Coast Guard, this final rule also

provides for submission for reapproval

of an entire plan whenever there is a

change in the owner or operator of the

vessel, if that owner or operator

provided the certifying statement

required by § 155.1065(b). In the IFR,

such a change precipitated submission

of revisions or amendments rather than

the entire plan. If the owner or operator

that certified the plan is no longer the

owner or operator, major changes to the

plan will be necessary to describe the

new conditions of the new owner or

operator. Alternatively, the new owner

or operator needs to certify and

resubmit the plan to show that he or she

agrees with the existing plan. In the

latter case, review will be minimal; but

the new owner or operator will be

responsible for being familiar with, and

ensuring the accuracy of, the plan.

With reference to submission of

revisions and amendments for approval,

this submission must be effectuated

under this revised section when there is

a change in the vessel’s owner or

operator when such owner or operator

is not the one who provided the

certifying statement under

§ 155.1065(b). As provided in the IFR,

this submission must also be done when

there is a change in the vessel’s

operating area that includes ports or

geographic areas not covered by the

previously approved plan.

Regarding this change of ports or

geographic areas transited, this

subparagraph has been changed to

provide that a vessel may operate in an

area not covered in the previously

approved plan upon receipt of the

written acknowledgment by the Coast

Guard that a new geographic-specific

appendix has been submitted for

approval by the vessel owner or

operator and the certification required

in § 155.1025(c) has been provided. In

the IFR, such written authorization from

the Coast Guard was not required prior

to operation.

Under this section as revised, changes

in the qualified individual and

additions of vessels to the plan are

among the revisions and amendments to

an approved response plan which must

be submitted for approval by the

vessel’s owner or operator. When a

vessel is added to the response plan, it

must include a vessel-specific appendix

and owner or operator’s certification

required by § 155.1025(c).

This revised section also provides that

when a change in the type of oil cargo

carried aboard affects the required

response resources but is authorized by

the COTP for purposes of assisting in an

oil spill response activity, such change

does not have to be documented by a

revision or amendment submission. As

in the IFR, changes in the type of oil

cargo carried aboard which affects the

required response resources in

situations other than those where the

vessel is authorized in assisting in an oil

spill response activity must be

submitted to the Coast Guard for

approval as a revision or amendment.

Under this section in the final rule,

revisions or amendments must be

submitted 30 days in advance of

operation, in order to give the Coast

Guard time to review the revisions, and

must be accompanied by the

certification required in § 155.1065(b).

These amendments should result in the

Coast Guard having more up-to-date

information about a vessel’s owner or

operator. They should also result in

more owner or operator accountability

with regard to the certifications made by

vessel owners and operators.

This section, as revised, also provides

for review by the Commandant (G–M) of

decisions regarding deficiency

determination objections submitted by

vessel owners and operators. Previously,

in the IFR, such petitions for review

were to be done by the District

Commander. This revision should result

in a more centralized review system

which should accordingly streamline

the entire response plan review process.

The Coast Guard will continue to

monitor this appeal process including

the time frames for appeals and may

modify the process in the future.
1074 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart E—Additional Response Plan

Requirements for Tankers Loading

Cargo at a Facility Permitted Under the

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization

Act

Section 155.1120 Operating

Restrictions and Interim Operating

Authorization

Four comments were received on this

section. One comment pointed out that

the vessel response plan approval is

contingent on funding of citizen’s

advisory programs, as provided in

section 5002(k) of OPA 90, and

requested that our response in the

preamble should be revised accordingly.

Alternative funding requirements are

prescribed under subsections (k) and (o)

of section 5002 of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C.

2732 (k) and (o)). If no funding is

provided under either subsection,

approvals under these rules respecting

owners or operators referred to in 33

U.S.C. 2732(k) are rendered ineffective

as a matter of law.

One comment recommended that the

Coast Guard and not the vessel owners

or operators be responsible for certifying

shore-based spill response contractors.

This comment further stated that the

certification requirements should be

consistent with the requirements being

developed by Alaska. The Coast Guard

disagrees. It is the onus of the vessel

owner or operator to ensure that the oil

spill response organizations with which

he or she has contracted meet the

requirements of this rulemaking.

One comment stated that the owner or

operator certification under this section

should be the same as the requirements

referenced in § 155.1025(c). The Coast

Guard agrees. In both the IFR and this

final rule, the Coast Guard has worded

the operator certification requirements

as similarly as possible to those in

§ 155.1025(c) within the confines of the

statutory requirements.

Section 155.1125 Additional Response

Plan Requirements

Two comments were received on this

section. One comment recommended

that the requirement to submit a drill

schedule to the COTP should be deleted

because the COTP, the Alaska

Department of Environmental

Conservation, the vessel owners or

operators, and Alyeska already

coordinate drill schedules. The

comment suggested that this

requirement may be more appropriately

addressed in the area contingency plan.

The Coast Guard agrees that exercise, or

drill, requirements should be

coordinated with both local and

national authorities. As elaborated upon

in the discussion of comments with

reference to § 155.1060, the PREP was

developed to allow for this

coordination.

The other comment stated that a

specific time for removal of a spill of

200,000 barrels of oil is not mentioned

in this section. The comment

recommended a period of 4 days since

that time would be consistent with the

period for nearshore and inland areas

included in Table 3. The Coast Guard

disagrees. There is no evidence that

cleanup in this period of time could be

achieved. The Coast Guard has never

specified a time for completion of spill

removal as this factor is specifically

dependent on the circumstances of the

spill. This same comment also suggested

that the communities of Seward,

Seldovia, Homer and Kodiak, Alaska

should receive spill training, and that

the final rule should specify that a

minimum of 2,000 personnel be trained

for removal of a discharge of 200,000

barrels of oil. The Coast Guard finds that

the existing list of communities is

currently sufficient and is not adding

the communities suggested in the

comment. However, should

circumstances change, a COTP may

recommend adding ports if the spill

training requirements are deemed

appropriate. This change would be

subject to a notice and comment

rulemaking project. There were no

specific details included in this

comment as to the basis for requiring

2,000 personnel for a spill of 200,000

barrels. The COTP has a great deal of

experience in this type of operation, and

he or she is the one who makes the

determination as to the number of

personnel necessary for the cleanup of

a spill.

Section 155.1130 Requirements for

Prepositioned Response Equipment

Two comments were received on this

section. One comment expressed the

opinion that the proposed Federal

requirement of a daily recovery capacity

of 110,000 barrels of oil within 36 hours

is below the limit of 200,000 barrel

capacity required by Alyeska and that

the Federal standards should be raised

to reflect Alyeska’s capacity

requirements. The other comment

received recommended that

requirements for positive displacement

pumps used for transfer of oil for

intermediate storage should be added to

paragraph (e) of this section.

The Coast Guard disagrees with these

comments. The Coast Guard is aware

that, in certain geographic areas, the

existing response capabilities have

increased over the past few years and

exceed the 1993 caps. However, the

Coast Guard has stated that it will not

consider increasing the caps until 1998,

and the proposed cap increases will be

evaluated at that time to determine if

they are still appropriate. These

evaluations will be conducted through

public notice and comment process

before the cap increases become

effective.

Section 155.1140 Tankers Contracting

With a Facility Permitted Under the

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization

Act

Two comments were received on this

section which argued that the Coast

Guard seems to be giving special

consideration to vessels contracting

with a Trans-Alaska Pipeline

Authorization Act (TAPAA) facility.

The other comment protested the

special consideration given to TAPAA

tankers which contract with a TAPAA

facility. The Coast Guard agrees that this

section gives the perception of special

consideration. Because the confusion

caused by this section outweighs the

benefits which might be derived from it,

the Coast Guard has removed this

section from the final rule.

Section 155.1145 Submission and

Approval Procedures

Four comments were received on this

section. Two comments concerned

vessel response plan review procedures.

One comment recommended that the

plan review process include a provision

to make plans available for public

review and that a mechanism for

interested parties to appeal Coast Guard

determinations on the adequacy of

response plans should be provided. The

comment also stated that the public has

a right to review response plans under

the Administrative Procedure Act. The

other comment stated that the plan

review procedure did not provide for

RCAC review, approval, and appeal as

set forth in OPA 90. As discussed

previously in this preamble, the RCACs

have a particular interest in the

adequacy of oil spill prevention and

response plans for tankers operating in

Prince William Sound or Cook Inlet.

The mode of review is to have vessel

owners and operators consult directly

with the RCACs, not via the Coast

Guard, and the RCACs provide any

comments they may have regarding a

specific plan directly to the applicable

vessel owner or operator. This method

of review provides an opportunity for

valuable interaction between the RCACs

and the vessel operators or owners.

One of the two other comments on

this section suggested that the Coast

Guard list facilities that have large

storage capacities which could be used

to hold recovered oil. This proposed list

would be more appropriate for

discussion in the area contingency plans
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1075

and is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking.

New Subpart F—Response Plan

Requirements for Vessels Carrying

Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils in Bulk

as Cargo

In the preamble to the IFR, the Coast

Guard stated that it had been unable to

verify that the evaporation and

emulsification factors in Appendix B of

the IFR were applicable to both

petroleum oils and non-petroleum oils.

As a result of that determination, nonpetroleum oils were distinguished from

petroleum oils in the regulations. In

response to the comments on the IFR on

this issue, the Coast Guard is further

distinguishing non-petroleum oils by

dividing them into three categories.

These categories are as follows: Subpart

F includes animal fats and vegetable

oils, and subpart G includes other nonpetroleum oils. Animal fats include

lard, tallow and other oils of animal

origin. Vegetable oils include oils from

seeds, nuts, kernels or fruits of plants

such as corn oil, safflower oil, jojoba oil,

coconut oil or palm oil. Other nonpetroleum oils include those oils which

are not animal fats or vegetable oils such

as essential oils, turpentine and tung oil.

This separation of animal fats and

vegetable oils from other non-petroleum

oils recognizes that while animal fats

and vegetable oils have harmful effects,

they are not toxic to the marine

environment as may be other nonpetroleum oils. These new subparts and

categories are intended to form the

foundation of possible future

rulemaking efforts in this area. The

Coast Guard is interested in information

that may be useful in determining the

types and quantities of response

equipment necessary to respond to a

discharge of animal fats and vegetable

oils and other non-petroleum oils. It

also is interested in information on new

or innovative response techniques that

will be appropriate for non-petroleum

oils. This information will be evaluated

in determining whether additional

rulemaking should be initiated.

In response to comments, the Coast

Guard has placed the majority of the

response plan requirements for vessels

carrying animal fats and vegetable oils

in bulk as cargo in a separate subpart.

This new subpart requires these vessels

to also meet the applicable requirements

set forth in subpart D of this part.

Subpart F was created to address

concerns that some of the criteria

proposed in subpart D of this part were

not applicable to animal fats and

vegetable oils. The Coast Guard received

numerous comments on this issue. The

comments proposed that animal fats and

vegetable oils should be more clearly

differentiated from petroleum-based

oils. The comments also suggested

allowing unique response procedures

for animal fats and vegetable oil spills,

and exempting from response plan

preparation any vessel carrying animal

fats or vegetable oils as a secondary

cargo.

In support of their proposals, the

comments provided an industrysponsored study entitled

‘‘Environmental Effects of Releases of

Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils to

Waterways’’ and an associated study.

The study claimed that the presence of

animal fats and vegetable oils in the

environment does not cause significant

harm. The study reached its conclusion

based upon its assertions that animal

fats and vegetable oils are not toxic to

the environment; are essential

components of human and wildlife

diets; are readily biodegradable; and are

not persistent in the environment like

petroleum oils. However, the industry

study also found that these oils can coat

aquatic biota and foul wildlife, causing

matting of fur or feathers which may

lead to hypothermia; and that animal

fats and vegetable oils in the

environment have a high Biological

Oxygen Demand (BOD) which could

result in oxygen deprivation where

there is a large spill in a confined body

of water that has a low flow and

dilution rate.

The comments acknowledged that the

International Maritime Organization

(IMO) Subcommittee on Bulk Chemicals

recently recognized the potentially

harmful effect on birds from contact

with floating animal fats and vegetable

oils discharged from vessels. The

comments also concluded, based upon

Coast Guard data, that the likelihood of

an animal fat or vegetable oil spill of a

magnitude to cause environmental harm

is extremely small. Additionally, the

comments noted the differences in the

average size of the vessels which carry

petroleum and non-petroleum oils.

In the preamble to the IFR, the Coast

Guard disagreed with comments on the

NPRM which claimed that edible oils

pose less relative risk to the

environment. The environmental effects

of discharges of animal fats and

vegetable oils are clearly documented

and, in some respects, are similar to the

environmental effects of discharges of

petroleum oils.

In letters to the Coast Guard, the

Department of the Interior (DOI), the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

discussed the environmental effects of

discharges of animal fats and vegetable

oils. DOI, NOAA and the FWS all

concluded that animal fats and

vegetable oils pose risks to the marine

environment when spilled in quantity.

The agencies attributed the

detrimental effects of animal fats and

vegetable oils to the similarity in

physical properties between petroleum

and non-petroleum oils. The effects

outlined by DOI and NOAA include

physical coating of bird feathers and

mammal fur leading to hypothermia, a

loss of buoyancy, and subsequent

mortality. All three agencies also

confirmed the industry report’s

conclusion that discharges of animal

fats and vegetable oils can result in

increased Biological Oxygen Demand

(BOD) in receiving waters, thereby

decreasing available oxygen in the

affected waterbody and often resulting

in fishkills. NOAA also stated that

coconut and palm oils are very viscous

and when spilled in most coastal waters

would exhibit qualities akin to vegetable

shortening which would probably

persist for over a decade.

The FWS letter specifically responded

to the industry-sponsored study. It

expressed great concern over the

veracity of many of the study’s

conclusions. The FWS characterized the

industry study as ‘‘misleading, weak

and erroneous’’ and stated that ‘‘key

facts have been misrepresented, are

incomplete or are omitted,’’ and that

‘‘[t]he biggest oversight of the [industry

study] is the insignificance given to the

fouling potential of the edible oils.’’

The FWS acknowledged that there are

differences between petroleum and

animal fats and vegetable oils including

different toxicity levels. It pointed out

that physical fouling is similar for both

petroleum and non-petroleum oils.

Additionally, it stated that the removal

of non-petroleum oils can be more

difficult and strenuous for the wildlife

because, in many instances, complete

removal can only be accomplished with

scalding hot water and excessive

washing. The FWS also stated that

wildlife rehabilitators consider edible

oils and fats to be some of the most

difficult substances to remove from

wildlife because the low viscosity of

many of these oils allows deeper

penetration into the plumage, or fur,

creating a more thoroughly

contaminated animal.

The FWS was extremely critical of the

industry study for suggesting that

ingestion of edible oils is harmless to

wildlife. The FWS stated that the study

misleads uniformed readers by not

clarifying that these oils, if consumed in

large quantities, will cause harm to

organisms through means other than

toxicity. For example, according to the

FWS, the ingestion of large quantities of

animal fats and vegetable oils can cause

lipid pneumonia, diarrhea, and
1076 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

dehydration in birds or other wildlife

which try to clean these oils from their

feathers or coats by preening. This

problem is magnified, also according to

the FWS, by the fact that these oils do

not have a repugnant smell or iridescent

appearance to frighten wildlife away,

therefore making it more likely that

wildlife will come in contact with them

during a spill.

In addition to the agency letters, the

Coast Guard has placed in the docket

several studies attesting to the harmful

effects of animal fats and vegetable oils

in the environment. One such study,

conducted by the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) is titled ‘‘Harmful

Effects on Birds of Floating Lipophilic

Substances Discharged from Ships.’’

This study examined the literature

concerning non-petroleum oils spilled

into the environment and concluded

that a number of lipophilic substances,

including vegetable oils, cause lethal

harm to birds as a specific group of

marine life. The study found that

lipophilic substances adhere to the

feathers of seabirds due to the lipophilic

character of the feathers’ wax layer. This

causes the grid structure of the plumage

to be disrupted, thereby destroying its

insulating properties.

The IMO study gives numerous

examples of lethal contamination of

seabirds by lipophilic substances spilled

from ships. These examples include the

death of thousands of seabirds because

of a discharge of palm oil off the

Netherlands coast; over 300 dead birds

as a result of a 1,000 liter spill of

rapeseed oil into the harbor of

Vancouver, Canada; diseased gannets

found along the Dutch coastline whose

plumage was coated with paraffin and

consequently was no longer water

repellent; and surveys of Dutch beaches

in 1990 which found that 25% of the

dead birds washed ashore were at least

partly contaminated with vegetable oils.

The IMO study also warns that a serious

discharge of lipophilic substances in the

open sea would cause more harm to

seabirds than a nearshore discharge

because the birds in the open sea would

be unable to rest on shore to clean their

plumage.

For these reasons, the Coast Guard has

determined that a discharge of animal

fats and vegetable oils from a vessel

could reasonably be expected to cause

harm to the environment. Therefore,

vessels that carry non-petroleum oils in

bulk as both primary and secondary

cargos are required to prepare and

submit response plans for Coast Guard

approval.

Because there is insufficient data to

support a finding that a spill of a large

quantity of animal fats and vegetable

oils will have less adverse impact on the

environment than a spill of other kinds

of oil, the Coast Guard does not believe

that a vessel carrying non-petroleum

oils in bulk as cargo should be allowed

reduced response requirements.

However, the Coast Guard does

acknowledge that non-petroleum oils

may behave differently from a

petroleum or petroleum-based oil.

Subpart F requires owners or

operators of vessels carrying animal fats

and vegetable oils in bulk as cargo to

identify the procedures and equipment

necessary to respond to a worst case

discharge of these oils to the maximum

extent practicable. The new subpart

does not include specific requirements

for identifying the amount of response

resources. Instead, it allows the owner

or operator of the vessel to propose the

amount of equipment needed to respond

to a worst case discharge of animal fats

and vegetable oils to the maximum

extent practicable. The Coast Guard will

then evaluate the information submitted

by the owner or operator of the vessel

to determine if the resources identified

are consistent with the volume of

animal fats and vegetable oils that may

be spilled as a result of the worst case

discharge.

As with petroleum oils, the owner or

operator must ensure the availability of

removal equipment through contract or

other approved means. At a minimum,

the owner or operator of the vessel must

obtain a letter from an oil spill removal

organization stating that it will respond

to a worst case discharge from the

vessel. It is not intended that this letter

imply a formal contractual agreement

between the parties but that the owner

or operator has identified specific

response resources and that those

resources will respond to a worst case

discharge from the vessel.

Subpart F also requires the owner or

operator of a vessel which carries

animal fats and vegetable oils in bulk as

cargo to contract for firefighting

resources should the vessel not have

access to sufficient local firefighting

resources. The Coast Guard believes that

these procedures meet both the intent

and spirit of OPA 90.

The Coast Guard has included in

subpart F, for animal fats and vegetable

oils, a paragraph on the use of

dispersants and other similar, new, or

unconventional spill mitigation

techniques including mechanical

dispersal. Response plans for vessels

located in environments with yearround preapproval for use of chemical

dispersants will be allowed to identify

such devices, substances, and

techniques and receive a credit of up to

25 percent of the plan’s required worst

case planning volume. In all cases the

identified response measures must

comply with the NCP and the applicable

ACP.

New Subpart G—Response Plan

Requirements for Vessels Carrying

Other Non-Petroleum Oils in Bulk as

Cargo

In response to comments the Coast

Guard has placed the majority of the

response plan requirements for vessels

carrying other non-petroleum oils in a

separate subpart G entitled ‘‘Response

plan requirements for vessels carrying

other non-petroleum oils in bulk as

cargo.’’ This new subpart requires such

vessels to also meet the applicable

requirements set forth in subpart D of

this part.

Subpart G was created to separate

other non-petroleum oils from animal

fats and vegetable oils to address

concerns that some of the criteria

proposed in subpart D of this part were

not applicable to these oils and that they

also differ from animal fats and

vegetable oils and petroleum oils. The

Coast Guard received numerous

comments on this issue. There is a

detailed discussion of these comments

in the preamble to Subpart F above.

Subpart G requires owners or

operators of vessels carrying other nonpetroleum oils in bulk as cargo to

identify the procedures and equipment

necessary to respond to a worst case

discharge of these oils to the maximum

extent practicable. The new subpart

does not include specific requirements

for identifying the amount of response

resources. Instead, it allows the owner

or operator of the vessel to propose the

amount of equipment needed to respond

to a worst case discharge of other nonpetroleum oils to the maximum extent

practicable. The Coast Guard will then

evaluate the information submitted by

the owner or operator of the vessel to

determine if the resources identified are

consistent with the volume of other

non-petroleum oils that may be spilled

as a result of the worst case discharge.

As with petroleum oils, the owner or

operator must ensure the availability of

removal equipment through contract or

other approved means. At a minimum,

the owner or operator of the vessel must

obtain a letter from an oil spill removal

organization stating that it will respond

to a worst case discharge from the

vessel. It is not intended that this letter

imply a formal contractual agreement

between the parties but that the owner

or operator has identified specific

response resources and that those

resources will respond to a worst case

discharge from the vessel.

Subpart G also requires the owner or

operator of a vessel which carries nonpetroleum oils in bulk as cargo to

contract for firefighting resources
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1077

should the vessel not have access to

sufficient local firefighting resources.

The Coast Guard believes that these

procedures meet both the intent and

spirit of OPA 90.

Appendix B to Part 155—Guidelines for

Determining and Evaluating Required

Response Resources for Vessel Response

Plans

Section 2. Two comments were

received on this section. One comment

stated that an on-water barge speed of 8

knots was more accurate for response

planning purposes than either the 10

knots used by the EPA and the Research

and Special Programs Administration

(RSPA) or the 5 knots proposed by the

Coast Guard. Both EPA and RSPA have

reevaluated their regulations and have

found 5 knots to be more appropriate.

Their respective rules have been

changed accordingly. If a vessel owner

or operator can show that his or her

equipment is capable of arriving onscene faster, the response plan could

reflect this capability. The other

comment stated that the owners or

operators should be responsible for

ensuring compatible connectors only for

booms of the same basic type or

function. This statement in the

regulations is only there to remind

vessel owners and operators to ensure

that the equipment on which they are

going to rely in the event of an oil spill

will be capable of carrying out the

function for which it is intended. If the

boom of varying types will never be

used together, the need for compatible

connectors is moot.

Section 3. Based on numerous

comments fielded, the Coast Guard

modified § 155.1050(d)(1) to allow

travel time at a speed of 5 knots for

equipment responding to an average

most probable discharge 12 or more

miles from the shoreline. Two

additional comments were received on

this section. Both comments

recommended that paragraph 3.1 should

include the exemption in

§ 155.1050(d)(3) of this part. This

exemption concerns average most

probable discharge planning criteria for

vessels conducting transfer operations at

a facility that is required to submit a

response plan. The Coast Guard

disagrees. The exemption is provided

for in § 155.1050(d)(3). The only reason

someone would be referring to this part

of the regulations is if he or she were

required to ascertain their planning

requirements.

One of the comments also

recommended that the Coast Guard

should use the effective daily recovery

rate for oil recovery devices—which is

defined by the formula in paragraph

6.2.1—in paragraph 3.1.2 and

throughout Appendix B. The Coast

Guard agrees. The regulatory text has

been revised by changing the phrase

‘‘effective recovery rate’’ to ‘‘effective

daily recovery rate.’’

Section 5. One comment was received

on this section. The comment stated that

the Coast Guard should specify the

amount of boom required for a worst

case discharge and also argued that, in

general, the requirements in this section

are too vague for the Coast Guard to use

while objectively evaluating response

plans. The Coast Guard disagrees. The

quantity of boom that is required for oil

containment and collection is not

explicitly stated, and is left to the owner

or operator to determine based on the

specific recovery equipment strategies

that will be employed.

The same comment also

recommended that only vessels which

draw a maximum of 6 feet of water

when fully loaded should be credited

with having shallow water response

capabilities. The Coast Guard concludes

that the response plan must demonstrate

that sufficient resources are available to

operate in shallow water. It may be

necessary to operate vessels at less than

their fully loaded draft. In that event, it

may be necessary for the response plan

to identify additional resources due to

vessels not being able to operate at their

fully loaded draft. However, ideally

only those vessels which can be utilized

in a full range of loading conditions in

waters of 6 feet or less depth should be

listed for use in close-to-shore response

activities (10% of those to be used in the

offshore areas and 20% of those to be

used in the nearshore, inland, Great

Lakes, and rivers and canals).

Section 8. Two comments were

received on this section. One comment

recommended that the Coast Guard

provide an example of dispersant

resources needed so that vessels could

receive credit for 25% of their Tier 2

and 3 on-water recovery capability. The

other comment supported credit for insitu burning and recommended that the

Coast Guard develop criteria for using

in-situ burning as a high-rate response

method. The Coast Guard disagrees.

Mechanical recovery is the preferred

method as it provides for the removal of

the oil from the environment. The

amount of dispersant needed will vary

depending on area of operation, type of

oil carried, and type of dispersant.

Because of these varying factors, the use

of dispersants and the amount needed to

receive credit will be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis. In addition,

identification of dispersant capability in

a response plan provides no assurance

that the dispersant’s use will be

authorized during a spill response.

Section 9. Several comments were

received on this section. One comment

opposed requiring additional response

equipment on the vessel, arguing that

crewmen would be too busy during an

accident to perform oil removal

operations. It may not be appropriate for

the crew to be involved with the

specific cleanup of a spill; however, as

stated in section 9, the owner or

operator of a vessel is responsible for

ensuring that sufficient numbers of

trained personnel are available to

sustain response operations to

completion.

One comment recommended that

vessel response plans require a

minimum amount of sorbent material

which could be applied against the 20%

equipment requirement for shallow

water areas. The Coast Guard disagrees

with this comment. Table 1 specifically

addresses response equipment, not

consumables such as sorbent material.

The Coast Guard does not dispute the

value of sorbent material. The

availability of this material and the ease

of getting it to the shallow water areas

make it unnecessary for the Coast Guard

to include it in the regulated planning

requirements. A well-developed

response plan will recognize the

potential benefits of this material and

provide for its procurement and use.

Five comments were received

regarding temporary storage for

recovered oil. One comment stated that

the Coast Guard should keep a list of

storage facilities of certain sizes and

prearrange for their use in emergencies

because foreign operators were

unfamiliar with local storage

availability. Formulating such a list

would be outside the scope of this

rulemaking, and it is the vessel owner’s

or operator’s responsibility to arrange

for the use of these facilities. However,

specific response resources are

identified in the Area Contingency Plan.

Two comments supported the

reduction in temporary storage capacity

when justified by an analysis of the

waste stream or the availability of

alternative storage areas. One of these

comments stated that this incentive

could lead to improved technologies.

One comment stated that the

requirement for temporary storage,

equivalent to twice the effective daily

recovery capacity required on-scene,

may be too low given the 20%

downgrading factor for skimming device

efficiencies. This comment noted that

the State of Washington requires a

storage volume of up to five times the

daily recovery capacity and

recommended further study or raising

the amount of storage until such time as

skimming efficiencies improve. One

comment stated that the owner or
1078 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

operator should be able to demonstrate

the capability to transfer oil to a storage

area at a rate which sustains the

recovery capacities of equipment

identified in the plan. The comment

recommended considering factors such

as pumping capacity and number of

discharge stations in making this

determination.

The Coast Guard provided, in the IFR,

for vessel owners or operators to

identify storage capacity for less than

the volume addressed in section 9.2 of

this appendix if the owner or operator

provides a waste stream analysis to

show the efficiencies of its identified

recovery devices. The ability to decant

water from the storage devices, the

availability of alternative storage, or

disposal locations in the area where the

vessel operates results in reducing the

volume of material requiring temporary

storage.

Two comments stated that the general

requirements in paragraph 9.1 were too

vague to allow vessel owners or

operators to adequately ensure that

sufficient additional equipment was

available to sustain response operations

to completion. One of these comments

recommended that the Coast Guard

include specific standards to determine

what additional resources are needed.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The owner

or operator of a vessel should be

sufficiently prepared to provide the

response resources necessary to

complete the cleanup for their particular

vessel.

One comment stated that the Coast

Guard needs to establish methods for

evaluating the adequacy of temporary

storage and should assume recovery

operations that continue for 10 hours

per day. The Coast Guard disagrees. The

storage capacity should be based on the

types and quantities of oil recovery

devices identified in the plan.

One comment suggested a separate

section to address disposal

requirements, which should identify

long and short term disposal sites and

include provisions for handling

wildlife. These additional requirements

would be beyond the scope of this

rulemaking.

Table 1. Two comments were

received on this table. One comment

stated that the Coast Guard should

apply rivers and canals criteria to the St.

Lawrence, Detroit, St. Clair and St. Mary

river areas of the Great Lakes because 4-

foot seas do not occur on these rivers.

Another comment stated that recovery

equipment on the Great Lakes should

not be required to operate in 4-foot

waves in shallow water areas because

recovery equipment cannot operate in

shallow water under these conditions.

The Coast Guard disagrees with these

comments. Table 1 is based on

information for equipment selection in

the 1991 World Catalog of Oil Spill

Response Products (Schulze, Robert,

ed., 1991). The American Society of

Testing and Material (ASTM) used this

resource as the starting point for its oil

recovery equipment standard. The Great

Lakes criteria are derived from

conditions unique to that area. The

equipment operating and design criteria

are consistent with specifications noted

in the World Catalog for oil recovery

operations in areas such as the Great

Lakes. As discussed previously, Table 1

has been modified to clarify that

equipment designed to operate in

shallow water does not necessarily have

to be able to operate in the significant

wave height planning criteria.

Table 2. Two comments were

received on this table. One comment

stated that national planning standards

are paramount to local standards and

that this issue should be addressed in

the final rule and in paragraph 2.m of

the Commandant’s Notice 16471. The

other comment stated the boom

requirements for vessels should also

apply to marine transportation-related

facilities because spills from both may

involve shoreline protection of a similar

magnitude.

The Coast Guard disagrees with these

comments. The national planning

standards are not necessarily paramount

to local standards. The response plans

should be consistent with the national

response requirements as well as the

local requirements. With regard to boom

requirements for marine transportationrelated facilities, because vessels

operate in a variety of environments

including offshore, the equipment

necessary to provide shoreline

protection as identified in Table 2 of

Appendix B is appropriate for vessels

but would not necessarily be

appropriate for facilities.

Table 3. All seven comments on this

table argued that the percentages and

wide variances in the additive values in

the table have no technical basis and

that the percentages for a specific

geographic area should not total more

than 100%. The values in Table 3 were

drawn from deliberations among the

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.

They are based on the general behavior

of oil that has been observed during

actual discharges. The variances in

values reflect the amount of oil most

likely to be available for recovery.

As noted in the preamble to the

NPRM, in the inland, nearshore, and

offshore portions of the table, the

percentages do not add up to 100%.

This reflects an adjustment in the onwater percentage to increase the

quantity of resources that are planned

for mobilization in the first 3 days of the

response. Because the oil may rapidly

impact the shoreline in these areas,

quick mobilization is essential. In

addition, the volume of oil that must be

recovered may increase due to the

effects of emulsification. The intended

purpose of having the percentages

exceed 100% was to increase the

quantity of on-water resources that are

planned for mobilization in the first 3

days of the response.

One of the comments stated that the

criteria in the table is inconsistent with

the approach proposed by ITOPF and

that to which was agreed by the

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee;

however, another comment stated that

these values were drawn from

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

deliberations. The Coast Guard has

made every effort to ensure that the

findings of the Negotiated Rulemaking

Committee are reflected in these

regulations.

Table 4. The Coast Guard received

seven comments on the emulsification

factors listed in this table. One comment

recommended that the owners or

operators should have the same option

of demonstrating that a lower factor is

appropriate as is now afforded for

testing recovery devices for 10-hour

periods. Because emulsification factors

vary considerably within an oil group

and are dependent on temperature,

weather conditions, and many other

factors, it is inappropriate to consider

them on a case-by-case basis. The

proposed Table 4 values were derived

from ITOPF data and reflected the

maximum amount of emulsification that

could occur over a prolonged period of

time in environmental conditions that

favored the emulsification process.

Six comments argued that

emulsification is already taken into

consideration through the 20% rating

factor applied to oil recovery devices in

section 6 of Appendix B. The Coast

Guard disagrees. The emulsification

factors listed in Table 4 are to account

for emulsification that occurs to the oil

prior to the oil being encountered by the

skimming equipment. The 20% rating

factor includes, among other things,

consideration of the efficiency of the

actual skimming device to remove oily

material from water. The two issues are

unrelated.

One of these comments suggested that

the factors were too high because

evaporation, distance from shore, and

future improvements in recovery rates

were not considered in establishing

such factors. As discussed in the IFR,

the Coast Guard recognizes that

emulsification depends on a variety of

factors. The proposed Table 4 values
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1079

were derived from ITOPF data and

reflected the maximum amount of

emulsification that could occur over a

prolonged period of time in

environmental conditions that favored

the emulsification process. There was

no other method suggested to account

for the variables.

Table 6. The Coast Guard received

three comments on response capability

caps in this table. One comment stated

that the scientific data is insufficient to

support the caps listed. This comment

suggested that further review by the

Coast Guard would provide more

realistic values for caps. One comment

objected to the proposed 25% increase

in caps in 1998 and welcomed further

Coast Guard review of this issue.

However, another comment stated that

both the 1993 and 1998 caps were too

low and recommended that they be

doubled.

The caps, as required at this time, are

based on the equipment available in the

different geographic areas. The

proposed increases for 1998 will be

reviewed prior to that date and, if

revisions are proposed, will be subject

to public comment. The Coast Guard is

interested in information which

concerns possible justifications for

proposed increases or which provides

substantial documentation to invalidate

the increases approximately 2 years

prior to the effective date.

Appendix C to Part 155—Training

Elements for Oil Spill Response Plans

This appendix was added to the final

rule to provide guidance to owners and

operators of vessels in the development

of the training portions of their response

plans. These guidelines were developed

in the same manner as the PREP

rulemaking project which is addressed

in the discussion in this section of the

preamble of the revisions to § 155.1060.

Assessment

This final rule is a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and has been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under that order. It

requires an assessment of potential costs

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

order. It is significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (44 FR

11040; February 26, 1979). A final

Assessment has been prepared and is

available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES. The Assessment is

summarized as follows.

1. General costs. This rulemaking will

cost the oil transportation industry and

the general public more than $100

million annually. It has generated

substantial public interest and

controversy. These regulations will also

impact cleanup contractors, oil spill

cooperatives, and other not-for-profit

cleanup organizations.

The final rule contains requirements

for vessel response plans, as well as

additional requirements for certain

vessels operating in Prince William

Sound, Alaska. The impact of these

requirements has been analyzed

separately and was discussed in the IFR.

In the IFR, the Coast Guard solicited

public comment on the draft Regulatory

Impact Analysis (RIA) for vessel

response plans and the draft Regulatory

Evaluation (RE) for Prince William

Sound. A summary of the public

comments received appears later in this

discussion. The draft RIA and RE have

been reviewed based on changes made

to the IFR. The effects of these changes

on costs were insignificant and did not

require alteration of either the RIA or

RE.

The final RIA and final RE are

available in the docket for inspection or

copying, as indicated under ADDRESSES.

They have also been placed in a

separate docket (CGD 91–047)

established to facilitate review of the

programmatic RIA for titles IV and V of

OPA 90.

2. Vessel response plan costs and

benefits. In the aggregate, the

requirement for vessel response plans

will result in substantial costs to the

industries affected. The present value of

the cost of this regulation for the period

1992 through 2015 is estimated at $2.8

billion. The benefit analysis indicates

that the rulemaking will prevent

220,000 discounted barrels of oil from

entering the water. The resulting cost

per benefit ratio is $12,513 per barrel,

net present value.

3. Additional response plan

requirements for certain vessels

operating in Prince William Sound,

Alaska: PWS costs and benefits. Over

the 10-year period of 1993 to 2002, the

present value of costs for compliance for

TAPS vessels will be $164 million. The

present value of quantified benefits for

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP) traffic

was estimated in total barrels of oil

recovered.

For the TAP traffic, quantified

benefits from the regulations expressed

in present value are estimated at 42,000

barrels of oil recovered over the 10-year

study period. This regulation is,

therefore, expected to cost $3,899 per

discounted barrel of oil recovered, net

present value.

There are additional benefits which

are not quantifiable. Effectiveness of

response operations is enhanced both by

the training of citizens and hatchery

employees so they may assist in

nearshore and onshore operations, and

by prepositioning containment and

cleanup equipment near where it would

be utilized. Also, area drills are

expected to improve the proficiency of

operations.

4. Public comments on the draft vessel

response plan RIA and Prince William

Sound RE. Two comments suggested

that submitting a letter noting changes

in lieu of revising the vessel response

plan would reduce the information

collection burden when chartering

barges. In chartering situations,

response plans do not need to be

reapproved if the barge owner originally

obtained approval for the response plan.

If the barge operator changes, only a

change to the approved response plan

need be submitted, not an entire

resubmittal of the response plan.

However, if the previous barge operator

obtained the approval for the response

plan, then it will be necessary to submit

a new response plan for approval.

Seven comments expressed the view

that placing responsibility for response

equipment maintenance, inspection,

and training records requirements on oil

spill response resource providers would

reduce administrative burdens. Vessel

owners and operators are not required to

keep such records; however, they need

to verify that oil spill response resource

providers are keeping such records.

However, owners and operators must be

able to make records available to the

Coast Guard upon request. This

requirement may be treated in a contract

between the owner or operator and the

provider.

Four comments expressed the view

that the regulatory impact analysis (RIA)

understated the costs of the rulemaking

or otherwise challenged the RIA’s

efficacy with respect to cost. One of

these comments questioned how overall

costs could shift from $1.3 billion as

reported in the preliminary RIA to $2.8

billion in the most recent version. The

difference in total cost is due to three

key factors. The first factor is the

reduction of the discount rate from 10

percent to 7 percent, reflecting a change

in OMB guidance between publication

of the notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) and publication of the interim

final rule (IFR). This change escalates

the estimated cost of the rulemaking by

nearly $540 million, 24 percent of the

present value of the rulemaking’s cost.

The second key factor consists of

changes in estimated costs, particularly

with respect to spill response capability

and the qualified individual. The RIA

for the IFR reflected substantial further

development in spill response

capability analysis, such as the

emergence of the National Response

Center (NRC), clarification of Marine
1080 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Spill Response Corporation (MSRC)

costs with proper allocation of costs

between vessels and facilities, and the

addition of Great Lakes capability.

Further development and analysis of

these areas revealed cost estimates that

together totaled 2.1 billion, an increase

of about $970 million compared with

estimates contained in the preliminary

RIA. The cost element for the qualified

individual was virtually unknown at the

time of the preliminary RIA’s

publication. By the time of the Interim

RIA’s publication, costs for qualified

individuals were firmly established and

could be estimated with reasonable

certainty. Addition of qualified

individual cost estimates raised the

estimated cost of the rulemaking by an

additional $133 million.

The third key factor consists of

changes in incremental percentages, the

proportion of expenditures directly

attributable to this rulemaking. These

changes were made in response to

comments concerning the preliminary

RIA. One-third of cooperative

expenditures are apportioned to the

rulemaking and nearly all plan

development costs are apportioned to

the ruleamking, compared with about

half in the preliminary RIA. Plan

development and maintenance costs,

drills and exercises, and Coast Guard

costs were very little changed between

the two report versions, other than the

elevating effect of a reduced discount

rate. Changes that were made reflect the

development of such more accurate

information in these areas during the

intervening months between

preliminary RIA and the version

accompany the IFR.

One comment expressed concerns

about impact analysis with respect to

the Great Lakes. The comment

contended that the RIA did not consider

meaningful input from Great Lakes

operators and further contends that, as

a result of this assertion, the RIA is of

questionable value. Great Lakes

response requirements were not

considered in the preliminary RIA.

In response to comments received on

the preliminary RIA and subsequently

to guidance issued in NVIC 8–92, Great

Lakes response capability requirements

and costs were analyzed and included.

Given the difficulty of knowing exactly

how many resources will be required to

meet the relaxed caps for the Great

Lakes, the cost estimates were

conservatively developed and totaled at

$54 million for the 23-year period of the

cost analysis.

The comment also expressed concern

that there were insufficient petroleum

transport businesses on the Great Lakes

to spread costs and survive. The cost of

preparing a vessel response plan is not

significantly affected by the number of

businesses requiring a plan in a

particular geographic region. A

comprehensive RIA for the Great Lakes

was suggested; however, the Coast

Guard does not consider a separate RIA

to be necessary.

Comments from two sources

suggested exemption of lightering

operations from coverage under vessel

response plans. Costs were cited, and

one comment expressed the view that

no environmental benefits offset the

costs. The Coast Guard disagrees with

this comment. The risk of spills during

transfer operations is considered

sufficient to warrant vessel response

plans. For further discussion regarding

lightering operations, see the reference

to § 155.1050 in the ‘‘Discussion of

Comments and Changes’’ section of this

final rule.

Small Entities

Several comments were received

addressing this regulation’s impact

upon small fishing vessels. However,

subsequent legislation has essentially

exempted vessels under 750 gross tons

from vessel response plan requirements

under this final rule. This regulation

might still have a significant impact

upon small operators of inland barges.

The Coast Guard has examined the

impact of this rule on small entities. Its

analysis indicates that the majority of

small businesses subject to this

regulation should be able to absorb the

estimated compliance costs without

experiencing significant adverse

economic effects. The Coast Guard

certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1990 that this rule will not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Copies of the

final Regulatory Impact Analysis are

available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

Collection of Information

This rule contains collection of

information requirements. The Coast

Guard has submitted the requirements

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under section 3504(h)

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB has

approved them. The Coast Guard is

currently requesting a revision of a

currently approved collection, OMB

control number 2115–0595. For subpart

D, the section numbers are §§ 155.1025,

155.1035, 155.1045, 155.1055, 155.1060,

155.1065, and 155.1070, and the

corresponding OMB approval number is

OMB Control Number 2115–0595. For

subpart E, the section numbers are

§§ 155.1125 and 155.1130, and the

corresponding OMB approval number is

OMB Control Number 2115–0594.

Subpart F and subpart G refer to subpart

D as it pertains to collection-ofinformation requirements. Accordingly,

additional OMB approval is not needed.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

final rule according to the principles

and criteria contained in Executive

Order 12612 (October 26, 1987), and has

determined that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Executive Order 12612 and the

FWPCA emphasize the Presidential and

Congressional intent to preserve State

authority to address matters of pollution

prevention and response. Executive

Order 12612 directs a Federal Executive

branch agency (which includes the

Coast Guard) to encourage States to

develop their own policies to achieve

program objectives. Consequently, a

Federalism Assessment would be

necessary only if the vessel response

plan rules unduly impinged on a State’s

authority to establish its own regulatory

structure, or imposed undue costs on a

State.

The FWPCA provides convincing

evidence of Congress’ intent that, within

3 miles of shore, the protection of the

marine environment should be a

collaborative Federal and State effort.

Chevron v. Governor, State of Alaska,

726 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1984), cert.

denied, 471 U.S. 1140 (1985). For

example, section 402 of the FWPCA (33

U.S.C. 1342) establishes the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,

a regulatory program for regulating the

discharge of pollutants into U.S.

navigable waters. Minimum Federal

standards apply to the discharge of

certain pollutants, but the States have

authority to establish and administer

their own permit systems and to set

standards stricter than the Federal ones

(33 U.S.C. 1342(b) and 1370). Further, in

the Declaration of Goals and Policy

contained in section 101 of the FWPCA

(33 U.S.C. 1251), Congress states that it

is the policy of the Congress to

recognize, preserve, and protect the

primary responsibilities and rights of

States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate

pollution of land and water resources.

United States courts have long

recognized the rights of States to make

both U.S.-flag and foreign-flag vessels

conform to ‘‘reasonable,

nondiscriminatory conservation and

environmental protection measures

* * * imposed by a State.’’ Ray v.

Atlantic Richfield, 435 U.S. 151, 164

(1973). Also, section 311(o)(3) of the

FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321(o)(3)) contains

express nonpreemption language.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1081

Therefore, a State standard setting more

stringent planning requirements for tank

vessel owners and operators in the

regulating State’s waters is encouraged

under the FWPCA and is valid as long

as the State requirement does not

preclude compliance with the Federal

requirements. Similarly, if a State chose

to establish performance requirements

for response to an oil spill, the Federal

vessel response plan rules would not

preclude that option. The Federal vessel

response plan rules preempt State rules

only to the extent that State rules may

make it impossible to comply with

Federal requirements. Florida Lime and

Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132

(1963).

Environment

The Coast Guard prepared a

preliminary Environmental Assessment

(EA) for requirements under 311(j) of

the FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)), and a

separate one for Prince William Sound

requirements under 5005 of OPA 90.

These documents were prepared in

accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations (40

CFR parts 1500–1508) and Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B implementing

the provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Prince William Sound EA was

revised entirely when section 352 of the

Department of Transportation

Appropriations Act, in effect, made

section 5005 of OPA 90 inapplicable to

non-TAPS-trade vessels. The original

language of section 5005 created special

response plan provisions applicable to

all tank vessels operating in Prince

William Sound, including non-TAPS

vessels. The EA prepared for section

311(j) requirements was amended when

section 5209(b) of the Coast Guard

Authorization Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–

587, Title V, 106 Stat. 5039, 5068)

declared offshore supply vessels and

certain fishing vessels not to be ‘‘tank

vessels’’ for purposes of implementing

the vessel response plan rule. We

received no comments on the EAs.

The Coast Guard has identified and

studied the relevant environmental

issues and alternatives, and based on its

assessment, does not expect this final

rule to result in a significant impact on

the quality of the human environment.

Therefore, Findings of No Significant

Impact (FONSIs) have been prepared.

The revised and amended EAs and the

FONSIs are available in the public

docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155

Hazardous substances, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the interim rule amending 33

CFR part 155, which was published at

58 FR 7424 on February 5, 1993, is

adopted as final with the following

changes:

PART 155—OIL OR HAZARDOUS

MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

1. The authority citation for part 155

is revised to read as follows:

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

U.S.C. 3715; sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46.

§§ 155.100–155.130, 155.350–155.400,

155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 155.1030 (j) and

(k), and 155.1065(g) also issued under 33

U.S.C. 1903(b); and §§ 155.1110–155.1150

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

2. Subpart D, consisting of

§§ 155.1010 through 155.1070, is

revised to read as follows:

Subpart D—Response Plans

Sec.

155.1010 Purpose.

155.1015 Applicability.

155.1020 Definitions.

155.1025 Operating restrictions and interim

operating authorization.

155.1026 Qualified individual and alternate

qualified individual.

155.1030 General response plan

requirements.

155.1035 Response plan requirements for

manned vessels carrying oil as a primary

cargo.

155.1040 Response plan requirements for

unmanned tank barges carrying oil as a

primary cargo.

155.1045 Response plan requirements for

vessels carrying oil as a secondary cargo.

155.1050 Response plan development and

evaluation criteria for vessels carrying

groups I through IV petroleum oil as a

primary cargo.

155.1052 Response plan development and

evaluation criteria for vessels carrying

group V petroleum oil as a primary

cargo.

155.1055 Training.

155.1060 Exercises.

155.1062 Inspection and maintenance of

response resources.

155.1065 Procedures for plan submission,

approval, requests for acceptance of

alternative planning criteria, and appeal.

155.1070 Procedures for plan review,

revision, amendment, and appeal.

Subpart D—Response Plans

§ 155.1010 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to

establish requirements for oil spill

response plans for certain vessels. The

planning criteria in this subpart are

intended for use in response plan

development and the identification of

resources necessary to respond to the oil

spill scenarios prescribed during the

planning process. The development of a

response plan prepares the vessel owner

or operator and the vessel’s crew to

respond to an oil spill. The specific

criteria for response resources and their

arrival times are not performance

standards. They are planning criteria

based on a set of assumptions that may

not exist during an actual oil spill

incident.

§ 155.1015 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, this subpart applies

to each vessel that is constructed or

adapted to carry, or that carries, oil in

bulk as cargo or cargo residue, and

that—

(1) Is a vessel of the United States;

(2) Operates on the navigable waters

of the United States; or

(3) Transfers oil in a port or place

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States.

(b) This subpart also applies to vessels

which engage in oil lightering

operations in the marine environment

beyond the baseline from which the

territorial sea is measured, when the

cargo lightered is destined for a port or

place subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States.

(c) This subpart does not apply to the

following types of vessels:

(1) Public vessels and vessels deemed

public vessels under 14 U.S.C. 827.

(2) Vessels that, although constructed

or adapted to carry oil in bulk as cargo

or cargo residue, are not storing or

carrying oil in bulk as cargo or cargo

residue.

(3) Dedicated response vessels when

conducting response operations.

(4) Vessels of opportunity when

conducting response operations in a

response area.

(5) Offshore supply vessels as defined

in 46 U.S.C. 2101.

(6) Fishing or fishing tender vessels as

defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101 of not more

than 750 gross tons when engaged only

in the fishing industry.

(7) Foreign flag vessels engaged in

innocent passage.

(d) Vessels covered by this subpart

that are not operating within the

navigable waters or the exclusive

economic zone of the United States

must meet all requirements of this

subpart except for—

(1) Identifying and ensuring, through

contract or other approved means, the

availability of response resources

including the shore-based spill

management team;

(2) Providing the geographic-specific

appendices required in § 155.1035,

155.1040, or 155.1045, as appropriate;

and

(3) Identifying and designating a

qualified individual and alternate
1082 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

qualified individual required in

§ 155.1026.

§ 155.1020 Definitions.

Except as otherwise defined in this

section, the definitions in § 155.110

apply to this subpart and subparts F and

G of this part. For the purposes of this

subpart only, the term:

Adverse weather means the weather

conditions that will be considered when

identifying response systems and

equipment in a response plan for the

applicable operating environment.

Factors to consider include, but are not

limited to, significant wave height, ice,

temperature, weather-related visibility,

and currents within the Captain of the

Port (COTP) zone in which the systems

or equipment are intended to function.

Animal fat means a non-petroleum

oil, fat, or grease derived from animals

and not specifically identified

elsewhere in this part.

Average most probable discharge

means a discharge of the lesser of 50

barrels of oil or 1 percent of the cargo

from the vessel during cargo oil transfer

operations to or from the vessel.

Bulk means any volume of oil carried

in an integral tank of the vessel and oil

transferred to or from a marine portable

tank or independent tank while on

board a vessel.

Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone

means a zone specified in 33 CFR part

3 and, for coastal ports, the seaward

extension of that zone to the outer

boundary of the exclusive economic

zone (EEZ).

Cargo means oil that is transported to

and off-loaded at a destination by a

vessel. It does not include—

(1) Oil carried in integral tanks,

marine portable tanks, or independent

tanks for use by machinery, helicopters,

and boats carried aboard the vessel, or

for use by helicopters that are directly

supporting the vessel’s primary

operations; or

(2) Oil transferred from a towing

vessel to a vessel in its tow to operate

installed machinery other than the

propulsion plant.

Contract or other approved means

includes—

(1) A written contractual agreement

between a vessel owner or operator and

an oil spill removal organization. The

agreement must identify and ensure the

availability of specified personnel and

equipment required under this subpart

within stipulated response times in the

specified geographic areas;

(2) Certification by the vessel owner

or operator that specified personnel and

equipment required under this subpart

are owned, operated, or under the direct

control of the vessel owner or operator,

and are available within stipulated

response times in the specified

geographic areas;

(3) Active membership in a local or

regional oil spill removal organization

that has identified specified personnel

and equipment required under this

subpart that are available to respond to

a discharge within stipulated response

times in the specified geographic areas;

(4) A document which—

(i) Identifies the personnel,

equipment, and services capable of

being provided by the oil spill removal

organization within stipulated response

times in the specified geographic areas;

(ii) Sets out the parties’

acknowledgment that the oil spill

removal organization intends to commit

the resources in the event of a response;

(iii) Permits the Coast Guard to verify

the availability of the identified

response resources through tests,

inspections, and exercises; and

(iv) Is referenced in the response plan;

or

(5) With the written consent of the oil

spill removal organization, the

identification of an oil spill removal

organization with specified equipment

and personnel which are available

within stipulated response times in the

specified geographic areas. This

paragraph is an other approved means

for only—

(i) A vessel carrying oil as secondary

cargo to meet the requirements under

§ 155.1045(i)(3);

(ii) A barge operating on rivers and

canals to meet the requirements for

lightering capability under

§§ 155.1050(l), 155.1052(g), 155.1230(g),

and 155.2230(g);

(iii) A vessel to meet the salvage and

firefighting requirements in

§§ 155.1050(k), 155.1052(f), 155.1230(f),

and 155.2230(f); and

(iv) A vessel to meet the resource

requirements in § 155.1052(c),

155.1230(c), and 155.2230(c).

Dedicated response vessel means a

vessel of which the service is limited

exclusively to oil and hazardous

substance spill response-related

activities, including spill recovery and

transport, tanker escorting, deployment

of spill response equipment, supplies,

and personnel, and spill responserelated training, testing, exercises, and

research.

Exclusive economic zone means the

zone contiguous to the territorial sea of

United States extending to a distance up

to 200 nautical miles from the baseline

from which the breadth of the territorial

sea is measured.

Great Lakes means Lakes Superior,

Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario,

their connecting and tributary waters,

the Saint Lawrence River as far as Saint

Regis, and adjacent port areas.

Higher volume port area means the

following areas, including any water

area within 50 nautical miles seaward of

the entrance(s) to the specified port:

(1) Boston, MA.

(2) New York, NY.

(3) Delaware Bay and River to

Philadelphia, PA.

(4) St. Croix, VI.

(5) Pascagoula, MS.

(6) Mississippi River from Southwest

Pass, LA to Baton Rouge, LA. Note:

Vessels destined for, departing from, or

offloading at the Louisiana Offshore Oil

Port are not considered to be operating

in this higher volume port area.

(7) Lake Charles, LA.

(8) Sabine-Neches River, TX.

(9) Galveston Bay and Houston Ship

Channel, TX.

(10) Corpus Christi, TX.

(11) Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor,

CA.

(12) San Francisco Bay, San Pablo

Bay, Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay to

Antioch, CA.

(13) Strait of Juan De Fuca at Port

Angeles, WA to and including Puget

Sound, WA.

(14) Prince William Sound, AK.

Inland area means the area shoreward

of the boundary lines defined in 46 CFR

part 7, except that in the Gulf of Mexico,

it means the area shoreward of the lines

of demarcation (COLREG lines) as

defined in §§ 80.740 through 80.850 of

this chapter. The inland area does not

include the Great Lakes.

Maximum extent practicable means

the planned capability to respond to a

worst case discharge in adverse weather,

as contained in a response plan that

meets the criteria in this subpart or in

a specific plan approved by the Coast

Guard.

Maximum most probable discharge

means a discharge of—

(1) 2,500 barrels of oil for vessels with

an oil cargo capacity equal to or greater

than 25,000 barrels; or

(2) 10% of the vessel’s oil cargo

capacity for vessels with a capacity of

less than 25,000 barrels.

Nearshore area means the area

extending seaward 12 miles from the

boundary lines defined in 46 CFR part

7, except in the Gulf of Mexico. In the

Gulf of Mexico, a nearshore area is one

extending seaward 12 miles from the

line of demarcation (COLREG lines) as

defined in §§ 80.740 through 80.850 of

this chapter.

Non-persistent or Group I oil means a

petroleum-based oil that, at the time of

shipment, consists of hydrocarbon

fractions—

(1) At least 50% of which by volume,

distill at a temperature of 340 degrees C

(645 degrees F); and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1083

(2) At least 95% of which by volume,

distill at a temperature of 370 degrees C

(700 degrees F).

Non-petroleum oil means oil of any

kind that is not petroleum-based. It

includes, but is not limited to, animal

fats and vegetable oils.

Ocean means the open ocean, offshore

area, and nearshore area as defined in

this subpart.

Offshore area means the area up to 38

nautical miles seaward of the outer

boundary of the nearshore area.

Oil field waste means non-pumpable

drilling fluids with possible trace

amounts of metal and oil.

Oil spill removal organization means

an entity that provides response

resources.

On-scene coordinator or OSC means

the Federal official predesignated by the

Coast Guard or Environmental

Protection Agency to coordinate and

direct Federal removal efforts at the

scene of an oil or hazardous substance

discharge as prescribed in the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (National

Contingency Plan) as published in 40

CFR part 300.

Open ocean means the area from 38

nautical miles seaward of the outer

boundary of the nearshore area, to the

seaward boundary of the exclusive

economic zone.

Operating in compliance with the

plan means operating in compliance

with the provisions of this subpart,

including ensuring the availability of

the response resources by contract or

other approved means and conducting

the necessary training and exercises.

Operator means person who is an

owner, a demise charterer, or other

contractor, who conducts the operation

of, or who is responsible for the

operation of a vessel. For the purposes

of this subpart only, the operator of a

towing vessel is not, per se, considered

the operator of a vessel being towed.

Other non-petroleum oil means an oil

of any kind that is not a petroleum oil,

an animal fat, or a vegetable oil.

Owner or vessel owner means any

person holding legal or equitable title to

a vessel; provided, however, that a

person holding legal or equitable title to

a vessel solely as security is not the

owner. In a case where a Certificate of

Documentation has been issued, the

owner is the person or persons whose

name or names appear on the vessel’s

Certificate of Documentation provided,

however, that where a Certificate of

Documentation has been issued in the

name of a president or secretary of an

incorporated company, such

incorporated company is the owner.

Persistent oil means a petroleumbased oil that does not meet the

distillation criteria for a non-persistent

oil. For the purposes of this subpart,

persistent oils are further classified

based on specific gravity as follows:

(1) Group II—specific gravity of less

than .85.

(2) Group III—specific gravity equal to

or greater than .85 and less than .95.

(3) Group IV—specific gravity equal to

or greater than .95 and less than or equal

to 1.0.

(4) Group V—specific gravity greater

than 1.0.

Petroleum oil means petroleum in any

form including crude oil, fuel oil,

mineral oil, sludge, oil refuse, and

refined products.

Qualified individual and alternate

qualified individual means a shorebased representative of a vessel owner

or operator who meets the requirements

of 33 CFR 155.1026.

Response activity means the

containment and removal of oil from the

water and shorelines, the temporary

storage and disposal of recovered oil, or

the taking of other actions as necessary

to minimize or mitigate damage to

public health or welfare or the

environment.

Response resources means the

personnel, equipment, supplies, and

other capability necessary to perform

the response activities identified in a

response plan.

Rivers and canals mean bodies of

water confined within the inland area,

including the Intracoastal Waterways

and other waterways artificially created

for navigation, that have a project depth

of 12 feet or less.

Secondary Cargo (see Vessels

Carrying Oil as a Secondary Cargo)

Specific gravity means the ratio of the

mass of a given volume of liquid at 15

degrees C (60 degrees F) to the mass of

an equal volume of pure water at the

same temperature.

Spill management team means the

personnel identified to staff the

organizational structure identified in a

response plan to manage response plan

implementation.

Substantial threat of such a discharge

means any incident involving a vessel

that may create a significant risk of

discharge of cargo oil. Such incidents

include, but are not limited to,

groundings, strandings, collisions, hull

damage, fire, explosion, loss of

propulsion, flooding, on-deck spills, or

other similar occurrences.

Tanker means a self-propelled tank

vessel constructed or adapted primarily

to carry oil or hazardous material in

bulk in the cargo spaces.

Tier means the combination of

required response resources and the

times within which the resources must

arrive on scene. Appendix B of this part,

especially Tables 5 and 6, provide

specific guidance on calculating the

response resources required by each

tier. Sections 155.1050(g), 155.1135,

155.1230(d), and 155.2230(d) set forth

the required times within which the

response resources must arrive on

scene. Tiers are applied in three

categories:

(1) Higher volume port areas;

(2) The Great Lakes; and

(3) All other operating environments,

including rivers and canals, inland,

nearshore, and offshore areas.

Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum

oil or fat not specifically identified

elsewhere in this part that is derived

from plant seeds, nuts, kernels or fruits.

Vessel of opportunity means a vessel

engaged in spill response activities that

is normally and substantially involved

in activities other than spill response

and not a vessel carrying oil as a

primary cargo.

Vessels carrying oil as a primary

cargo means all vessels except

dedicated response vessels carrying oil

in bulk as cargo or cargo residue that

have a Certificate of Inspection issued

under 46 CFR Chapter I, subchapter D.

Vessels carrying oil as a secondary

cargo means vessels, other than vessels

carrying oil as a primary cargo, carrying

oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue

pursuant to a permit issued under 46

CFR 30.01–5, 70.05–30, or 90.05–35, an

International Oil Pollution Prevention

(IOPP) or Noxious Liquid Substance

(NLS) certificate required by 33 CFR

§§ 151.33 or 151.35; or any uninspected

vessel that carries oil in bulk as cargo or

cargo residue.

Worst case discharge means a

discharge in adverse weather conditions

of a vessel’s entire oil cargo.

§ 155.1025 Operating restrictions and

interim operating authorization.

(a) Vessels subject to this subpart may

not perform the following functions,

unless operating in compliance with a

plan approved under § 155.1065:

(1) Handling, storing, or transporting

oil on the navigable waters of the United

States; or

(2) Transferring oil in any other port

or place subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

(b) Vessels subject to this subpart may

not transfer oil in a port or place subject

to the jurisdiction of the United States,

where the oil to be transferred was

received from another vessel subject to

this subpart during a lightering

operation referred to in § 155.1015(b),

unless both vessels engaged in the

lightering operation were operating at

the time in compliance with a plan

approved under § 155.1065.

(c)(1) Notwithstanding the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this
1084 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

section, a vessel may continue to

handle, store, transport, transfer, or

lighter oil for 2 years after the date of

submission of a response plan pending

approval of that plan, if the vessel

owner or operator has received written

authorization for continued operations

from the Coast Guard.

(2) To receive this authorization, the

vessel owner or operator must certify in

writing to the Coast Guard that the

owner or operator has identified and

ensured the availability of, through

contract or other approved means, the

necessary private response resources to

respond, to the maximum extent

practicable, to a worst case discharge or

substantial threat of such a discharge

from their vessel as described in

§§ 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, or

155.2230, as appropriate.

(d) With respect to paragraph (b) of

this section, a vessel may not continue

to handle, store, transport, transfer, or

lighter oil if—

(1) The Coast Guard determines that

the response resources identified in the

vessel’s certification statement do not

meet the requirements of this subpart;

(2) The contracts or agreements cited

in the vessel’s certification statement are

no longer valid;

(3) The vessel is not operating in

compliance with the submitted plan; or

(4) The period of this authorization

expires.

(e) An owner or operator of a vessel

may be authorized by the applicable

COTP to have that vessel make one

voyage to transport or handle oil in a

geographic specific area not covered by

the vessel’s response plan. All

requirements of this subpart must be

met for any subsequent voyages to that

geographic specific area. To be

authorized, the vessel owner or operator

shall certify to the COTP in writing,

prior to the vessel’s entry into the COTP

zone, that—

(1) A response plan meeting the

requirements of this subpart (except for

the applicable geographic specific

appendix) or a shipboard oil pollution

emergency plan approved by the flag

state that meets the requirements of

Regulation 26 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) which is available

from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161;

(2) The approved response plan or the

required plan section(s) is aboard the

vessel;

(3) The vessel owner or operator has

identified and informed the vessel

master and the COTP of the designated

qualified individual prior to the vessel’s

entry into the COTP zone; and

(4) The vessel owner or operator has

identified and ensured the availability

of, through contract or other approved

means, the private response resources

necessary to respond, to the maximum

extent practicable under the criteria in

§§ 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, or

155.2230, as appropriate, to a worst case

discharge or substantial threat of

discharge from the vessel in the

applicable COTP zone.

§ 155.1026 Qualified individual and

alternate qualified individual.

(a) The response plan must identify a

qualified individual and at least one

alternate who meet the requirements of

this section. The qualified individual or

alternate qualified individual must be

available on a 24-hour basis.

(b) The qualified individual and

alternate must—

(1) Speak fluent English;

(2) Except as set out in paragraph (c)

of this section, be located in the United

States;

(3) Be familiar with the

implementation of the vessel response

plan; and

(4) Be trained in the responsibilities of

the qualified individual under the

response plan.

(c) For Canadian flag vessels while

operating on the Great Lakes or the

Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound,

WA, the qualified individual may be

located in Canada if he or she meets all

other requirements in paragraph (b) of

this section.

(d) The owner operator shall provide

each qualified individual and alternate

qualified individual identified in the

plan with a document designating them

as a qualified individual and specifying

their full authority to—

(1) Activate and engage in contracting

with oil spill removal organization(s)

and other response related resources

identified in the plan;

(2) Act as a liaison with the

predesignated Federal On-Scene

Coordinator (OCS); and

(3) Obligate funds required to carry

out response activities.

(e) The owner or operator of a vessel

may designate an organization to fulfill

the role of the qualified individual and

alternate qualified individual. The

organization must then identify a

qualified individual and at least one

alternate qualified individual who meet

the requirements of this section. The

vessel owner or operator is required to

list in the response plan the

organization, the person identified as

the qualified individual, and the person

or persons identified as the alternate

qualified individual(s).

(f) The qualified individual is not

responsible for—

(1) The adequacy of response plans

prepared by the owner or operator; or

(2) Contracting or obligating funds for

response resources beyond the full

authority contained in their designation

from the owner or operator of the vessel.

(g) The liability of a qualified

individual is considered to be in

accordance with the provisions of 33

U.S.C. 1321(c)(4).

§ 155.1030 General response plan

requirements.

(a) The plan must cover all geographic

areas of the United States in which the

vessel intends to handle, store, or

transport oil, including port areas and

offshore transit areas.

(b) The plan must be written in

English and, if applicable, in a language

that is understood by the crew members

with responsibilities under the plan.

(c) A vessel response plan must be

divided into the following sections:

(1) General information and

introduction.

(2) Notification procedures.

(3) Shipboard spill mitigation

procedures.

(4) Shore-based response activities.

(5) List of contacts.

(6) Training procedures.

(7) Exercise procedures.

(8) Plan review and update

procedures.

(9) On board notification checklist

and emergency procedures (unmanned

tank barges only).

(10) Geographic-specific appendix for

each COTP zone in which the vessel or

vessels operate.

(11) An appendix for vessel-specific

information for the vessel or vessels

covered by the plan.

(d) A vessel owner or operator with

multiple vessels may submit one plan

for each class of vessel (i.e., manned

vessels carrying oil as primary cargo,

unmanned vessels carrying oil as

primary cargo, and vessels carrying oil

as secondary cargo) with a separate

vessel-specific appendix for each vessel

covered by the plan and a separate

geographic-specific appendix for each

COTP zone in which the vessel(s) will

operate.

(e) The required contents for each

section of the plan are contained in

§§ 155.1035, 155.1040, and 155.1045, as

applicable to the type or service of the

vessel.

(f) The response plan for a barge

carrying nonhazardous oil field waste

may follow the same format as that for

a vessel carrying oil as a secondary

cargo under § 155.1045 in lieu of the

plan required under § 155.1035 or

§ 155.1040.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1085

(g) A response plan must be divided

into the sections described in paragraph

(c) of this section unless the plan is

supplemented with a cross-reference

table to identify the location of the

information required by this subpart.

(h) The information contained in a

response plan must be consistent with

the—

(1) National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP) (40 CFR part 300) and the Area

Contingency Plan(s) (ACP) in effect on

the date 6 months prior to the

submission date of the response plan; or

(2) More recent NCP and ACP(s).

(i) Copies of the submitted and

approved response plan must be

available as follows:

(1) The owner or operator of all

vessels, except for unmanned tank

barges, shall ensure that one English

language copy of the plan sections listed

in paragraph (c) (1), (2), (3), (5), (10) and

(11) of this section and the Coast Guard

approval letter or notarized copy of the

approval letter are maintained aboard

the vessel. If applicable, additional

copies of the required plan sections

must be in the language understood by

crew members with responsibilities

under the plan and maintained aboard

the vessel.

(2) The owner or operator of all

unmanned tank barges shall ensure that

one English language copy of the plan

section listed in paragraph (c)(9) of this

section and the Coast Guard approval

letter or notarized copy of the approval

letter are maintained aboard the barge.

(3) The vessel owner or operator shall

maintain a current copy of the entire

plan, and ensure that each person

identified as a qualified individual and

alternate qualified individual in the

plan has a current copy of the entire

plan.

(j) If an owner or operator of a United

States flag vessel informs the Coast

Guard in writing at the time of the plan

submission according to the procedures

of § 155.1065, the owner or operator

may address the provisions of

Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78 if the

owner or operator—

(1) Develops a vessel response plan

under § 155.1030 and §§ 155.1035,

155.1040, or 155.1045, as applicable;

(2) Expands the plan to cover

discharges of all oils defined under

MARPOL, including fuel oil (bunker)

carried on board. The owner or operator

is not required to include these

additional oils in calculating the

planning volumes that are used to

determine the quantity of response

resources that the owner or operator

must ensure through contract or other

approved means;

(3) Provides the information on

authorities or persons to be contacted in

the event of an oil pollution incident as

required by Regulation 26 of MARPOL

73/78. This information must include—

(i) An appendix containing coastal

State contacts for those coastal States

the exclusive economic zone of which

the vessel regularly transits. The

appendix should list those agencies or

officials of administrations responsible

for receiving and processing pollution

incident reports; and

(ii) An appendix of port contacts for

those ports at which the vessel regularly

calls; and

(4) Expands the plan to include the

procedures and point of contact on the

ship for coordinating shipboard

activities with national and local

authorities in combating an oil spill

incident. The plan should address the

need to contact the coastal State to

advise them of action(s) being

implemented and determine what

authorization(s), if any, are needed.

(5) Provides a cross reference section

to identify the location of the

information required by § 155.1030(j).

(k) A vessel carrying oil as a

secondary cargo may comply with the

requirements of § 155.1045 by having a

response plan approved under

Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78 with

the addition of the following—

(1) Identification of the qualified

individual and alternate that meets the

requirements of § 155.1026;

(2) A geographic specific appendix

meeting the requirements of

§ 155.1045(i), including the

identification of a contracted oil spill

removal organization;

(3) Identification of a spill

management team;

(4) An appendix containing the

training procedures required by

155.1045(f); and

(5) An appendix containing the

exercise procedures required by

155.1045(g).

(l) For plans submitted prior to the

effective date of this final rule, the

owner or operator of each vessel may

elect to comply with any or all of the

provisions of this final rule by

amending or revising the appropriate

section of the previously submitted

plan.

§ 155.1035 Response plan requirements

for manned vessels carrying oil as a

primary cargo.

(a) General information and

introduction. This section of the

response plan must include—

(1) The vessel’s name, country of

registry, call sign, official number, and

International Maritime Organization

(IMO) international number (if

applicable). If the plan covers multiple

vessels, this information must be

provided for each vessel;

(2) The name, address, and

procedures for contacting the vessel’s

owner or operator on a 24-hour basis;

(3) A list of the COTP zones in which

the vessel intends to handle, store, or

transport oil;

(4) A table of contents or index of

sufficient detail to permit personnel

with responsibilities under the response

plan to locate the specific sections of the

plan; and

(5) A record of change(s) page to

record information on plan reviews,

updates or revisions.

(b) Notification procedures. This

section of the response plan must

include the following notification

information:

(1) A checklist with all notifications,

including telephone or other contact

numbers, in order of priority to be made

by shipboard or shore-based personnel

and the information required for those

notifications. Notifications must include

those required by—

(i) MARPOL 73/78 and 33 CFR part

153; and

(ii) Any applicable State.

(2) Identification of the person(s) to be

notified of a discharge or substantial

threat of a discharge of oil. If the

notifications vary due to vessel location,

the persons to be notified also must be

identified in a geographic-specific

appendix. This section must separately

identify—

(i) The individual(s) or organization(s)

to be notified by shipboard personnel;

and

(ii) The individual(s) or

organization(s) to be notified by shorebased personnel.

(3) The procedures for notifying the

qualified individual(s) designated by the

vessel’s owner or operator.

(4) Descriptions of the primary and, if

available, secondary communications

methods by which the notifications will

be made that should be consistent with

the regulations in § 155.1035(b)(1).

(5) The information that is to be

provided in the initial and any follow

up notifications required by paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

(i) The initial notification may be

submitted in accordance with IMO

Resolution A648(16) ‘‘General

Principles for Ship Reporting Systems

and Ship Reporting Requirements’’

which is available through COMDT G–

MOS–4, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

2100 Second Street SW., Washington,

DC 20593–0001. It must include at least

the following information:

(A) Vessel name, country of registry,

call sign, and official number (if any);

(B) Date and time of the incident;
1086 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(C) Location of the incident;

(D) Course, speed, and intended track

of vessel;

(E) Radio station(s) and frequencies

guarded;

(F) Date and time of next report;

(G) Type and quantity of oil on board;

(H) Nature and detail of defects,

deficiencies, and damage (e.g.

grounding, collision, hull failure, etc.);

(I) Details of pollution, including

estimate of oil discharged or threat of

discharge;

(J) Weather and sea conditions on

scene;

(K) Ship size and type;

(L) Actions taken or planned by

persons on scene;

(M) Current conditions of the vessel;

and

(N) Number of crew and details of

injuries, if any.

(ii) After the transmission of the

initial notification, as much as possible

of the information essential for the

protection of the marine environment as

is appropriate to the incident must be

reported to the appropriate on-scene

coordinator in a follow-up report. This

information must include—

(A) Additional details on the type of

cargo on board;

(B) Additional details on the

condition of the vessel and ability to

transfer cargo, ballast, and fuel;

(C) Additional details on the quantity,

extent and movement of the pollution

and whether the discharge is

continuing;

(D) Any changes in the on-scene

weather or sea conditions; and

(E) Actions being taken with regard to

the discharge and the movement of the

ship.

(6) Identification of the person(s) to be

notified of a vessel casualty potentially

affecting the seaworthiness of a vessel

and the information to be provided by

the vessel’s crew to shore-based

personnel to facilitate the assessment of

damage stability and stress.

(c) Shipboard spill mitigation

procedures. This section of the response

plan must include—

(1) Procedures for the crew to mitigate

or prevent any discharge or a substantial

threat of such discharge of oil resulting

from shipboard operational activities

associated with internal or external

cargo transfers. Responsibilities of

vessel personnel should be identified by

job title. These procedures must address

personnel actions in the event of a—

(i) Transfer system leak;

(ii) Tank overflow; or

(iii) Suspected cargo tank or hull leak;

(2) Procedures in the order of priority

for the crew to mitigate or prevent any

discharge or a substantial threat of such

a discharge in the event of the following

casualties or emergencies:

(i) Grounding or stranding.

(ii) Collision.

(iii) Explosion or fire, or both.

(iv) Hull failure.

(v) Excessive list.

(vi) Equipment failure (e.g. main

propulsion, steering gear, etc.);

(3) Procedures for the crew to deploy

discharge removal equipment as

required under subpart B of this part;

(4) The procedures for internal

transfers of cargo in an emergency;

(5) The procedures for ship-to-ship

transfers of cargo in an emergency:

(i) The format and content of the shipto-ship transfer procedures must be

consistent with the Ship to Ship

Transfer Guide (Petroleum) published

jointly by the International Chamber of

Shipping and the Oil Companies

International marine Forum (OCIMF).

(ii) The procedures must identify the

response resources necessary to carry

out the transfers, including—

(A) Fendering equipment (ship-toship only);

(B) Transfer hoses and connection

equipment;

(C) Portable pumps and ancillary

equipment;

(D) Lightering and mooring masters

(ship-to-ship only); and

(E) Vessel and barge brokers (ship-toship only).

(iii) Reference can be made to a

separate oil transfer procedure and

lightering plan carried aboard the

vessel, provided that safety

considerations are summarized in the

response plan.

(iv) The location of all equipment and

fittings, if any, carried aboard the vessel

to perform such transfers must be

identified;

(6) The procedures and arrangements

for emergency towing, including the

rigging and operation of any emergency

towing equipment, including that

required by subpart B of this part,

aboard the vessel;

(7) The location, crew responsibilities,

and procedures for use of shipboard

equipment which may be carried to

mitigate an oil discharge;

(8) The crew responsibilities, if any,

for recordkeeping and sampling of

spilled oil. Any requirements for

sampling must address safety

procedures to be followed by the crew;

(9) The crew’s responsibilities, if any,

to initiate a response and supervise

shore-based response resources;

(10) Damage stability and hull stress

considerations when performing

shipboard mitigation measures. This

section must identify and describe—

(i) Activities in which the crew is

trained and qualified to execute absent

shore-based support or advice; and

(ii) The information to be collected by

the vessel’s crew to facilitate shorebased assistance; and

(11)(i) Location of vessel plans

necessary to perform salvage, stability,

and hull stress assessments. A copy of

these plans must be maintained ashore

by either the vessel owner or operator or

the vessel’s recognized classification

society unless the vessel has

prearranged for a shore-based damage

stability and residual strength

calculation program with the vessel’s

baseline strength and stability

characteristics pre-entered. The

response plan must indicate the shore

location and 24-hour access procedures

of the calculation program or the

following plans:

(A) General arrangement plan.

(B) Midship section plan.

(C) Lines plan or table of offsets.

(D) Tank tables.

(E) Load line assignment.

(F) Light ship characteristics.

(ii) The plan must identify the shore

location and 24-hour access procedures

for the computerized, shore-based

damage stability and residual structural

strength calculation programs required

by § 155.240.

(d) Shore-based response activities.

This section of the response plan must

include the following information:

(1) The qualified individual’s

responsibilities and authority, including

immediate communication with the

Federal on-scene coordinator and

notification of the oil spill removal

organization(s) identified in the plan.

(2) If applicable, procedures for

transferring responsibility for direction

of response activities from vessel

personnel to the shore-based spill

management team.

(3) The procedures for coordinating

the actions of the vessel owner or

operator or qualified individual with the

predesignated Federal on-scene

coordinator responsible for overseeing

or directing those actions.

(4) The organizational structure that

will be used to manage the response

actions. This structure must include the

following functional areas and must

further include information for key

components within each functional

area:

(i) Command and control;

(ii) Public information;

(iii) Safety;

(iv) Liaison with government

agencies;

(v) Spill response operations;

(vi) Planning;

(vii) Logistics support; and

(viii) Finance.

(5) The responsibilities of, duties of,

and functional job descriptions for each

oil spill management team position
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1087

within the organizational structure

identified in paragraph (d)(4) of this

section.

(e) List of contacts. The name,

location, and 24-hour contact

information for the following key

individuals and organizations must be

included in this section of the response

plan or, if more appropriate, in a

geographic-specific appendix and

referenced in this section of the

response plan:

(1) Vessel owner or operator.

(2) Qualified individual and alternate

qualified individual for the vessel’s area

of operation.

(3) Applicable insurance

representatives or surveyors for the

vessel’s area of operation.

(4) The vessel’s local agent(s) for the

vessel’s area of operation.

(5) Person(s) within the oil spill

removal organization to notify for

activation of that oil spill removal

organization for the three spill scenarios

identified in paragraph (i)(5) of this

section for the vessel’s area of operation.

(6) Person(s) within the identified

response organization to notify for

activating that organization to provide:

(i) The required emergency lightering

required by § 155.1050(l), § 155.1052(g),

§ 155.1230(g), or § 155.2230(g), as

applicable to the type of service of the

vessel; and

(ii) The required salvage and

firefighting required by § 155.1050(k),

§ 155.1052(e), § 155.1230(e), and

§ 155.2230(e), as applicable to the type

of service of the vessel.

(7) Person(s) to notify for activation of

the spill management team for the spill

response scenarios identified in

paragraph (i)(5) of this section for the

vessel’s area of operation.

(f) Training procedures. This section

of the response plan must address the

training procedures and programs of the

vessel owner or operator to meet the

requirements in § 155.1055.

(g) Exercise procedures. This section

of the response plan must address the

exercise program to be carried out by

the vessel owner or operator to meet the

requirements in § 155.1060.

(h) Plan review, update, revision,

amendment, and appeal procedure.

This section of the response plan must

address—

(1) The procedures to be followed by

the vessel owner or operator to meet the

requirements of § 155.1070; and

(2) The procedures to be followed for

any post-discharge review of the plan to

evaluate and validate its effectiveness.

(i) Geographic-specific appendices for

each COTP zone in which a vessel

operates. A geographic-specific

appendix must be included for each

COTP zone identified. The appendices

must include the following information

or identify the location of such

information within the plan:

(1) A list of the geographic areas (port

areas, rivers and canals, Great Lakes,

inland, nearshore, offshore, and open

ocean areas) in which the vessel intends

to handle, store, or transport oil within

the applicable COTP zone.

(2) The volume and group of oil on

which the required level of response

resources are calculated.

(3) Required Federal or State

notifications applicable to the

geographic areas in which a vessel

operates.

(4) Identification of the qualified

individuals.

(5) Identification of the oil spill

removal organization(s) that are

identified and ensured available,

through contract or other approved

means, and the spill management team

to respond to the following spill

scenarios:

(i) Average most probable discharge.

(ii) Maximum most probable

discharge.

(iii) Worst case discharge.

(6) The organization(s) identified to

meet the requirements of paragraph

(i)(5) of this section must be capable of

providing the equipment and supplies

necessary to meet the requirements of

§§ 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, and

155.2230, as appropriate, and sources of

trained personnel to continue operation

of the equipment and staff the oil spill

removal organization(s) and spill

management team identified for the first

7 days of the response.

(7) The appendix must list the

response resources and related

information required under §§ 155.1050,

155.1052, 155.1230, 155.2230, and

Appendix B of this part, as appropriate.

(8) If an oil spill removal

organization(s) has been evaluated by

the Coast Guard and their capability has

been determined to equal or exceed the

response capability needed by the

vessel, the appendix may identify only

the organization and their applicable

classification and not the information

required in paragraph (i)(7) of this

section.

(9) The appendix must also separately

list the companies identified to provide

the salvage, vessel firefighting,

lightering, and if applicable, dispersant

capabilities required in this subpart.

(j) Appendices for vessel-specific

information. This section must include

for each vessel covered by the plan the

following information:

(1) List of the vessel’s principal

characteristics.

(2) Capacities of all cargo, fuel, lube

oil, ballast, and fresh water tanks.

(3) The total volume and cargo groups

of oil cargo that would be involved in

the—

(i) Maximum most probable

discharge; and

(ii) Worst case discharge.

(4) Diagrams showing location of all

tanks.

(5) General arrangement plan (can be

maintained separately aboard the vessel

providing the response plan identifies

the location).

(6) Midships section plan (can be

maintained separately aboard the vessel

providing the response plan identifies

the location).

(7) Cargo and fuel piping diagrams

and pumping plan, as applicable (can be

maintained separately aboard the vessel

providing the response plan identifies

the location).

(8) Damage stability data (can be

maintained separately providing the

response plan identifies the location).

(9) Location of cargo and fuel stowage

plan for vessel (normally maintained

separately aboard the vessel).

(10) Location of information on the

name, description, physical and

chemical characteristics, health and

safety hazards, and spill and firefighting

procedures for the oil cargo aboard the

vessel. A material safety data sheet

meeting the requirements of 29 CFR

1910.1200, cargo information required

by 33 CFR 154.310, or equivalent will

meet this requirement. This information

can be maintained separately.

§ 155.1040 Response plan requirements

for unmanned tank barges carrying oil as a

primary cargo.

(a) General information and

introduction. This section of the

response plan must include—

(1) A list of tank barges covered by the

plan, which must include the country of

registry, call sign, IMO international

numbers (if applicable), and official

numbers of the listed tank barges;

(2) The name, address, and

procedures for contacting the barge’s

owner or operator on a 24-hour basis;

(3) A list of the COTP zones in which

the tank barges covered by the plan

intend to handle, store, or transport oil;

(4) A table of contents or index of

sufficient detail to permit personnel

with responsibilities under the response

plan to locate the specific sections of the

plan; and

(5) A record of change(s) page used to

record information on plan reviews,

updates or revisions.

(b) Notification procedures. This

section of the response plan must

include the following notification

information:

(1) A checklist with all notifications.

The checklist must include notifications
1088 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

required by MARPOL 73/78, 33 CFR

part 153, and any applicable State,

including telephone or other contact

numbers, in the order of priority and the

information required for those

notifications to be made by the—

(i) Towing vessel;

(ii) Vessel owner or operator; or

(iii) Qualified individual.

(2) Identification of the person(s) to be

notified of a discharge or substantial

threat of a discharge of oil. If the

notifications vary due to the location of

the barge, the persons to be notified also

must be identified in a geographicspecific appendix. This section must

separately identify—

(i) The individual(s) or organization(s)

to be notified by the towing vessel; and

(ii) The individual(s) or

organization(s) to be notified by shorebased personnel.

(3) The procedures for notifying the

qualified individuals designated by the

barge’s owner or operator.

(4) Identification of the primary and,

if available, secondary communications

methods by which the notifications will

be made, consistent with the

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this

section.

(5) The information that is to be

provided in the initial and any followup notifications required by paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

(i) The initial notification information

must include at least the following

information:

(A) Towing vessel name (if

applicable);

(B) Tank barge name, country of

registry, and official number;

(C) Date and time of the incident;

(D) Location of the incident;

(E) Course, speed, and intended track

of towing vessel (if applicable);

(F) Radio station(s) frequencies

guarded by towing vessel (if applicable);

(G) Date and time of next report;

(H) Type and quantity of oil on board;

(I) Nature and details of defects,

deficiencies, and damage (e.g.,

grounding, collision, hull failure, etc.);

(J) Details of pollution, including

estimate of oil discharged or threat of

discharge;

(K) Weather and sea conditions on

scene;

(L) Barge size and type;

(M) Actions taken or planned by

persons on scene;

(N) Current condition of the barge;

and

(O) Details of injuries, if any.

(ii) After the transmission of the

initial notification, as much as possible

of the information essential for the

protection of the marine environment as

is appropriate to the incident must be

reported to the appropriate on-scene

coordinator in a follow-up report. This

information must include—

(A) Additional detail on the type of

cargo on board;

(B) Additional details on the

condition of the barge and ability to

transfer cargo, ballast, and fuel;

(C) Additional details on the quantity,

extent and movement of the pollution

and whether the discharge is

continuing;

(D) Any changes in the on-scene

weather or sea conditions; and

(E) Actions being taken with regard to

the discharge and the movement of the

vessel.

(6) Identification of the person(s) to be

notified of a vessel casualty potentially

affecting the seaworthiness of a vessel

and the information to be provided by

the towing vessel personnel or

tankermen, as applicable, to shore-based

personnel to facilitate the assessment of

damage stability and stress.

(c) Shipboard spill mitigation

procedures. This section of the response

plan must include—

(1) Procedures to be followed by the

tankerman, as defined in 46 CFR 35.35–

1, to mitigate or prevent any discharge

or a substantial threat of such a

discharge of oil resulting from

operational activities and casualties.

These procedures must address

personnel actions in the event of a—

(i) Transfer system leak;

(ii) Tank overflow; or

(iii) Suspected cargo tank or hull leak;

(2) Procedures in the order of priority

for the towing vessel or barge owner or

operator to mitigate or prevent any

discharge or a substantial threat of such

a discharge of oil in the event of the

following casualties or emergencies:

(i) Grounding or stranding;

(ii) Collision;

(iii) Explosion or fire, or both;

(iv) Hull failure;

(v) Excessive list; and

(3) Procedures for tankermen or

towing vessel crew to employ discharge

removal equipment required by subpart

B of this part;

(4) The procedures for the internal

transfer of cargo in an emergency;

(5) The procedures for ship-to-ship

transfers of cargo in an emergency:

(i) The procedures must identify the

response resources necessary to carry

out the transfers, including—

(A) Fendering equipment (ship-toship only);

(B) Transfer hoses and connection

equipment;

(C) Portable pumps and ancillary

equipment; and

(D) Lightering vessels (ship-to-ship

only).

(ii) Reference can be made to separate

oil transfer procedures or a lightering

plan provided that safety considerations

are summarized in the response plan.

(iii) The location of all equipment and

fittings, if any, to perform such transfers

must be identified;

(6) The procedures and arrangements

for emergency towing, including the

rigging and operation of any emergency

towing equipment, including that

required by subpart B of this part aboard

the barge;

(7) The location and procedures for

use of equipment stowed aboard either

the barge or towing vessel to mitigate an

oil discharge;

(8) The responsibilities of the towing

vessel crew and facility or fleeting area

personnel, if any, to initiate a response

and supervise shore-based response

resources;

(9) Damage stability, if applicable, and

hull stress considerations when

performing on board mitigation

measures. This section must identify

and describe—

(i) Activities in which the towing

vessel crew or tankerman is trained and

qualified to execute absent shore-based

support or advice;

(ii) The individuals who shall be

notified of a casualty potentially

affecting the seaworthiness of the barge;

and

(iii) The information that must be

provided by the towing vessel to

facilitate the assessment of damage

stability and stress; and

(10)(i) Location of barge plans

necessary to perform salvage, stability,

and hull stress assessments. A copy of

these barge plans must be maintained

ashore by either the barge owner or

operator or the vessel’s recognized

classification society. The response plan

must indicate the shore location and 24-

hour access procedures of the following

plans:

(A) General arrangement plan.

(B) Midship section plan.

(C) Lines plan or table of offsets, as

available.

(D) Tank tables; and

(ii) Plans for offshore oil barges must

identify the shore location and 24-hour

access procedures for the computerized

shore-based damage stability and

residual structural strength calculation

programs required by § 155.240.

(d) Shore-based response activities.

This section of the response plan must

include the following information:

(1) The qualified individual’s

responsibilities and authority, including

immediate communication with the

Federal on-scene coordinator and

notification of the oil spill removal

organization(s) identified in the plan.

(2) If applicable, procedures for

transferring responsibility for direction

of response activities from towing vessel
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1089

personnel or tankermen to the shorebased spill management team.

(3) The procedures for coordinating

the actions of the barge owner or

operator of qualified individual with the

action of the predesignated Federal onscene coordinator responsible for

overseeing or directing those actions.

(4) The organizational structure that

will manage the barge owner or

operator’s response actions. This

structure must include the following

functional areas and must further

include information for key components

within each functional area:

(i) Command and control;

(ii) Public information;

(iii) Safety;

(iv) Liaison with government

agencies;

(v) Spill response operations;

(vi) Planning;

(vii) Logistics support; and

(viii) Finance.

(5) The responsibilities of, duties of,

and functional job descriptions for each

oil spill management team position

within the organizational structure

identified in paragraph (d)(4) of this

section.

(e) List of contacts. The name,

location, and 24-hour contact

information for the following key

individuals and organizations must be

included in this section or, if more

appropriate, in a geographic-specific

appendix and referenced in this section:

(1) Barge owner or operator.

(2) Qualified individual and alternate

qualified individual for the tank barge’s

area of operation.

(3) Applicable insurance

representatives or surveyors for the

barge’s area(s) of operation.

(4) Person(s) within the oil spill

removal organization to notify for

activation of that oil spill removal

organization for the spill scenarios

identified in paragraph (j)(5) of this

section for the barges’s area(s) of

operation.

(5) Person(s) within the identified

response organization to notify for

activating that organization to provide:

(i) The required emergency lightering

required by §§ 155.1050(l), 155.1052(g),

155.1230(g), and 155.2230(g), as

applicable to the type of service of the

barge(s); and

(ii) The required salvage and fire

fighting required by §§ 155.1050(k),

155.1052(e), 155.1230(e), and

155.2230(e), as applicable to the type of

service of the barge(s).

(6) Person(s) to notify for activation of

the spill management team for the spill

response scenarios identified in

paragraph (j)(5) of this section for the

vessel’s area of operation.

(f) Training procedures. This section

of the response plan must address the

training procedures and programs of the

barge owner or operator to meet the

requirements in § 155.1055.

(g) Exercise procedures. This section

of the response plan must address the

exercise program carried out by the

barge owner or operator to meet the

requirements in § 155.1060.

(h) Plan review, update, revisions

amendment, and appeal procedure.

This section of the response plan must

address—

(1) The procedures to be followed by

the barge owner or operator to meet the

requirements of § 155.1070; and

(2) The procedures to be followed for

any post-discharge review of the plan to

evaluate and validate its effectiveness.

(i) On board notification checklist and

emergency procedures. This portion of

the response plan must be maintained

in the documentation container aboard

the unmanned barge. The owner or

operator of an unmanned tank barge

subject to this section shall provide the

personnel of the towing vessel, fleeting

area, or facility that the barge may be

moored at with the information required

by this paragraph and the

responsibilities that the plan indicates

will be carried out by these personnel.

The on board notification checklist and

emergency procedures must include—

(1) The toll-free number of the

National Response Center;

(2) The name and procedures for

contacting a primary qualified

individual and at least one alternate on

a 24-hour basis;

(3) The name, address, and procedure

for contacting the vessel’s owner or

operator on a 24-hour basis;

(4) The list of information to be

provided in the notification by the

reporting personnel;

(5) A statement of responsibilities of

and actions to be taken by reporting

personnel after an oil discharge or

substantial threat of such discharge; and

(6) The information contained in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(j) Geographic-specific appendices for

each COTP zone in which a tank barge

operates. A geographic-specific

appendix must be included for each

COTP zone identified. The appendices

must include the following information

or identify the location of such

information within the plan:

(1) A list of the geographic areas (port

areas, rivers and canals, Great Lakes,

inland, nearshore, offshore, and open

ocean areas) in which the barge intends

to handle, store, or transport oil within

the applicable COTP zone.

(2) The volume and group of oil on

which the required level of response

resources are calculated.

(3) Required Federal or State

notifications applicable to the

geographic areas in which the barge

operates.

(4) Identification of the qualified

individuals.

(5) Identification of the oil spill

removal organization(s) that are

identified and ensured available,

through contract or other approved

means and the spill management team

to provide the response resources

necessary to respond to the following

spill scenarios:

(i) An average most probable

discharge.

(ii) A maximum most probable

discharge.

(iii) A worst case discharge to the

maximum extent practicable.

(6) The organization(s) identified to

meet the provisions of paragraph (j)(5)

of this section must be capable of

providing the equipment and supplies

necessary to meet the provisions of

§§ 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, and

155.2230, as appropriate, and sources of

trained personnel to continue operation

of the equipment and staff the oil spill

removal organization(s) and spill

management team identified for the first

seven days of the response.

(7) The appendix must list the

response resources and related

information required under §§ 155.1050,

155.1052, 155.1230, 155.2230, and

Appendix B of this part, as appropriate.

(8) If the oil spill removal

organization(s) providing the necessary

response resources has been evaluated

by the Coast Guard and their capability

has been determined to equal or exceed

the response capability needed by the

vessel, the appendix may identify only

the organization and their applicable

classification and not the information

required in paragraph (j)(7) of this

section.

(9) The appendix must also separately

list the companies identified to provide

the salvage, barge firefighting,

lightering, and if applicable, dispersant

capabilities required in this subpart.

(k) Appendices for barge-specific

information. Because many of the tank

barges covered by a response plan may

be of the same design, this information

does not need to be repeated provided

the plan identifies the tank barges to

which the same information would

apply. The information must be part of

the response plan unless specifically

noted. This section must include for

each barge covered by the plan the

following information:

(1) List of the principal characteristics

of the vessel.

(2) Capacities of all cargo, fuel, lube

oil, and ballast tanks.

(3) The total volumes and cargo

group(s) of oil cargo that would be

involved in the—
1090 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(i) Maximum most probable

discharge; and

(ii) Worst case discharge.

(4) Diagrams showing location of all

tanks aboard the barge.

(5) General arrangement plan (can be

maintained separately providing that

the location is identified).

(6) Midships section plan (can be

maintained separately providing that

the location is identified).

(7) Cargo and fuel piping diagrams

and pumping plan, as applicable (can be

maintained separately providing that

the location is identified).

(8) Damage stability data, if

applicable.

(9) Location of cargo and fuel stowage

plan for barge(s) (normally maintained

separately).

(10) Location of information on the

name, description, physical and

chemical characteristics, health and

safety hazards, and spill and firefighting

procedures for the oil cargo aboard the

barge. A material safety data sheet

meeting the requirements of 29 CFR

1910.1200, cargo information required

by 33 CFR 154.310, or equivalent will

meet this requirement. This information

can be maintained separately.

§ 155.1045 Response plan requirements

for vessels carrying oil as a secondary

cargo.

(a) General information and

introduction. This section of the

response plan must include—

(1) The vessel’s name, country of

registry, call sign, official number, and

IMO international number (if

applicable). If the plan covers multiple

vessels, this information must be

provided for each vessel;

(2) The name, address, and

procedures for contacting the vessel’s

owner or operator on a 24-hour basis;

(3) A list of COTP zones in which the

vessel intends to handle, store, or

transport oil;

(4) A table of contents or index of

sufficient detail to permit personnel

with responsibilities under the response

plan to locate the specific sections of the

plan; and

(5) A record of change(s) page used to

record information on plan updates or

revisions.

(6) As required in paragraph (c) of this

section, the vessel owner or operator

must list in his or her plan the total

volume of oil carried in bulk as cargo.

(i) For vessels that transfer a portion

of their fuel as cargo, 25 percent of the

fuel capacity of the vessel plus the

capacity of any oil cargo tank(s) will be

assumed to be the cargo volume for

determining applicable response plan

requirements unless the vessel owner or

operator indicates otherwise.

(ii) A vessel owner or operator can use

a volume less than 25 percent if he or

she submits historical data with the

plan that substantiates the transfer of a

lower percentage of its fuel capacity

between refuelings.

(b) Notification procedures. This

section of the response plan must

include the following notification

information:

(1) A checklist with all notifications,

including telephone or other contact

numbers, in the order of priority to be

made by shipboard or shore-based

personnel and the information required

for those notifications. Notifications

must include those required by—

(i) MARPOL 73/78 and 33 CFR part

153; and

(ii) Any applicable State.

(2) Identification of the person(s) to be

notified of a discharge or substantial

threat of discharge of oil. If notifications

vary due to vessel location, the

person(s) to be notified also must be

identified in a geographic-specific

appendix. This section must separately

identify—

(i) The individual(s) or organization(s)

to be notified by shipboard personnel;

and

(ii) The individual(s) or

organization(s) to be notified by shorebased personnel.

(3) The procedures for notifying the

qualified individual and alternate

qualified individual.

(4) Descriptions of the primary and, if

available, secondary communication

methods by which the notifications will

be made, consistent with the

requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section.

(5) The information that is to be

provided in the initial and any followup notifications required by paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

(i) The initial notification may be

submitted in accordance with IMO

Resolution A648(16) ‘‘General

Principles for Ship Reporting Systems

and Ship Reporting Requirements.’’ It

must include at least the following

information:

(A) Vessel name, country of registry,

call sign, IMO international number (if

applicable), and official number (if any);

(B) Date and time of the incident;

(C) Location of the incident;

(D) Course, speed, and intended track

of vessel;

(E) Radio station(s) and frequencies

guarded;

(F) Date and time of next report;

(G) Type and quantity of oil on board;

(H) Nature and detail of defects,

deficiencies, and damage (e.g.,

grounding, collision, hull failure, etc.);

(I) Details of pollution, including

estimate of oil discharged or threat of

discharge;

(J) Weather and sea conditions on

scene;

(K) Ship size and type;

(L) Actions taken or planned by

persons on scene;

(M) Current conditions of the vessel;

and

(N) Number of crew and details of

injuries, if any.

(ii) After the transmission of the

initial notification, as much as possible

of the information essential for the

protection of the marine environment as

is appropriate to the incident must be

reported to the appropriate on-scene

coordinator in a follow-up report. This

information must include—

(A) Additional details on the type of

cargo on board;

(B) Additional details on the

condition of the vessel and ability to

transfer cargo, ballast, and fuel;

(C) Additional details on the quantity,

extent and movement of the pollution

and whether the discharge is

continuing;

(D) Any changes in the on-scene

weather or sea conditions; and

(E) Actions being taken with regard to

the discharge and the movement of the

ship.

(c) Shipboard spill mitigation

procedures. This section of the response

plan must identify the vessel’s total

volumes of oil carried in bulk as cargo

and meet the applicable requirements of

this paragraph as in paragraph (a)(6) of

this section.

(1) For vessels carrying 100 barrels or

less of oil in bulk as cargo, the plan

must include a basic emergency action

checklist for vessel personnel including

notification and actions to be taken to

prevent or mitigate any discharge or

substantial threat of such a discharge of

oil from the vessel.

(2) For vessels carrying over 100

barrels of oil but not exceeding 5,000

barrels of oil in bulk as cargo, the plan

must include—

(i) Detailed information on actions to

be taken by vessel personnel to prevent

or mitigate any discharge or substantial

threat of such a discharge of oil from the

vessel due to operational activities or

casualties;

(ii) Detailed information on damage

control procedures to be followed by

vessel personnel;

(iii) Detailed procedures for internal

or external transfer of oil in bulk as

cargo in an emergency; and

(iv) Procedures for use of any

equipment carried aboard the vessel for

spill mitigation.

(3) For vessels carrying over 5,000

barrels of oil as a secondary cargo, the

plan must provide the information

required by § 155.1035(c) for shipboard

spill mitigation procedures.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1091

(4) For all vessels, the plan must

include responsibilities and actions to

be taken by vessel personnel, if any, to

initiate a response and supervise shorebased response resources.

(d) Shore-based response activities.

This section of the response plan must

include the following information:

(1) The qualified individual’s

responsibilities and authority, including

immediate communication with the

Federal on-scene coordinator and

notification of the oil spill removal

organization(s) identified in the plan.

(2) If applicable, procedures for

transferring responsibility for direction

of response activities from vessel

personnel to the shore-based spill

management team.

(3) The procedures for coordinating

the actions of the vessel owner or

operator with the actions of the

predesignated Federal on-scene

coordinator responsible for overseeing

or directing those actions.

(4) The organizational structure that

will be used to manage the response

actions. This structure must include the

following functional areas and must

further include information for key

components within each functional

area:

(i) Command and control;

(ii) Public information;

(iii) Safety;

(iv) Liaison with government

agencies;

(v) Spill response operations;

(vi) Planning;

(vii) Logistics support; and

(viii) Finance.

(5) The responsibilities, duties, and

functional job description for each oil

spill management team member within

the organizational structure identified in

paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

(e) List of contacts. The name,

location, and 24-hour contact

information for the following key

individuals or organizations must be

included in this section or, if more

appropriate, in a geographic-specific

appendix and referenced in this section:

(1) Vessel owner or operator, and if

applicable, charterer.

(2) Qualified individual and alternate

qualified individual for the vessel’s area

of operation.

(3) Vessel’s local agent(s), if

applicable, for the vessel’s area of

operation.

(4) Applicable insurance

representatives or surveyors for the

vessel’s area of operation.

(5) Person(s) within the identified oil

spill removal organization(s) to notify

for activation of the oil spill removal

organization(s) identified under

paragraph (i)(3) of this section for the

vessel’s area of operation.

(6) Person(s) to notify for activation of

the spill management team.

(f) Training procedures. (1) This

section of the response plan must

address the training procedures and

programs of the vessel owner or

operator. The vessel owner or operator

shall ensure that—

(i) All personnel with responsibilities

under the plan receive training in their

assignments and refresher training as

necessary, and participate in exercises

required under paragraph (g) of this

section. Documented work experience

can be used instead of training; and

(ii) Records of this training are

maintained aboard the vessel, at the

U.S. location of the spill management

team, or with the qualified individual.

The plan must specify where the

records are located.

(2) Nothing in this section relieves the

vessel owner or operator from

responsibility to ensure that all private

shore-based response personnel are

trained to meet the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA)

standards for emergency response

operations in 29 CFR 1910.120.

(g) Exercise procedures. This section

of the response plan must address the

exercise program carried out by the

vessel owner or operator to evaluate the

ability of vessel and shore-based

personnel to perform their identified

functions in the plan. The required

exercise frequency for each category of

vessel is as follows:

(1) For vessels carrying 100 barrels or

less of oil as cargo—

(i) On board spill mitigation

procedures and qualified individual

notification exercises must be

conducted annually; and

(ii) Shore-based oil spill removal

organization exercises must be

conducted biennially.

(2) For vessels carrying over 100

barrels and up to 5,000 barrels of oil in

bulk as cargo—

(i) On board emergency procedures

and qualified individual notification

exercises must be conducted quarterly;

and

(ii) Shore-based oil spill removal

organization exercises must be

conducted annually.

(3) Vessels carrying over 5,000 barrels

of oil in bulk as cargo must meet the

exercise requirement of § 155.1060.

(h) Plan review, update, revision,

amendment, and appeal procedures.

This section of the response plan must

address—

(1) The procedures to be followed by

the vessel owner or operator to meet the

requirement of § 155.1070; and

(2) The procedures to be followed for

any post-discharge review of the plan to

evaluate and validate its effectiveness

(i) Geographic-specific appendices for

each COTP zone in which a vessel

operates. A geographic-specific

appendix must be included for each

COTP zone identified. The appendix

must include the following information

or identify the location of such

information within the plan:

(1) Required Federal or State

notifications applicable to the

geographic areas in which a vessel

operates.

(2) Identification of the qualified

individuals.

(3) A list of the oil spill removal

organization(s) and the spill

management team(s) available to

respond to the vessel’s worst case oil

discharge in each COTP zone in which

a vessel operates. The oil spill removal

organization(s) identified must be

capable of commencing oil spill

containment and on-water recovery

within the response times listed for Tier

1 in § 155.1050(g); providing temporary

storage of recovered oil; and conducting

shoreline protection and cleanup

operations. An oil spill removal

organization may not be identified in

the plan unless the organization has

provided written consent to being

identified in the plan as an available

resource.

(j) Appendices for vessel-specific

information. This section must include

for each vessel covered by the plan the

following information:

(1) List of the vessel’s principal

characteristics (i.e., length, beam, gross

tonnage, etc.).

(2) Capacities of all cargo, fuel, lube

oil, ballast, and fresh water tanks.

(3) The total volume and cargo groups

of oil cargo that would be involved in

the—

(i) Maximum most probable

discharge; and

(ii) Worst case discharge.

(4) Diagrams showing location of all

tanks.

(5) Cargo and fuel piping diagrams

and pumping plan as applicable. These

diagrams and plans can be maintained

separately aboard the vessel providing

the response plan identifies the

location.

(6) Location of information on the

name, description, physical and

chemical characteristics, health and

safety hazards, and spill and firefighting

procedures for the oil cargo aboard the

vessel. A material safety data sheet

meeting the requirements of 29 CFR

1910.1200, cargo information required

by 33 CFR 154.310, or the equivalent,

will meet this requirement. This

information can be maintained

separately on board the vessel,

providing the response plan identifies

the location.
1092 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 155.1050 Response plan development

and evaluation criteria for vessels carrying

groups I through IV petroleum oil as a

primary cargo.

(a) The following criteria must be

used to evaluate the operability of

response resources identified in the

response plan for the specified

operating environment:

(1) Table 1 of Appendix B of this part.

(i) The criteria in Table 1 of Appendix

B of this part are to be used solely for

identification of appropriate equipment

in a response plan.

(ii) These criteria reflect conditions

used for planning purposes to select

mechanical response equipment and are

not conditions that would limit

response actions or affect normal vessel

operations.

(2) Limitations that are identified in

the Area Contingency Plans for the

COTP zones in which the vessel

operates, including—

(i) Ice conditions;

(ii) Debris;

(iii) Temperature ranges; and

(iv) Weather-related visibility.

(b) The COTP may reclassify a

specific body of water or location within

the COTP zone. Any reclassifications

will be identified in the applicable Area

Contingency Plan. Reclassifications may

be to—

(1) A more stringent operating

environment if the prevailing wave

conditions exceed the significant wave

height criteria during more than 35

percent of the year; or

(2) A less stringent operating

environment if the prevailing wave

conditions do not exceed the significant

wave height criteria for the less

stringent operating environment during

more than 35 percent of the year.

(c) Response equipment must—

(1) Meet or exceed the criteria listed

in Table 1 of Appendix B of this part;

(2) Be capable of functioning in the

applicable operating environment; and

(3) Be appropriate for the petroleum

oil carried.

(d) The owner or operator of a vessel

that carries groups I through IV

petroleum oil as a primary cargo shall

identify in the response plan and ensure

the availability of, through contract or

other approved means, the response

resources that will respond to a

discharge up to the vessel’s average

most probable discharge.

(1) For a vessel that carries groups I

through IV petroleum oil as its primary

cargo, the response resources must

include—

(i) Containment boom in a quantity

equal to twice the length of the largest

vessel involved in the transfer and

capable of being deployed at the site of

oil transfer operations—

(A) Within 1 hour of detection of a

spill, when the transfer is conducted

between 0 and 12 miles from the nearest

shoreline; or

(B) Within 1 hour plus travel time

from the nearest shoreline, based on an

on-water speed of 5 knots, when the

transfer is conducted over 12 miles up

to 200 miles from the nearest shoreline;

and

(ii) Oil recovery devices and

recovered oil storage capacity capable of

being at the transfer site—

(A) Within 2 hours of the detection of

a spill during transfer operations, when

the transfer is conducted between 0 and

12 miles from the nearest shoreline; or

(B) Within 1 hour plus travel time

from the nearest shoreline, based on an

on-water speed of 5 knots, when the

transfer is conducted over 12 miles up

to 200 miles from the nearest shoreline.

(2) For locations of multiple vessel

transfer operations, a vessel may

identify the same equipment as

identified by other vessels, provided

that each vessel has ensured access to

the equipment through contract or other

approved means. Under these

circumstances, prior approval by the

Coast Guard is not required for

temporary changes in the contracted oil

spill removal organization under

§ 155.1070(c)(5).

(3) The owner or operator of a vessel

conducting transfer operations at a

facility required to submit a response

plan under 33 CFR 154.1017 is required

to plan for and identify the response

resources required in paragraph (d)(1) of

this section. However, the owner or

operator is not required to ensure by

contract or other means the availability

of such resources.

(e) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying groups I through IV petroleum

oil as a primary cargo must identify in

the response plan and ensure the

availability of, through contract or other

approved means, the response resources

necessary to respond to a discharge up

to the vessel’s maximum most probable

discharge volume.

(1) These resources must be

positioned such that they can arrive at

the scene of a discharge within—

(i) 12 hours of the discovery of a

discharge in higher volume port areas

and the Great Lakes;

(ii) 24 hours of the discovery of a

discharge in all rivers and canals,

inland, nearshore and offshore areas;

and

(iii) 24 hours of the discovery of a

discharge plus travel time from shore for

open ocean areas.

(2) The necessary response resources

include sufficient containment boom,

oil recovery devices, and storage

capacity for any recovery of up to the

maximum most probable discharge

planning volume.

(3) The response plan must identify

the storage location, make, model, and

effective daily recovery capacity of each

oil recovery device that is identified for

plan credit.

(4) The response resources identified

for responding to a maximum most

probable discharge must be positioned

to be capable of meeting the planned

arrival times in this paragraph. The

COTP with jurisdiction over the area in

which the vessel is operating must be

notified whenever the identified

response resources are not capable of

meeting the planned arrival times.

(f) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying groups I through IV petroleum

oil as a primary cargo must identify in

the response plan and ensure the

availability of, through contract or other

approved means, the response resources

necessary to respond to discharges up to

the worst case discharge volume of the

oil cargo to the maximum extent

practicable.

(1) The location of these resources

must be suitable to meet the response

times identified for the applicable

geographic area(s) of operation and

response tier.

(2) The response resources must be

appropriate for—

(i) The capacity of the vessel;

(ii) Group(s) of petroleum oil carried

as cargo; and

(iii) The geographic area(s) of vessel

operation.

(3) The resources must include

sufficient boom, oil recovery devices,

and storage capacity to recover the

planning volumes.

(4) The response plan must identify

the storage location, make, model, and

effective daily recovery capacity of each

oil recovery device that is identified for

plan credit.

(5) The guidelines in Appendix B of

this part must be used for calculating

the quantity of response resources

required to respond at each tier to the

worst case discharge to the maximum

extent practicable.

(6) When determining response

resources necessary to meet the

requirements of this paragraph (f)(6), a

portion of those resources must be

capable of use in close-to-shore

response activities in shallow water.

The following percentages of the

response equipment identified for the

applicable geographic area must be

capable of operating in waters of 6 feet

or less depth:

(i) Open ocean—none.

(ii) Offshore—10 percent.

(iii) Nearshore, inland, Great Lakes,

and rivers and canals—20 percent.

(7) Response resources identified to

meet the requirements of paragraph
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1093

(f)(6) of this section are exempt from the

significant wave height planning

requirements of Table 1 of Appendix B

of this part.

(g) Response equipment identified to

respond to a worst case discharge must

be capable of arriving on scene within

the times specified in this paragraph for

the applicable response tier in a higher

volume port area, Great Lakes, and in

other areas. Response times for these

tiers from the time of discovery of a

discharge are—

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Higher volume port

area (except tankers in

Prince William Sound

covered by

§ 155.1135).

12 hrs .. 36 hrs .. 60 hrs

Great Lakes .. 18 hrs .. 42 hrs .. 66 hrs

All other rivers & canals, inland,

nearshore,

and offshore areas.

24 hrs .. 48 hrs .. 72 hrs

Open ocean

(plus travel

time from

shore).

24 hrs+ 48 hrs+ 72 hrs+

(h) For the purposes of arranging for

response resources through contract or

other approved means, response

equipment identified for Tier 1 plan

credit must be capable of being

mobilized and enroute to the scene of a

discharge within 2 hours of notification.

The notification procedures identified

in the plan must provide for notification

and authorization for mobilization of

identified Tier 1 response resources—

(1) Either directly or through the

qualified individual; and

(2) Within 30 minutes of a discovery

of a discharge or substantial threat of

discharge.

(i) Response resources identified for

Tier 2 and Tier 3 plan credit must be

capable of arriving on scene within the

time listed for the applicable tier.

(j) The response plan for a vessel

carrying group II or III persistent

petroleum oils as a primary cargo that

operates in areas with year-round preapproval for dispersant use may request

a credit against up to 25% of the onwater oil recovery capability for each

worst case discharge tier necessary to

meet the requirements of this subpart.

To receive this credit, the vessel owner

or operator shall identify in the

response plan and ensure, through

contract or other approved means, the

availability of the dispersants and the

necessary resources to apply those

agents appropriate for the type of oil

carried and to monitor the effectiveness

of the dispersants. The extent of the

credit will be based on the volumes of

dispersant available to sustain

operations at manufacturers’

recommended dosage rates. Dispersant

resources identified for plan credit must

be capable of being on scene within 12

hours of discovery of a discharge.

Note: Identification of these resources does

not imply that they will be authorized for

use. Actual authorization for use during a

spill response will be governed by the

provisions of the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40

CFR part 300) and the applicable Area

Contingency Plan.

(k)(1) The owner or operator of a

vessel carrying groups I through IV

petroleum oil as a primary cargo must

identify in the response plan and ensure

the availability of, through contract or

other approved means, the following

resources:

(i) A salvage company with expertise

and equipment.

(ii) A company with vessel

firefighting capability that will respond

to casualties in the area(s) in which the

vessel will operate.

(2) Vessel owners or operators must

identify intended sources of the

resources required under paragraph

(k)(1) of this section capable of being

deployed to the areas in which the

vessel will operate. Provider(s) of these

services may not be listed in the plan

unless they have provided written

consent to be listed in the plan as an

available resource.

(3) To meet this requirement in a

response plan submitted for reapproval

on or after February 18, 1998, the

identified resources must be capable of

being deployed to the port nearest to the

area in which the vessel operates within

24 hours of notification.

(l) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying groups I through IV petroleum

oil as a primary cargo must identify in

the response plan and ensure the

availability of, through contract or other

approved means, certain response

resources required by

§ 155.1035(c)(5)(ii) or § 155.1040(c)(5)(i),

as appropriate.

(1) These resources must include—

(i) Fendering equipment;

(ii) Transfer hoses and connection

equipment; and

(iii) Portable pumps and ancillary

equipment necessary to offload the

vessel’s largest cargo tank in 24 hours of

continuous operation.

(2) These resources must be capable of

reaching the locations in which the

vessel operates within the stated times

following notification:

(i) Inland (except tankers in Prince

William Sound covered by § 155.1130),

nearshore, and Great Lakes waters—12

hours.

(ii) Offshore waters and rivers and

canals—18 hours.

(iii) Open ocean waters—36 hours.

(3) For barges operating on rivers and

canals as defined in this subpart, the

requirements of this paragraph (l)(3)

may be met by listing resources capable

of meeting the response times in

paragraph (l)(2) of this section. Such

resources may not be identified in a

plan unless the response organization

has provided written consent to be

listed in a plan as an available resource.

(m) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying groups I through IV petroleum

oil as a primary cargo must identify in

the response plan and ensure the

availability of, through contract or other

approved means, response resources

necessary to perform shoreline

protection operations.

(1) The response resources must

include the quantities of boom listed in

Table 2 of Appendix B of this part,

based on the areas in which the vessel

operates.

(2) Vessels that intend to offload their

cargo at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port

(LOOP) marine terminal are not

required to comply with the

requirements of this paragraph when

they are within the offshore area and

under one of the following conditions:

(i) Approaching or departing the

LOOP marine terminal within the LOOP

Shipping Safety Fairway, as defined in

33 CFR 166.200.

(ii) Moored at the LOOP marine

terminal for the purposes of cargo

transfer operations or anchored in the

designated anchorage area awaiting

discharge.

(n) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying groups I through IV petroleum

oil as a primary cargo must identify in

the response plan and ensure the

availability of, through contract or other

approved means, an oil spill removal

organization capable of effecting a

shoreline cleanup operation

commensurate with the quantity of

emulsified petroleum oil to be planned

for in shoreline cleanup operations.

(1) The shoreline cleanup resources

required must be determined as

described in Appendix B of this part.

(2) Vessels that intend to offload their

cargo at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port

(LOOP) marine terminal are not

required to comply with the

requirements of this paragraph when

they are within the offshore area and

under one of the following conditions:

(i) Approaching or departing the

LOOP marine terminal within the LOOP
1094 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Shipping Safety Fairway as defined in

33 CFR 166.200.

(ii) Moored at the LOOP marine

terminal for the purposes of cargo

transfer operations or anchored in the

designated anchorage area awaiting

discharge.

(o) Appendix B of this part sets out

caps that recognize the practical and

technical limits of response capabilities

for which an individual vessel owner or

operator can contract in advance. Table

6 in Appendix B lists the contracting

caps that are applicable, as of February

18, 1993, and that are slated to apply on

February 18, 1998. The owner or

operator of a vessel carrying groups I

through IV petroleum oil as a primary

cargo, whose required daily recovery

capacity exceeds the applicable

contracting caps in Table 6, shall

identify commercial sources of

additional equipment equal to twice the

cap listed for each tier or the amount

necessary to reach the calculated

planning volume, whichever is lower, to

the extent that this equipment is

available. The equipment so identified

must be capable of arriving on scene no

later than the applicable tier response

times contained in § 155.1050(g) or as

quickly as the nearest available resource

permits. A response plan must identify

the specific sources, locations, and

quantities of this additional equipment.

No contract is required.

(p) The Coast Guard will initiate a

review of cap increases and other

requirements contained within this

subpart that are scheduled to be phasedin over time. Any changes in the

requirements of this section will occur

through a public notice and comment

process.

(1) During this review, the Coast

Guard will determine if the scheduled

increase remains practicable, and will

also establish a specific cap for 2003.

The review will include—

(i) Increases in skimming efficiencies

and design technology;

(ii) Oil tracking technology;

(iii) High rate response techniques;

(iv) Other applicable response

technologies; and

(v) Increases in the availability of

private response resources.

(2) All scheduled future requirements

will take effect unless the Coast Guard

determines that they are not practicable.

Scheduled changes will be effective on

February 18, 1998 and 2003 unless the

review of the additional requirements

have not been completed by the Coast

Guard. If this occurs, the changes will

not be effective until 90 days after

publication of a Federal Register notice

with the results of the review.

§ 155.1052 Response plan development

and evaluation criteria for vessels carrying

group V petroleum oil as a primary cargo.

(a) Owners and operators of vessels

that carry group V petroleum oil as a

primary cargo must provide information

in their plan that identifies—

(1) Procedures and strategies for

responding to discharges up to a worst

case discharge of group V petroleum oils

to the maximum extent practicable; and

(2) Sources of the equipment and

supplies necessary to locate, recover,

and mitigate such a discharge.

(b) Using the criteria in Table 1 of

Appendix B of this part, an owner or

operator of a vessel carrying group V

petroleum oil as a primary cargo must

ensure that any equipment identified in

a response plan is capable of operating

in the conditions expected in the

geographic area(s) in which the vessel

operates. When evaluating the

operability of equipment, the vessel

owner or operator must consider

limitations that are identified in the

Area Contingency Plans for the COTP

zones in which the vessel operates,

including—

(1) Ice conditions;

(2) Debris;

(3) Temperature ranges; and

(4) Weather-related visibility.

(c) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying group V petroleum oil as a

primary cargo must identify in the

response plan and ensure, through

contract or other approved means, the

availability of required equipment,

including—

(1) Sonar, sampling equipment, or

other methods for locating the oil on the

bottom or suspended in the water

column;

(2) Containment boom, sorbent boom,

silt curtains, or other methods for

containing oil that may remain floating

on the surface or to reduce spreading on

the bottom;

(3) Dredges, pumps, or other

equipment necessary to recover oil from

the bottom and shoreline; and

(4) Other appropriate equipment

necessary to respond to a discharge

involving the type of oil carried.

(d) Response resources identified in a

response plan under paragraph (c) of

this section must be capable of being

deployed within 24 hours of discovery

of a discharge to the port nearest the

area where the vessel is operating. An

oil spill removal organization may not

be listed in the plan unless the oil spill

removal organization has provided

written consent to be listed in the plan

as an available resource.

(e) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying group V petroleum oil as a

primary cargo shall identify in the

response plan and ensure the

availability of the following resources

through contract or other approved

means—

(1) A salvage company with

appropriate expertise and equipment;

and

(2) A company with vessel firefighting

capability that will respond to casualties

in the area(s) in which the vessel is

operating.

(f) Vessel owners or operators must

identify intended sources of the

resources required under paragraph (e)

of this section capable of being

deployed to the areas in which the

vessel will operate. A company may not

be listed in the plan unless the company

has provided written consent to be

listed in the plan as an available

resource. To meet this requirement in a

response plan submitted for approval or

reapproval on or after February 18,

1998, the vessel owner or operator must

identify both the intended sources of

this capability and demonstrate that the

resources are capable of being deployed

to the port nearest to the area where the

vessel operates within 24 hours of

discovery of a discharge.

(g) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying group V petroleum oil as a

primary cargo shall identify in the

response plan and ensure the

availability of certain resources required

by §§ 155.1035(c)(5)(ii) and

155.1040(c)(5)(i), as applicable, through

contract or other approved means.

(1) Resources must include—

(i) Fendering equipment;

(ii) Transfer hoses and connection

equipment; and

(iii) Portable pumps and ancillary

equipment necessary to offload the

vessel’s largest cargo tank in 24 hours of

continuous operation.

(2) Resources must be capable of

reaching the locations in which the

vessel operates within the stated times

following notification:

(i) Inland, nearshore, and Great Lakes

waters—12 hours.

(ii) Offshore waters and rivers and

canals—18 hours.

(iii) Open ocean waters—36 hours.

(3) For barges operating in rivers and

canals as defined in this subpart, the

requirements of this paragraph (g)(3)

may be met by listing resources capable

of being deployed in an area within the

response times in paragraph (g)(2) of

this section. A vessel owner or operator

may not identify such resources in a

plan unless the response organization

has provided written consent to be

identified in a plan as an available

resource.

§ 155.1055 Training.

(a) A response plan submitted to meet

the requirements of § 155.1035 must
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1095

identify the training to be provided to

persons having responsibilities under

the plan, including members of the

vessel crew, the qualified individual,

and the spill management team. A

response plan submitted to meet the

requirements of § 155.1040 must

identify the training to be provided to

the spill management team, the

qualified individual, and other

personnel in § 155.1040 with specific

responsibilities under the plan

including tankermen and members of

the towing vessel crew. The training

program must differentiate between that

training provided to vessel personnel

and that training provided to shorebased personnel. Appendix C of this

part provides additional guidance

regarding training.

(b) A vessel owner or operator shall

ensure the maintenance of records

sufficient to document this training and

make them available for inspection

upon request by the Coast Guard.

Records must be maintained for 3 years

following completion of training. The

response plan must identify the location

of training records, which must be—

(1) On board the vessel;

(2) With the qualified individual; or

(3) At a U.S. location of the spill

management team.

(c) A vessel owner or operator may

identify equivalent work experience

which fulfills specific training

requirements.

(d) The vessel owner or operator shall

ensure that any oil spill removal

organization identified in a response

plan to meet the requirements of this

part maintains records sufficient to

document training for the organization’s

personnel. These records must be

available for inspection upon request by

the Coast Guard. Records must be

maintained for 3 years following

completion of training.

(e) Nothing in this section relieves the

vessel owner or operator from the

responsibility to ensure that all private

shore-based response personnel are

trained to meet the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA)

standards for emergency response

operations in 29 CFR 1910.120.

(f) A training plan may be prepared in

accordance with Training Elements for

Oil Spill Response to satisfy the

requirements of this section.

§ 155.1060 Exercises.

(a) A vessel owner or operator

required by §§ 155.1035 and 155.1040 to

have a response plan shall conduct

exercise as necessary to ensure that the

plan will function in an emergency.

Both announced and unannounced

exercises must be included. The

following are the minimum exercise

requirements for vessels covered by this

subpart:

(1) Qualified individual notification

exercises, which must be conducted

quarterly;

(2) Emergency procedures exercises,

which must be conducted quarterly;

(3) Shore-based spill management

team tabletop exercises, which must be

conducted annually. In a triennial

period, at least one of these exercises

must include a worst case discharge

scenario;

(4) Oil spill removal organization

equipment deployment exercises, which

must be conducted annually; and

(5) An exercise of the entire response

plan, which must be conducted every 3

years. The vessel owner or operator

shall design the exercise program so that

all components of the response plan are

exercised at least once every 3 years. All

of the components do not have to be

exercised at one time; they may be

exercised over the 3-year period through

the required exercises or through an

area exercise.

(b) Annually, at least one of the

exercises listed in § 155.1060(a) (2) and

(4) must be unannounced. An

unannounced exercise is one in which

the personnel participating in the

exercise have not been advised in

advance of the exact date, time, and

scenario of the exercise.

(c) A vessel owner or operator shall

participate in unannounced exercises,

as directed by the Coast Guard COTP.

The objectives of the unannounced

exercises will be to evaluate

notifications and equipment

deployment for responses to average

most probable discharge spill scenarios

outlined in vessel response plans. The

unannounced exercises will be limited

to four per area per year, an area being

that geographic area for which a

separate and distinct Area Contingency

Plan has been prepared, as described in

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. After

participating in an unannounced

exercise directed by a COTP, the owner

or operator will not be required to

participate in another unannounced

exercise for at least 3 years from the date

of the exercise.

(d) A vessel owner or operator shall

participate in area exercises as directed

by the applicable on-scene coordinator.

The area exercises will involve

equipment deployment to respond to

the spill scenario developed by the

exercise design team, of which the

vessel owner or operator will be a

member. After participating in an area

exercise, a vessel owner or operator will

not be required to participate in another

area exercise for at least 6 years.

(e) The vessel owner or operator shall

ensure that adequate exercise records

are maintained. The following records

are required:

(1) On board the vessel, records of the

qualified individual notification

exercises and the emergency procedures

exercises. These exercises may be

documented in the ship’s log or may be

kept in a separate exercise log.

(2) At the United States’ location of

either the qualified individual, spill

management team, the vessel owner or

operator, or the oil spill removal

organization, records of exercises

conducted off the vessel. Response

plans must indicate the location of these

records.

(f) Records described in paragraph (e)

of this section must be maintained and

available to the Coast Guard for 3 years

following completion of the exercises.

(g) The response plan submitted to

meet the requirements of this subpart

must specify the planned exercise

program. The plan shall detail the

exercise program, including the types of

exercises, frequencies, scopes,

objectives, and the scheme for

exercising the entire response plan

every 3 years.

(h) Compliance with the National

Preparedness for Response Exercise

Program (PREP) Guidelines will satisfy

the vessel response plan exercise

requirements. These guidelines are

available from the United States

Government Printing Office, North

Capitol and H Sts., NW., Washington,

DC 20402.

§ 155.1062 Inspection and maintenance of

response resources.

(a) The owner or operator of a vessel

required to submit a response plan

under this part must ensure that—

(1) Containment booms, skimmers,

vessels, and other major equipment

listed or referenced in the plan are

periodically inspected and maintained

in good operating condition, in

accordance with manufacturer’s

recommendations and best commercial

practices; and

(2) All inspections and maintenance

are documented and that these records

are maintained for 3 years.

(b) For equipment which must be

inspected and maintained under this

section the Coast Guard may—

(1) Verify that the equipment

inventories exist as represented;

(2) Verify the existence of records

required under this section;

(3) Verify that the records of

inspection and maintenance reflect the

actual condition of any equipment listed

or referenced; and

(4) Inspect and require operational

tests of equipment.

(c) This section does not apply to

containment booms, skimmers, vessels,
1096 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

and other major equipment listed or

referenced in the plan and ensured

available through the written consent of

an oil spill removal organization, as

described in the definition of ‘‘contract

or other approved means’’ at § 155.1020.

§ 155.1065 Procedures for plan

submission, approval, requests for

acceptance of alternative planning criteria,

and appeal.

(a) An owner or operator of a vessel

to which this subpart applies shall

submit one complete English language

copy of a vessel response plan to

Commandant (G–MRO), Coast Guard,

2100 Second Street SW., Washington,

DC 20593–0001. The plan must be

submitted at least 60 days before the

vessel intends to handle, store,

transport, transfer, or lighter oil in areas

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States.

(b) The owner or operator shall

include a statement certifying that the

plan meets the applicable requirements

of subparts D, E, F, and G of this part

and shall include a statement indicating

whether the vessel(s) covered by the

plan are manned vessels carrying oil as

a primary cargo, unmanned vessels

carrying oil as a primary cargo, or

vessels carrying oil as a secondary

cargo.

(c) If the Coast Guard determines that

the plan meets all requirements of this

subpart, the Coast Guard will notify the

vessel owner or operator with an

approval letter. The plan will be valid

for a period of up to 5 years from the

date of approval.

(d) If the Coast Guard reviews the

plan and determines that it does not

meet all of the requirements, the Coast

Guard will notify the vessel owner or

operator of the response plan’s

deficiencies. The vessel owner or

operator must then resubmit the revised

plan, or corrected portions of the plan,

within the time period specified in the

written notice provided by the Coast

Guard.

(e) For those vessels temporarily

authorized under § 155.1025 to operate

without an approved plan pending

formal Coast Guard approval, the

deficiency provisions of § 155.1070(c),

(d), and (e) will also apply.

(f) When the owner or operator of a

vessel believes that national planning

criteria contained elsewhere in this part

are inappropriate to the vessel for the

areas in which it is intended to operate,

the owner or operator may request

acceptance of alternative planning

criteria by the Coast Guard. Submission

of a request must be made 90 days

before the vessel intends to operate

under the proposed alternative and

must be forwarded to the COTP for the

geographic area(s) affected.

(g) An owner or operator of a United

States flag vessel may meet the response

plan requirements of Regulation 26 of

MARPOL 73/78 and subparts D, E, F,

and G of this part by stating in writing,

according to the provisions of

§ 155.1030(j), that the plan submitted is

intended to address the requirements of

both Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78

and the requirements of subparts D, E,

F, and G of this part.

(h) Within 21 days of notification that

a plan is not approved, the vessel owner

or operator may appeal that

determination to the Chief, Office of

Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection. This appeal

must be submitted in writing to

Commandant (G–M), Coast Guard, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001.

§ 155.1070 Procedures for plan review,

revision, amendment, and appeal.

(a) A vessel response plan must be

reviewed annually by the owner or

operator.

(1) This review must occur within 1

month of the anniversary date of Coast

Guard approval of the plan.

(2) The owner or operator shall

submit any plan amendments to the

Coast Guard for information or

approval. Revisions to a plan must

include a cover page that provides a

summary of the changes being made and

the pages being affected. Revised pages

must further include the number of the

revision and date of that revision.

(3) Any required changes must be

entered in the plan and noted on the

record of changes page. The completion

of the annual review must also be noted

on the record of changes page.

(b) The owner or operator of a vessel

covered by subparts D, E, F, and G of

this part shall resubmit the entire plan

to the Coast Guard for approval—

(1) Six months before the end of the

Coast Guard approval period identified

in § 155.1065(c); and

(2) Whenever there is a change in the

owner or operator of the vessel, if that

owner or operator provided the

certifying statement required by

§ 155.1065(b). If this change occurs, a

new statement certifying that the plan

continues to meet the applicable

requirements of subparts D, E, F, and G

of this part must be submitted.

(c) Revisions or amendments to an

approved response plan must be

submitted for approval by the vessel’s

owner or operator whenever there is—

(1) A change in the owner or operator

of the vessel, if that owner or operator

is not the one who provided the

certifying statement required by

§ 155.1065(b);

(2) A change in the vessel’s operating

area that includes ports or geographic

area(s) not covered by the previously

approved plan. A vessel may operate in

an area not covered in a previously

approved plan upon receipt of written

acknowledgment by the Coast Guard

that a new geographic-specific appendix

has been submitted for approval by the

vessel’s owner or operator and the

certification required in § 155.1025(c)

has been provided;

(3) A significant change in the vessel’s

configuration that affects the

information included in the response

plan;

(4) A change in the type of oil cargo

carried aboard (oil group) that affects

the required response resources, except

as authorized by the COTP for purposes

of assisting in an oil spill response

activity;

(5) A change in the identification of

the oil spill removal organization(s) or

other response related resource required

by §§ 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, or

155.2230, as appropriate, except an oil

spill removal organization required by

§ 155.1050(d) which may be changed on

a case by case basis for an oil spill

removal organization previously

classified by the Coast Guard which has

been ensured available by contract or

other approved means;

(6) A significant change in the vessel’s

emergency response procedures;

(7) A change in the qualified

individual;

(8) The addition of a vessel to the

plan. This change must include the

vessel-specific appendix required by

this subpart and the owner or operator’s

certification required in § 155.1025(c);

or

(9) Any other significant changes that

affect the implementation of the plan.

(d) Thirty days in advance of

operation, the owner or operator shall

submit any revision or amendments

identified in paragraph (c) of this

section. The certification required in

§ 155.1065(b) must be submitted along

with the revisions or amendments.

(e) The Coast Guard may require a

vessel owner or operator to revise a

response plan at any time if it is

determined that the response plan does

not meet the requirements of this

subpart. The Coast Guard will notify the

vessel owner or operator in writing of

any deficiencies and any operating

restrictions. Deficiencies must be

corrected and submitted for acceptance

within the time period specified in the

written notice provided by the Coast

Guard or the plan will be declared

invalid and any further storage, transfer,

handling, transporting or lightering of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1097

oil in areas subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States will be in violation of

section 311(j)(5)(E) of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33

U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(E)).

(f) A vessel owner or operator who

disagrees with a deficiency

determination may submit a petition for

reconsideration to Chief, Office of

Marine Safety and Environmental

Protection, Commandant (G–M), Coast

Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593–

0001 within the time period required for

compliance or within 7 days from the

date of receipt of the Coast Guard notice

of a deficiency determination,

whichever is less. After considering all

relevant material presented, the Coast

Guard will notify the vessel owner or

operator of the final decision.

(1) Unless the vessel owner or

operator petitions for reconsideration of

the Coast Guard’s decision, the vessel’s

owner or operator must correct the

response plan deficiencies within the

period specified in the Coast Guard’s

initial determination.

(2) If the vessel owner or operator

petitions the Coast Guard for

reconsideration, the effective date of the

Coast Guard notice of deficiency

determination may be delayed pending

a decision by the Coast Guard. Petitions

to the Coast Guard must be submitted in

writing, via the Coast Guard official who

issued the requirement to amend the

response plan, within 5 days of receipt

of the notice.

(g) Except as required in paragraph (c)

of this section, amendments to

personnel and telephone number lists

included in the response plan do not

require prior Coast Guard approval.

(h) The Coast Guard and all other

holders of the response plan shall be

advised of any revisions to personnel

and telephone numbers and provided a

copy of these revisions as they occur.

3. Subpart E, consisting of

§§ 155.1110 through 155.1150, is

revised to read as follows:

Subpart E—Additional Response Plan

Requirements for Tankers Loading Cargo at

a Facility Permitted Under the Trans-Alaska

Pipeline Authorization Act

Sec.

155.1110 Purpose and applicability

155.1115 Definitions

155.1120 Operating restrictions and interim

operating authorization.

155.1125 Additional response plan

requirements.

155.1130 Requirements for pre-positioned

response equipment.

155.1135 Response plan development and

evaluation criteria.

155.1145 Submission and approval

procedures.

155.1150 Plan revision and amendment

procedures.

Subpart E—Additional Response Plan

Requirements for Tankers Loading

Cargo at a Facility Permitted Under the

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization

Act

§ 155.1110 Purpose and applicability.

(a) This subpart establishes oil spill

response planning requirements for an

owner or operator of a tanker loading

cargo at a facility permitted under the

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization

Act (TAPAA) (43 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) in

Prince William Sound, Alaska, in

addition to the requirements of subpart

D of this part. The requirements of this

subpart are intended for use in

developing response plans and

identifying response resources during

the planning process, they are not

performance standards.

(b) The information required in this

subpart must be included in a Prince

William Sound geographic-specific

appendix to the vessel response plan

required by subpart D of this part.

§ 155.1115 Definitions.

Except as provided in this section, the

definitions in § 155.1020 apply to this

subpart.

Prince William Sound means all State

and Federal waters within Prince

William Sound, Alaska, including the

approach to Hinchinbrook Entrance out

to and encompassing Seal Rock.

§ 155.1120 Operating restrictions and

interim operating authorization.

The owner or operator of a tanker to

which this subpart applies may not load

cargo at a facility permitted under the

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization

Act unless the requirements of this

subpart and § 155.1025 have been met.

The owner or operator of such a tanker

shall certify to the Coast Guard that they

have provided, through an oil spill

removal organization required by

§ 155.1125, the necessary response

resources to remove, to the maximum

extent practicable, a worst case

discharge or a discharge of 200,000

barrels of oil, whichever is greater, in

Prince William Sound, AK.

§ 155.1125 Additional response plan

requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of a tanker

subject to this subpart shall include the

requirements of this section in the

Prince William Sound geographicspecific appendix required by subpart D

of this part.

(1) The response plan must include

identification of an oil spill removal

organization that shall—

(i) Perform response activities;

(ii) Provide oil spill removal and

containment training, including training

in the operation of prepositioned

equipment, for personnel, including

local residents and fishermen, from the

following locations in Prince William

Sound—

(A) Valdez;

(B) Tatitlek;

(C) Cordova;

(D) Whittier;

(E) Chenega; and

(F) Fish hatcheries located at Port San

Juan, Main Bay, Esther Island, Cannery

Creek, and Solomon Gulch.

(iii) Consist of sufficient numbers of

trained personnel with the necessary

technical skills to remove, to the

maximum extent practicable, a worst

case discharge or a discharge of 200,000

barrels of oil, whichever is greater;

(iv) Provide a plan for training

sufficient numbers of additional

personnel to remove, to the maximum

extent practicable, a worst case

discharge or a discharge of 200,000

barrels of oil, whichever is greater; and

(v) Address the responsibilities

required in § 155.1035(d)(4).

(2) The response plan must include

exercise procedures that must—

(i) Provide two exercises of the oil

spill removal organization each year to

ensure prepositioned equipment and

trained personnel required under this

subpart perform effectively;

(ii) Provide for both announced and

unannounced exercises; and

(iii) Provide for exercises that test

either the entire appendix or individual

components.

(3) The response plan must identify a

testing, inspection, and certification

program for the prepositioned response

equipment required in § 155.1130 that

must provide for—

(i) Annual testing and equipment

inspection in accordance with the

manufacturer’s recommended

procedures, to include—

(A) Start-up and running under load

of all electrical motors, pumps, power

packs, air compressors, internal

combustion engines, and oil recovery

devices; and

(B) Removal of no less than one-third

of required boom from storage annually,

such that all boom will have been

removed and examined within a period

of 3 years;

(ii) Records of equipment tests and

inspection; and

(iii) Use of an independent entity to

certify that the equipment is on-site and

in good operating condition and that

required tests and inspections have been

performed. The independent entity

must have appropriate training and

expertise to provide this certification.

(4) The response plan must identify

and give the location of the

prepositioned response equipment

required in § 155.1130 including the
1098 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

make, model, and effective daily

recovery rate of each oil recovery

resource.

(b) The owner or operator shall

submit to the COTP for approval, no

later than September 30th of each

calendar year, a schedule for the

training and exercises required by the

geographic-specific appendix for Prince

William Sound for the following

calendar year.

(c) All records required by this section

must be available for inspection by the

Coast Guard and must be maintained for

a period of 3 years.

§ 155.1130 Requirements for

prepositioned response equipment.

The owner or operator of a tanker

subject to this subpart shall provide the

following prepositioned response

equipment, located within Prince

William Sound, in addition to that

required by § 155.1035:

(a) On-water recovery equipment with

a minimum effective daily recovery

capacity of 30,000 barrels, capable of

being on scene within 6 hours of

notification of a discharge.

(b) On-water storage capacity of

100,000 barrels, capable of being on

scene within 6 hours of notification of

a discharge.

(c) Additional on-water recovery

equipment with a minimum effective

daily recovery capacity of 40,000 barrels

capable of being on scene within 18

hours of notification of a discharge.

(d) On-water storage capacity of

300,000 barrels for recovered oily

material, capable of being on scene

within 24 hours of notification of a

discharge.

(e) On-water oil recovery devices and

storage equipment located in

communities and at strategic locations.

(f) For sufficient protection of the

environment in the locations identified

in § 155.1125(a)(1)(ii)—

(1) Boom appropriate for the specific

locations;

(2) Sufficient boats to deploy boom

and sorbents;

(3) Sorbents including booms, sweeps,

pads, blankets, drums and plastic bags;

(4) Personnel protective clothing and

equipment;

(5) Survival equipment;

(6) First aid supplies;

(7) Buckets, shovels, and various

other tools;

(8) Decontamination equipment;

(9) Shoreline cleanup equipment;

(10) Mooring equipment;

(11) Anchored buoys at appropriate

locations to facilitate the positioning of

defensive boom; and

(12) Other appropriate removal

equipment for the protection of the

environment as identified by the COTP.

(g) For each oil-laden tanker, an

escorting response vessel which is fitted

with skimming and on board storage

capabilities practicable for the initial oil

recovery planned for a cleanup

operation, as identified by the oil spill

removal organization.

(h) Lightering resources required in

§ 155.1050(l) capable of arriving on

scene within 6 hours of notification of

a discharge.

§ 155.1135 Response plan development

and evaluation criteria.

For tankers subject to this subpart, the

following response times must be used

in determining the on-scene arrival time

in Prince William Sound, for the

response resources required by

§ 155.1050:

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Prince William

Sound.

12 hrs .. 24 hrs .. 36 hrs

§ 155.1145 Submission and approval

procedures.

An appendix prepared under this

subpart must be submitted and

approved in accordance with

§ 155.1065.

§ 155.1150 Plan revision and amendment

procedures.

An appendix prepared and submitted

under this subpart must be revised and

amended, as necessary, in accordance

with § 155.1070.

4. Subpart F, consisting of

§§ 155.1210 through 155.1230, is added

to read as follows:

Subpart F—Response plan requirements for

vessels carrying animal fats and vegetable

oils as a primary cargo

Sec.

155.1210 Purpose and applicability.

155.1225 Response plan submission

requirements.

155.1230 Response plan development and

evaluation criteria.

Subpart F—Response plan

requirements for vessels carrying

animal fats and vegetable oils as a

primary cargo

§ 155.1210 Purpose and applicability.

This subpart establishes oil spill

response planning requirements for an

owner or operator of a vessel carrying

animal fats and vegetable oils as a

primary cargo. The requirements of this

subpart are intended for use in

developing response plans and

identifying response resources during

the planning process. They are not

performance standards.

§ 155.1225 Response plan submission

requirements.

An owner or operator of a vessel

carrying animal fats and vegetable oils

as a primary cargo shall submit a

response plan in accordance with the

requirements of this subpart, and with

all sections of subpart D of this part,

except §§ 155.1050 and 155.1052.

§ 155.1230 Response plan development

and evaluation criteria.

(a) Owners and operators of vessels

that carry animal fats or vegetable oils

as a primary cargo must provide

information in their plan that

identifies—

(1) Procedures and strategies for

responding to a worst case discharge of

animal fats or vegetable oils to the

maximum extent practicable; and

(2) Sources of the equipment and

supplies necessary to contain, recover,

and mitigate such a discharge.

(b) An owner or operator of a vessel

carrying animal fats or vegetable oils as

a primary cargo must ensure that any

equipment identified in a response plan

is capable of operating in the conditions

expected in the geographic area(s) in

which the vessel operates using the

criteria in Table 1 of Appendix B of this

part. When evaluating the operability of

equipment, the vessel owner or operator

must consider limitations that are

identified in the Area Contingency

Plans for the COTP zones in which the

vessel operates, including—

(1) Ice conditions;

(2) Debris;

(3) Temperature ranges; and

(4) Weather-related visibility.

(c) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying animal fats or vegetable oils as

a primary cargo must identify in the

response plan and ensure, through

contract or other approved means, the

availability of required equipment

including—

(1) Containment boom, sorbent boom,

or other methods for containing oil

floating on the surface or to protect

shorelines from impact;

(2) Oil recovery devices appropriate

for the type of animal fats or vegetable

oils carried; and

(3) Other appropriate equipment

necessary to respond to a discharge

involving the type of animal fats or

vegetable oils carried.

(d) Response resources identified in a

response plan under paragraph (c) of

this section must be capable of arriving

on-scene within the applicable Tier 1

response times specified in this

paragraph. An oil spill removal

organization may not be listed in the

plan unless the organization has

provided written consent to be listed in

the plan as an available resource.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1099

Response times from the time of

discovery of a discharge are as follows:

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Higher volume port

area.

12 hrs .. N/A ...... N/A

Great Lakes .. 18 hrs .. N/A ...... N/A

All other rivers and canals, inland,

nearshore,

and offshore

areaas.

24 hrs .. N/A ...... N/A

Open ocean

(plus travel

time from

shore).

24 hrs+ N/A ...... N/A

(e) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying animal fats or vegetable oils as

a primary cargo must identify in the

response plan and ensure the

availability of the following resources

through contract or other approved

means:

(1) A salvage company with

appropriate expertise and equipment.

(2) A company with vessel firefighting

capability that will respond to casualties

in the area(s) in which the vessel is

operating.

(f) Vessel owners or operators must

identify intended sources of the

resources required under paragraph (e)

of this section capable of being

deployed to the areas in which the

vessel will operate. A company may not

be listed in the plan unless the company

has provided written consent to be

listed in the plan as an available

resource. To meet this requirement in a

response plan submitted for approval or

reapproval on or after February 18,

1998, the vessel owner or operator must

identify both the intended sources of

this capability and demonstrate that the

resources are capable of being deployed

to the port nearest to the area where the

vessel operates within 24 hours of

discovery of a discharge.

(g) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying animal fats or vegetable oils as

a primary cargo must identify in the

response plan, and ensure the

availability of, through contract or other

approved means, certain resources

required by subpart D,

§ 155.1035(c)(5)(ii) and

§ 155.1040(c)(5)(i), as applicable.

(1) Resources must include—

(i) Fendering equipment;

(ii) Transfer hoses and connection

equipment; and

(iii) Portable pumps and ancillary

equipment necessary to offload the

vessel’s largest cargo tank in 24 hours of

continuous operation.

(2) Resources must be capable of

reaching the locations in which the

vessel operates within the stated times

following notification:

(i) Inland, nearshore, and Great Lakes

waters—12 hours.

(ii) Offshore waters and rivers and

canals—18 hours.

(iii) Open ocean waters—36 hours.

(3) For barges operating in rivers and

canals as defined in this subpart, the

requirements of this paragraph (g)(3)

may be met by listing resources capable

of being deployed in an area within the

response times in paragraph (g)(2) of

this section. A vessel owner or operator

may not identify such resources in a

plan unless the response organization

has provided written consent to be

identified in a plan as an available

resource.

(h) The response plan for a vessel that

is located in any environment with yearround preapproval for use of dispersants

suitable for animal fats and vegetable

oils and that handles, stores, or

transports animal fats or vegetable oils

may request a credit for up to 25 percent

of the worst case planning volume set

forth by subpart D of this part. To

receive this credit, the vessel owner or

operator must identify in the plan and

ensure, by contract or other approved

means, the availability of specified

resources to apply the dispersants and

to monitor their effectiveness. To extent

of the credit will be based on the

volumes of the dispersant available to

sustain operations at the manufacturers’

recommended dosage rates. Other spill

mitigation techniques, including

mechanical dispersal, may be identified

in the response plan, provided they are

in accordance with the NCP and the

applicable ACP. Resources identified for

plan credit should be capable of being

on scene within 12 hours of a discovery

of a discharge. Identification of these

resources does not imply that they will

be authorized for use. Actual

authorization for use during the spill

response will be governed by the

provisions of the NCP and the

applicable ACP.

5. Subpart G, consisting of

§§ 155.2210 through 155.2230, is added

to read as follows:

Subpart G—Response Plan Requirements

for Vessels Carrying Other Non-Petroleum

Oils as a Primary Cargo

Sec.

155.2210 Purpose and applicability.

155.2225 Response plan submission

requirements.

155.2230 Response plan development and

evaluation criteria.

Subpart G—Response Plan

Requirements for Vessels Carrying

Other Non-Petroleum Oils as a Primary

Cargo

§ 155.2210 Purpose and applicability.

This subpart establishes oil spill

response planning requirements for an

owner or operator of a vessel carrying

other non-petroleum oils as a primary

cargo. The requirements of this subpart

are intended for use in developing

response plans and identifying response

resources during the planning process.

They are not performance standards.

§ 155.2225 Response plan submission

requirements.

An owner or operator of a vessel

carrying other non-petroleum oils as a

primary cargo shall submit a response

plan in accordance with the

requirements of this subpart, and with

all sections of subpart D of this part,

except §§ 155.1050 and 155.1052.

§ 155.2230 Response plan development

and evaluation criteria.

(a) Owners and operators of vessels

that carry other non-petroleum oil as a

primary cargo must provide information

in their plan that identifies—

(1) Procedures and strategies for

responding to a worst case discharge of

other non-petroleum oils to the

maximum extent practicable; and

(2) Sources of the equipment and

supplies necessary to contain, recover,

and mitigate such a discharge.

(b) An owner or operator of a vessel

carrying other non-petroleum oil as a

primary cargo must ensure that any

equipment identified in a response plan

is capable of operating in the conditions

expected in the geographic area(s) in

which the vessel operates using the

criteria in Table 1 of Appendix B of this

part. When evaluating the operability of

equipment, the vessel owner or operator

must consider limitations that are

identified in the Area Contingency

Plans for the COTP zones in which the

vessel operates, including—

(1) Ice conditions;

(2) Debris;

(3) Temperature ranges; and

(4) Weather-related visibility.

(c) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying other non-petroleum oil as a

primary cargo must identify in the

response plan and ensure, through

contract or other approved means, the

availability of required equipment

including—

(1) Containment boom, sorbent boom,

or other methods for containing oil

floating on the surface or to protect

shorelines from impact;

(2) Oil recovery devices appropriate

for the type of other non-petroleum oil

carried; and
1100 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Other appropriate equipment

necessary to respond to a discharge

involving the type of other nonpetroleum oil carried.

(d) Response resources identified in a

response plan under paragraph (c) of

this section must be capable of arriving

on-scene within the applicable Tier 1

response times specified in this

paragraph. An oil spill removal

organization may not be listed in the

plan unless the organization has

provided written consent to be listed in

the plan as an available resource.

Response times from the time of

discovery of a discharge are as follow:

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Higher volume port

area.

12 hrs .. N/A ...... N/A

Great Lakes .. 18 hrs .. N/A ...... N/A

All other rivers and canals, inland,

nearshore,

and offshore areas.

24 hrs .. N/A ...... N/A

Open ocean

(plus travel

time from

shore).

24 hrs+ N/A ...... N/A

(e) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying other non-petroleum oil as a

primary cargo must identify in the

response plan and ensure the

availability of the following resources

through contract or other approved

means:

(1) A salvage company with

appropriate expertise and equipment.

(2) A company with vessel firefighting

capability that will respond to casualties

in the area(s) in which the vessel is

operating.

(f) Vessel owners or operators must

identify intended sources of the

resources required under paragraph (e)

of this section capable of being

deployed to the areas in which the

vessel will operate. A company may not

be listed in the plan unless the company

has provided written consent to be

listed in the plan as an available

resource. To meet this requirement in a

response plan submitted for approval or

reapproval on or after February 18,

1998, the vessel owner or operator must

identify both the intended sources of

this capability and demonstrate that the

resources are capable of being deployed

to the port nearest to the area where the

vessel operates within 24 hours of

discovery of a discharge.

(g) The owner or operator of a vessel

carrying other non-petroleum oil as a

primary cargo must identify in the

response plan, and ensure the

availability of, through contract or other

approved means, certain resources

required by subpart D of this part,

§ 155.1035(c)(5)(ii) and

§ 155.1040(c)(5)(i) of this part, as

applicable.

(1) Resources must include—

(i) Fendering equipment;

(ii) Transfer hoses and connection

equipment; and

(iii) Portable pumps and ancillary

equipment necessary to offload the

vessel’s largest cargo tank in 24 hours of

continuous operation.

(2) Resources must be capable of

reaching the locations in which the

vessel operates within the stated times

following notification:

(i) Inland, nearshore, and Great Lakes

waters—12 hours.

(ii) Offshore waters and rivers and

canals—18 hours.

(iii) Open ocean waters—36 hours.

(3) For barges operating in rivers and

canals as defined in this subpart, the

requirements of this paragraph (g)(3)

may be met by listing resources capable

of being deployed in an area within the

response times in paragraph (g)(2) of

this section. A vessel owner or operator

may not identify such resources in a

plan unless the response organization

has provided written consent to be

identified in a plan as an available

resource.

(h) The response plan for a vessel that

is located in any environment with yearround preapproval for use of dispersants

and that handles, stores, or transports

other non-petroleum oils may request a

credit for up to 25 percent of the worst

case planning volume set forth by

subpart D of this part. To receive this

credit, the vessel owner or operator

must identify in the plan and ensure, by

contract or other approved means, the

availability of specified resources to

apply the dispersants and to monitor

their effectiveness. The extent of the

credit will be based on the volumes of

the dispersant available to sustain

operations at the manufacturers’

recommended dosage rates.

Identification of these resources does

not imply that they will be authorized

for use. Actual authorization for use

during a spill response will be governed

by the provisions of the NCP and the

applicable ACP.

6. Appendix B is revised to read as

follows:

Appendix B to Part 155—Determining

and Evaluating Required Response

Resources for Vessel Response Plans

1. Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this appendix is to

describe the procedures for identifying

response resources to meet the requirements

of subparts D, E, F, and G of this part. These

guidelines will be used by the vessel owner

or operator in preparing the response plan

and by the Coast Guard to review vessel

response plans. Response plans submitted

under subparts F and G of this part will be

evaluated under the guidelines in section 2

and Table 1 of this appendix.

2. Equipment Operability and Readiness

2.1 All equipment identified in a

response plan must be capable of operating

in the conditions expected in the geographic

area in which a vessel operates. These

conditions vary widely based on the location

and season. Therefore, it is difficult to

identify a single stockpile of response

equipment that will function effectively in

every geographic location.

2.2 Vessels storing, handling, or

transporting oil in more than one operating

environment as indicated in Table 1 must

identify equipment capable of successfully

functioning in each operating environment.

For example, vessels moving from the ocean

to a river port must identify appropriate

equipment designed to meet the criteria for

transiting oceans, inland waterways, rivers,

and canals. This equipment may be designed

to operate in all of these environments or,

more likely, different equipment may be

designed for use in each area.

2.3 When identifying equipment for

response plan credit, a vessel owner or

operator must consider the inherent

limitations in the operability of equipment

components and response systems. The

criteria in Table 1 of this appendix must be

used for evaluating the operability in a given

environment. These criteria reflect the

general conditions in certain operating areas.

2.4 Table 1 of this appendix lists criteria

for oil recovery devices and boom. All other

equipment necessary to sustain or support

response operations in a geographic area

must be designed to function in the same

conditions. For example, boats which deploy

or support skimmers or boom must be

capable of being safely operated in the

significant wave heights listed for the

applicable operating environment. The Coast

Guard may require documentation that the

boom identified in a response plan meets the

criteria in Table 1 of this appendix. Absent

acceptable documentation, the Coast Guard

may require that the boom be tested to

demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Table

1 of this appendix. Testing must be in

accordance with certain American Society for

Testing Materials (ASTM) standards [ASTM

F 715–81 (Reapproved 1986), Standard

Methods of Testing Spill Control Barrier

Membrane Materials, and ASTM F 989–86,

Standard Test Methods for Spill Control

Barrier Tension Members], or other tests

approved by the Coast Guard.

2.5 A vessel owner or operator must refer

to the applicable Area Contingency Plan to

determine if ice, debris, and weather-related

visibility are significant factors in evaluating

the operability of equipment. The Area

Contingency Plan will also identify the

average temperature ranges expected in a

geographic area in which a vessel operates.

All equipment identified in a response plan

must be designed to operate within those

conditions or ranges.

2.6 The requirements of subparts D, E, F,

and G of this part establish response resource
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1101

mobilization and response times. The

location that the vessel operates farthest from

the storage location of the response resources

must be used to determine whether the

resources are capable of arriving on scene

within the time required. A vessel owner or

operator shall include the time for

notification, mobilization, and travel time of

resources identified to meet the maximum

most probable discharge and Tier 1 worst

case discharge requirements. For subparts D

and E of this part, tier 2 and 3 resources must

be notified and mobilized as necessary to

meet the requirements for arrival on scene.

An on-water speed of 5 knots and a land

speed of 35 miles per hour is assumed,

unless the vessel owner or operator can

demonstrate otherwise.

2.7 For subparts D and E of this part, in

identifying equipment, the vessel owner or

operator shall list the storage location,

quantity, and manufacturer’s make and

model, unless the oil spill removal

organization(s) providing the necessary

response resources have been evaluated by

the Coast Guard, and their capability has

been determined to equal or exceed the

response capability needed by the vessel. For

oil recovery devices, the effective daily

recovery capacity, as determined using

section 6 of this appendix, must be included.

For boom, the overall boom height (draft plus

freeboard) must be included. A vessel owner

or operator is responsible for ensuring that

identified boom has compatible connectors.

2.8 For subparts F and G of this part, in

identifying equipment, the vessel owner or

operator shall list the storage location,

quantity, and manufacturer’s make and

model, unless the oil spill removal

organization(s) providing the necessary

response resources have been evaluated by

the Coast Guard, and their capability has

been determined to equal or exceed the

response capability needed by the vessel. For

boom, the overall boom height (draft plus

freeboard) must be included. A vessel owner

of operator is responsible for ensuring that

identified boom has compatible connectors.

3. Determining Response Resources Required

for the Average Most Probable Discharge

3.1 A vessel owner or operator shall

identify and ensure, by contract or other

approved means, that sufficient response

resources are available to respond to the 50-

barrel average most probable discharge at the

point of an oil transfer involving a vessel that

carries oil as a primary cargo. The equipment

must be designed to function in the operating

environment at the point of oil transfer.

These resources must include—

3.1.1 Containment boom in a quantity

equal to twice the length of the largest vessel

involved in the transfer capable of being

deployed within 1 hour of the detection of

a spill at the site of oil transfer operations.

If the transfer operation is more than 12 miles

from shore, the containment boom must be

deployed within 1 hour plus the travel time

from the nearest shoreline at a speed of 5

knots.

3.1.2 Oil recovery devices with an

effective daily recovery capacity of 50 barrels

or greater available at the transfer site within

2 hours of the detection of an oil discharge.

3.1.3 Oil storage capacity for recovered

oily material indicated in section 9.2 of this

appendix.

4. Determining Response Resources Required

for the Maximum Most Probable Discharge

4.1 A vessel owner or operator shall

identify and ensure, by contract or other

approved means, that sufficient response

resources are available to respond to

discharges up to the maximum most probable

discharge volume for that vessel. The

resources should be capable of containing

and collecting up to 2,500 barrels of oil. All

equipment identified must be designed to

operate in the applicable operating

environment specified in table 1 of this

appendix.

4.2 To determine the maximum most

probable discharge volume to be used for

planning, use the lesser of—

4.2.1 2500 barrels; or

4.2.2 10 percent of the total oil cargo

capacity.

4.3 Oil recovery devices necessary to

meet the applicable maximum most probable

discharge volume planning criteria must be

located such that they arrive on scene within

12 hours of the discovery of a discharge in

higher volume port areas and the Great

Lakes, 24 hours in all other rivers and canals,

inland, nearshore, and offshore areas, and 24

hours plus travel time from shore in all open

ocean areas.

4.3.1 Because rapid control, containment,

and removal of oil is critical to reduce spill

impact, the effective daily recovery capacity

for oil recovery devices must equal 50% of

the planning volume applicable for the vessel

as determined in section 4.2 of this appendix.

The effective daily recovery capacity for oil

recovery devices identified in the plan must

be determined using the criteria in section 6

of this appendix.

4.4 In addition to oil recovery capacity,

the vessel owner or operator must identify in

the response plan and ensure the availability

of, through contract or other approved

means, sufficient boom available within the

required response times for oil connection

and containment, and for protection of

shoreline areas. While the regulation does

not set required quantities of boom for oil

collection and containment, the owner or

operator of a vessel must still identify in a

response plan and ensure, through contract

or other approved means, the availability of

the boom identified in the plan for this

purpose.

4.5 The plan must indicate the

availability of temporary storage capacity to

meet the requirements of section 9.2 of this

appendix. If available storage capacity is

insufficient to meet this requirement, the

effective daily recovery capacity must be

downgraded to the limits of the available

storage capacity.

4.6 The following is an example of a

maximum most probable discharge volume

planning calculation for equipment

identification in a higher volume port area:

The vessel’s cargo capacity is 10,000

barrels, thus the planning volume is 10

percent or 1,000 barrels. The effective daily

recovery capacity must be 50 percent of the

planning volume, for 500 barrels per day.

The ability of oil recovery devices to meet

this capacity will be calculated using the

procedures in section 6 of this appendix.

Temporary storage capacity available on

scene must equal twice the daily recovery

capacity as indicated in section 9 of this

appendix, or 1000 barrels per day. This figure

would represent the information the vessel

owner or operator would use to identify and

ensure the availability of, through contract or

other approved means, the required response

resources. The vessel owner would also need

to identify how much boom was available for

use.

5. Determining Response Resources Required

for the Worst Case Discharge to the

Maximum Extent Practicable

5.1 A vessel owner or operator shall

identify and ensure, by contract or other

approved means, that sufficient response

resources are available to respond to the

worst case discharge of oil cargo to the

maximum extent practicable. Section 7 of

this appendix describes the method to

determine the required response resources.

5.2 Oil spill recovery devices identified

to meet the applicable worst case discharge

planning volume must be located such that

they can arrive at the scene of a discharge

within the time specified for the applicable

response tier listed in § 155.1050(g).

5.3 The effective daily recovery capacity

for oil recovery devices identified in a

response plan must be determined using the

criteria in section 6 of this appendix. A

vessel owner or operator shall identify the

storage locations of all equipment that must

be used to fulfill the requirements for each

tier.

5.4 A vessel owner or operator shall

identify the availability of temporary storage

capacity to meet the requirements of section

9.2 of this appendix. If available storage

capacity is insufficient to meet this

requirement, then the effective daily recovery

capacity must be downgraded to the limits of

the available storage capacity.

5.5 When selecting response resources

necessary to meet the response plan

requirements, the vessel owner or operator

must ensure that a portion of those resources

are capable of being used in close-to-shore

response activities in shallow water. The

following percentages of the on-water

response equipment identified for the

applicable geographic area must be capable

of operating in waters of 6 feet or less depth:

(i) Open ocean—none.

(ii) Offshore—10 percent.

(iii) Nearshore, inland, Great Lakes, and

rivers and canals—20 percent.

5.6 In addition to oil spill recovery

devices and temporary storage capacity, a

vessel owner or operator shall identify in the

response plan and ensure the availability of,

through contract or other approved means,

sufficient boom that can arrive on scene

within the required response times for oil

containment and collection. The specific

quantity of boom required for collection and

containment will depend on the specific

recovery equipment and strategies employed.

Table 2 of this appendix lists the minimum

quantities of additional boom required for

shoreline protection that a vessel owner or

operator shall identify in the response plan

and ensure the availability of, through

contract or other approved means.
1102 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

5.7 A vessel owner or operator shall also

identify in the response plan and ensure, by

contract or other approved means, the

availability of an oil spill removal

organization capable of responding to a

shoreline cleanup operation involving the

calculated volume of emulsified oil that

might impact the affected shoreline. The

volume of oil for which a vessel owner or

operator should plan should be calculated

through the application of factors contained

in Tables 3 and 4 of this appendix. The

volume calculated from these tables is

intended to assist the vessel owner or

operator in identifying a contractor with

sufficient resources. This planning volume is

not used explicitly to determine a required

amount of equipment and personnel.

6. Determining Effective Daily Recovery

Capacity for Oil Recovery Devices

6.1 Oil recovery devices identified by a

vessel owner or operator must be identified

by manufacturer, model, and effective daily

recovery capacity. These capacities must be

to meet the applicable planning criteria for

the average most probable discharge;

maximum most probable discharge; and

worst case discharge to the maximum extent

practicable.

6.2 For the purposes of determining the

effective daily recovery capacity of oil

recovery devices, the following method will

be used. This method considers potential

limitations due to available daylight,

weather, sea state, and percentage of

emulsified oil in the recovered material. The

Coast Guard may assign a lower efficiency

factor to equipment listed in a response plan

if it determines that such a reduction is

warranted.

6.2.1 The following formula must be used

to calculate the effective daily recovery

capacity:

R=T×24×E

R—Effective daily recovery capacity

T—Throughput rate in barrels per hour

(nameplate capacity)

E—20% efficiency factor (or lower factor as

determined by the Coast Guard)

6.2.2 For those devices in which the

pump limits the throughput of liquid,

throughput rate will be calculated using the

pump capacity.

6.2.3 For belt or mop type devices, the

throughput rate will be calculated using data

provided by the manufacturer on the

nameplate rated capacity for the device.

6.2.4 Vessel owners or operators

including in the response plan oil recovery

devices whose throughput is not measurable

using a pump capacity or belt or mop

capacity may provide information to support

an alternative method of calculation. This

information must be submitted following the

procedures in section 6.5 of this appendix.

6.3 As an alternative to section 6.2 of this

appendix, a vessel owner or operator may

submit adequate evidence that a different

effective daily recovery capacity should be

applied for a specific oil recovery device.

Adequate evidence is actual verified

performance data in spill conditions or test

using certain ASTM standards [ASTM F 631–

80, Reapproved 1985) Standard Method for

Testing Full Scale Advancing Spill Removal

Devices, and ASTM F 808–83 (1988),

Standard Guide for Collecting Skimmer

Performance Data in Uncontrolled

Environments], or an equivalent test

approved by the Coast Guard.

6.3.1 The following formula must be used

to calculate the effective daily recovery

capacity under this alternative:

R=D×U

R—Effective daily recovery capacity

D—Average Oil Recovery Rate in barrels per

hour (Item 26 in ASTM F 808; Item

13.1.15 in ASTM F 631; or actual

performance data)

U—Hours per day that a vessel owner or

operator can document capability to

operate equipment under spill

conditions. Ten hours per day must be

used unless a vessel owner or operator

can demonstrate that the recovery

operation can be sustained for longer

periods.

6.4 A vessel owner or operator submitting

a response plan shall provide data that

supports the effective daily recovery

capacities for the oil recovery devices listed.

The following is an example of these

calculations:

A weir skimmer identified in a response

plan has a manufacturer’s rated throughput at

the pump of 267 gallons per minute (gpm).

267 gpm=381 barrels per hour

R=381×24×.2=1,829 barrels per day

After testing using ASTM procedures, the

skimmer’s oil recovery rate is determined to

be 220 gpm. The vessel owner or operator

identifies sufficient resources available to

support operations 12 hours per day.

220 gpm=314 barrels per hour

R=314×12=3,768 barrels per day

A vessel owner or operator will be able to

use the higher capacity if sufficient

temporary oil storage capacity is available.

6.5 Determinations of alternative

efficiency factors under section 6.2 or

alternative effective daily recovery capacities

under section 6.3 of this appendix will be

made by Commandant (G–MRO), Coast

Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street

SW., Washington, DC 20593. Oil spill

removal organizations or equipment

manufacturers may submit required

information on behalf of multiple vessel

owners or operators.

7. Calculating the Worst Case Discharge

Planning Volumes

7.1 A vessel owner or operator shall plan

for a response to a vessel’s worst case

discharge volume of oil cargo. The planning

for on-water recovery must take into account

a loss of some oil to the environment due to

evaporations and natural dissipation,

potential increases in volume due to

emulsification, and the potential for deposit

of some oil on the shoreline.

7.2 The following procedures must be

used to calculate the planning volume used

by a vessel owner or operator for determining

required on-water recovery capacity:

7.2.1 The following must be determined:

the total volume of oil cargo carried; the

appropriate cargo group for the type of

petroleum oil carried [persistent (groups II,

III, and IV) or non-persistent (group I)]; and

the geographic area(s) in which the vessel

operates. For vessels carrying mixed cargoes

from different petroleum oil groups, each

group must be calculated separately. This

information is to be used with Table 3 of this

appendix to determine the percentages of the

total cargo volume to be used for removal

capacity planning. This table divides the

cargo volume into three categories: oil lost to

the environment; oil deposited on the

shoreline; and oil available for on-water

recovery.

7.2.2 The on-water oil recovery volume

must be adjusted using the appropriate

emulsification factor found in Table 4 of this

appendix.

7.2.3 The adjusted volume is multiplied

by the on-water oil recovery resource

mobilization factor found in Table 5 of this

appendix from the appropriate operating area

and response tier to determine the total onwater oil recovery capacity in barrels per day

that must be identified or contracted for to

arrive on scene within the applicable time for

each response tier. Three tiers are specified.

For higher volume port areas, the contracted

tiers of resources must be located such that

they can arrive on scene within 12, 36, and

60 hours of the discovery of an oil discharge.

For the Great Lakes, these tiers are 18, 42,

and 66 hours. For rivers and canals, inland,

nearshore, and offshore, these tiers are 24, 48,

and 72 hours. For the open ocean area, these

tiers are 24, 48, and 72 hours with an

additional travel time allowance of 1 hour for

every additional 5 nautical miles from shore.

7.2.4 The resulting on-water recovery

capacity in barrels per day for each tier is

used to identify response resources necessary

to sustain operations in the applicable

geographic area. The equipment must be

capable of sustaining operations for the time

period specified in Table 3 of this appendix.

A vessel owner or operator shall identify and

ensure the availability of, through contract or

other approved means, sufficient oil spill

recovery devices to provide the effective

daily oil recovery capacity required. If the

required capacity exceeds the applicable cap

described in Table 6 of this appendix, then

a vessel owner or operator must contract only

for the quantity of resources required to meet

the cap, but shall identify sources of

additional resources as indicated in

§ 155.1050(o). The owner or operator of a

vessel whose planning volume exceeded the

cap in 1993 should plan for additional

capacity to be under contract by 1998 or

2003, as appropriate. For a vessel that carries

multiple groups of oil, the required effective

daily recovery capacity for each group is

calculated and summed before applying the

cap.

7.3 The following procedures must be

used to calculate the planning volume for

identifying shoreline cleanup capacity:

7.3.1 The following must be determined:

the total volume of oil cargo carried; the

appropriate cargo group for the type of

petroleum oil carried [persistent (groups II,

III, and IV) or non-persistent (group I)]; and

the geographic area(s) in which the vessel

operates. For a vessel carrying cargoes from

different oil groups, each group must be

calculated separately. Using this information,

Table 3 of this appendix must be used to

determine the percentages of the total cargo

volume to be used for shoreline cleanup

resource planning.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1103

7.3.2 The shoreline cleanup planning

volume must be adjusted to reflect an

emulsification factor using the same

procedure as described in section 7.2.2 of

this appendix.

7.3.3 The resulting volume will be used

to identify an oil spill removal organization

with the appropriate shoreline cleanup

capability.

7.4 The following is an example of the

procedure described above:

A vessel with a 100,000 barrel capacity for

#6 oil (specific gravity .96) will move from

a higher volume port area to another area.

The vessel’s route will be 70 miles from

shore.

Cargo carried: 100,000 bbls. Group IV oil

Emulsification factor (from Table 4 of

this appendix): 1.4 Areas transited:

Inland, Nearshore, Offshore, Open ocean

Planned % on-water recovery (from Table 3

of this appendix):

Inland 50%

Nearshore 50%

Offshore 40%

Open ocean 20%

Planned % oil onshore recovery (from Table

3 of this appendix):

Inland 70%

Nearshore 70%

Offshore 30%

Open ocean 30%

General formula to determine planning

volume:

(planning volume)=(capacity)×(% from Table

3 of this appendix)×(emulsification

factor from Table 4 of this appendix)

Planning volumes for on-water recovery:

Inland 100,000×.5×1.4=70,000 bbls

Nearshore 100,000×.5×1.4=70,000 bbls

Offshore 100,000×.4×1.4=56,000 bbls

Open ocean 100,000×.2×1.4=28,000 bbls

Planning volumes for on shore recovery:

Inland 100,000×.7×1.4=98,000 bbls

Nearshore 100,000×.7×1.4=98,000 bbls

Offshore 100,000×.3×1.4=42,000 bbls

The vessel owner or operator must contract

with a response resource capable of

managing a 98,000-barrel shoreline

cleanup in those areas where the vessel

comes closer than 50 miles to shore.

Determining required resources for onwater recovery for each tier using

mobilization factors: (barrel per day on-water

recovery requirements)=(on-water planning

volume as calculated above)×(mobilization

factor from Table 5 of this appendix).

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Inland/Nearshore 70,000 ........................................................................................................................ × .15 .25 .40

Offshore 56,000 ...................................................................................................................................... × .10 .165 .21

Open ocean 28,000 ................................................................................................................................ × .06 .10 .12

equals (barrels per day)

Inland/Nearshore .................................................................................................................................... 10,500 17,500 28,000

Offshore .................................................................................................................................................. 5,600 9,240 11,760

Open ocean ............................................................................................................................................ 1,680 2,800 3,360

Since the requirements for Tier 1 for inland

and nearshore exceed the caps, the vessel

owner would only need to contract for 10,000

barrels per day for Tier 1. No additional

equipment would be required to be identified

because the required Tier 3 resources are

below the Tier 3 caps.

10% of the on-water recovery capability for

offshore, and 20% of the capability for

inland/nearshore, for all tiers, must be

capable of operating in water with a depth of

6 feet or less.

The vessel owner or operator would also be

required to identify or contract for quantities

of boom identified in Table 2 of this

appendix for the areas in which the vessel

operates.

8. Determining the Availability of High-Rate

Response Methods

8.1 Response plans for a vessel carrying

group II or III persistent oil as a primary

cargo that operates in an area with yearround pre-approval for dispersant use may

receive credit for up to 25 percent of their

required on-water recovery capacity in that

area for 1993 if the availability of these

resources are ensured by contract or other

approved means. For response plan credit,

these resources must be capable of being on

scene within 12 hours of the discovery of a

discharge.

8.2 To receive credit against any required

on-water recovery capacity, a response plan

must identify the locations of dispersant

stockpiles, methods of transporting to a

shoreside staging area, and appropriate

aircraft or vessels to apply the dispersant and

monitor its effectiveness at the scene of an oil

discharge.

8.2.1 Sufficient volumes of dispersants

must be available to treat the oil at the dosage

rate recommended by the dispersant

manufacturer. Dispersants identified in a

response plan must be on the National

Contingency Plan Product Schedule

maintained by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. (Some States have a list

of approved dispersants and within State

waters only they can be used.)

8.2.2 Dispersant application equipment

identified in a response plan for credit must

be located such that it can be mobilized to

shoreside staging areas to meet the time

requirements in section 8.1 of this appendix.

Sufficient equipment capacity and sources of

appropriate dispersants must be identified to

sustain dispersant operations for at least 3

days.

8.2.3 Credit against on-water recovery

capacity in pre-approved areas will be based

on the ability to treat oil at a rate equivalent

to this credit. For example, a 2,500 barrels

per day credit against the 10,000 barrels per

day on-water Tier 1 cap would require the

vessel owner or operator to demonstrate the

ability to treat 2,500 barrels per day of oil at

the manufacturer’s recommended dosage

rate. Assuming a dosage rate of 10:1, the plan

would need to show stockpiles and sources

of 750 barrels of dispersants that would be

available on scene at a rate of 250 barrels per

day and the ability to apply the dispersant at

the daily rate for 3 days in the area in which

the vessel operates. Similar data would need

to be provided for any additional credit

against Tier 2 and 3 resources.

8.3 In addition to the equipment and

supplies required, a vessel owner or operator

shall identify a source of support to conduct

the monitoring and post-use effectiveness

evaluation required by applicable Local and

Area Contingency Plans.

8.4 Identification of the resources for

dispersant application does not imply that

the use of this technique will be authorized.

Actual authorization for use during a spill

response will be governed by the provisions

of the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan (40 CFR part

300) and the applicable Local or Area

Contingency Plan.

8.5 In addition to the credit identified

above, a vessel owners or operators that

operates in areas pre-approved for dispersant

use may reduce their required on-water

recovery cap increases for 1998 and 2003 by

up to 50% by identifying non-mechanical

methods.

8.6 The use of in-situ burning as a nonmechanical response method is still being

studied. Because limitations and

uncertainties remain for the use of this

method, it may not be used to reduce

required oil recovery capacity in 1993. Use

of this or other alternative high-rate methods

for a portion of the required cap increase in

1998 will be determined during the cap

increase review in 1996.

9. Additional Equipment Necessary to

Sustain Response Operations

9.1 A vessel owner or operator is

responsible for ensuring that sufficient

numbers of trained personnel, boats, aerial

spotting aircraft, sorbent materials, boom

anchoring materials, and other resources are

a available to sustain response operations to

completion. All such equipment must be

suitable for use with the primary equipment

identified in the response plan. A vessel

owner or operator is not required to list these

resources in the response plan, but shall

certify their availability.
1104 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

9.2 A vessel owner or operator shall

evaluate the availability of adequate

temporary storage capacity to sustain the

effective daily recovery capacities from

equipment identified in the plan. Because of

the inefficiencies of oil spill recovery

devices, response plans must identify daily

storage capacity equivalent to twice the

effective daily recovery capacity required on

scene. This temporary storage capacity may

be reduced if a vessel owner or operator can

demonstrate by waste stream analysis that

the efficiencies of the oil recovery devices,

ability to decant water, or the availability of

alternative temporary storage or disposal

locations in the area(s) the vessel will operate

will reduce the overall volume of oily

material storage requirements.

9.3 A vessel owner or operator shall

ensure that their planning includes the

capability to arrange for disposal of recovered

oil products. Specific disposal procedures

will be addressed in the applicable Area

Contingency Plan.

TABLE 1.—RESPONSE RESOURCE OPERATING CRITERIA

[Oil Recovery Devices]

Operating Environment

Significant Wave

Height 1

Sea State

(feet)

Rivers & Canals ........................................................................................................................................................... ≤1 1

Inland ........................................................................................................................................................................... ≤3 2

Great Lakes ................................................................................................................................................................. ≤4 2–3

Ocean .......................................................................................................................................................................... ≤6 3–4

[Boom]

Boom Property

Use

Rivers &

Canals Inland Great Lakes Ocean

Significant Wave 1, 2 Height (feet) ........................................................................ ≤1 ≤3 ≤4 ≤6

Sea State ............................................................................................................. 1 2 2–3 3–4

Boom height—in. .................................................................................................. 6–18 18–42 18–42 ≥42

(draft plus freeboard)

Reserve Buoyancy to Weight Ratio ..................................................................... 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 to 4:1

Total Tensile Strength—lbs. ................................................................................. 4,500 15–20,000 15–20,000 >20,000

Skirt Fabric Tensile Strength—lbs. ...................................................................... 200 300 300 500

Skirt Fabric Tear Strength—lbs. .......................................................................... 100 100 100 125

1Oil recovery devices and boom must be at least capable of operating in wave heights up to and including the values listed in Table 1 for each

operating environment. 2Equipment identified as capable of operating in waters of 6 feet or less depth are exempt from the significant wave height planning requirement.

TABLE 2.—SHORELINE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

Location

Boom Availability hours

Ensured by

contract or

other approved means

(ft.)

Higher volume

port area Other areas

Persistent Oils

Open Ocean ................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

Offshore ....................................................................................................................................... 15,000 24 48

Nearshore/Inland/Great Lakes ..................................................................................................... 30,000 12 24

Rivers & Canals ........................................................................................................................... 25,000 12 24

Non-Persistent Oils

Open Ocean ................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

Offshore ....................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Nearshore/Inland/Great Lakes ..................................................................................................... 10,000 12 24

Rivers & Canals ........................................................................................................................... 15,000 12 24

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1105
1106 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–14–C
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 1107

TABLE 4.—EMULSIFICATION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM OIL CARGO GROUPS

Non-persistent oil 72 G:

Group I .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.0

Persistent oil:

Group II ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.8

Group III ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2.0

Group IV ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.4

TABLE 5.—ON-WATER OIL RECOVERY RESOURCE MOBILIZATION FACTORS

Area Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Rivers and Canals ................................................................................................................................. .30 .40 .60

Inland/Nearshore/Great Lakes ............................................................................................................... .15 .25 .40

Offshore ................................................................................................................................................. .10 .165 .21

Ocean ..................................................................................................................................................... .06 .10 .12

Note: These mobilization factors are for total resources mobilized, not incremental resources.

TABLE 6.—RESPONSE CAPABILITY CAPS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

As of February 18, 1993:

All except rivers & canals & Great Lakes .................................. 10K bbls/day .................. 20K bbls/day .................. 40K bbls/day.

Great Lakes ................................................................................ 5K bbls/day .................... 10K bbls/day .................. 20K bbls/day.

Rivers & canals .......................................................................... 1,500 bbls/day ............... 3,000 bbls/day ............... 6,000 bbls/day.

February 18, 1998:

All except rivers & canals & Great Lakes .................................. 12.5K bbls/day ............... 25K bbls/day .................. 50K bbls/day.

Great Lakes ................................................................................ 6.35K bbls/day ............... 12.3K bbls/day ............... 25K bbls/day.

Rivers & canals .......................................................................... 1,875 bbls/day ............... 3,750 bbls/day ............... 7,500 bbls/day.

February 18, 2003

All except rivers & canals & Great Lakes .................................. TBD ................................ TBD ................................ TBD

Great Lakes ................................................................................ TBD ................................ TBD ................................ TBD

Rivers & canals .......................................................................... TBD ................................ TBD ................................ TBD

Note: The caps show cumulative overall effective daily recovery capacity, not incremental increases.

K = Thousand

bbls = Barrels

TBD = To be determined

7. Appendix C is added to read as

follows:

Appendix C to Part 155—Training

Elements for Oil Spill Response Plans

1. General

1.1 The portion of the plan dealing with

training is one of the key elements of a

response plan. This concept is clearly

expressed by the fact that Congress, in

writing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,

specifically included training as one of the

sections required in a vessel or facility

response plan. In reviewing submitted

response plans, it has been noted that the

plans often do not provide sufficient

information in the training section of the

plan for either the user or the reviewer of the

plan. In some cases, plans simply state that

the crew and others will be training in their

duties and responsibilities, with no other

information being provided. In other plans,

information is simply given that required

parties will receive the necessary worker

safety training (HAZWOPER).

1.2 The training section of the plan

need not be a detailed course syllabus, but

it must contain sufficient information to

allow the user and reviewer (or evaluator) to

have an understanding of those areas that are

believed to be critical. Plans should identify

key skill areas and the training that is

required to ensure that the individual

identified will be capable of performing the

duties prescribed to them. It should also

describe how the training will be delivered

to the various personnel. Further, this section

of the plan must work in harmony with those

sections of the plan dealing with exercises,

the spill management team, and the qualified

individual.

1.3 The material in this appendix C is not

all-inclusive and is provided for guidance

only.

2. Elements to be Addressed

2.1 To assist in the preparation of the

training section of a vessel response plan,

some of the key elements that should be

addressed are indicated in the following

sections. Again, while it is not necessary that

the comprehensive training program for the

company be included in the response plan,

it is necessary for the plan to convey the

elements that define the program as

appropriate.

2.2 An effective spill response training

program should consider and address the

following:

2.2.1 Notification requirements and

procedures.

2.2.2 Communication system(s) used for

the notifications.

2.2.3 Procedures to mitigate or prevent

any discharge or a substantial threat of a

discharge of oil resulting from—

2.2.3.1 Operational activities associated

with internal or external cargo transfers;

2.2.3.2 Grounding or stranding;

2.2.3.3 Collision;

2.2.3.4 Explosion or fire;

2.2.3.5 Hull failure;

2.2.3.6 Excessive list; or

2.2.3.7 Equipment failure.

2.2.4 Procedures and arrangements for

emergency towing.

2.2.5 When performing shipboard

mitigation measures—

2.2.5.1 Ship salvage procedures;

2.2.5.2 Damage stability; and

2.2.5.3 Hull stress considerations.

2.2.6 Procedures for transferring

responsibility for direction of response

activities from vessel and facility personnel

to the spill management team.

2.2.7 Familiarity with the operational

capabilities of the contracted oil spill

removal organizations and the procedures to

notify and activate such organizations.

2.2.8 Familiarity with the contracting and

ordering procedures to acquire oil spill

removal organization resources.

2.2.9 Familiarity with the Area

Contingency Plans.

2.2.10 Familiarity with the organizational

structures that will be used to manage the

response actions.

2.2.11 Responsibilities and duties of the

spill management team members in
1108 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

accordance with designated job

responsibilities.

2.2.12 Responsibilities and authority of

the qualified individual as described in the

vessel response plan and company response

organization.

2.2.13 Responsibilities of designated

individuals to initiate a response and

supervise shore-based response resources.

2.2.14 Actions to take, in accordance with

designated job responsibilities, in the event

of a transfer system leak, tank overflow, or

suspected cargo tank or hull leak.

2.2.15 Information on the cargoes

handled by the vessel or facility, including

familiarity with—

2.2.15.1 Cargo material safety data sheets;

2.2.15.2 Chemical characteristics of the

cargo;

2.2.15.3 Special handling procedures for

the cargo;

2.2.15.4 Health and safety hazards

associated with the cargo; and

2.2.15.5 Spill and firefighting procedures

for the cargo.

2.2.16 Occupational Safety and Health

Administration requirements for worker

health and safety (29 CFR 1910.120).

3. Further Considerations

In drafting the training section of the

response plan, some further considerations

are noted below (these points are raised

simply as a reminder):

3.1 The training program should focus on

training provided to vessel personnel.

3.2 An organization is comprised of

individuals, and a training program should

be structured to recognize this fact by

ensuring that training is tailored to the needs

of the individuals involved in the program.

3.3 An owner or operator may identify

equivalent work experience which fulfills

specific training requirements.

3.4 The training program should include

participation in periodic announced and

unannounced exercises. This participation

should approximate the actual roles and

responsibilities of individuals as specified in

the response plan.

3.5 Training should be conducted

periodically to reinforce the required

knowledge and to ensure an adequate degree

of preparedness by individuals with

responsibilities under the vessel response

plan.

3.6 Training may be delivered via a

number of different means; including

classroom sessions, group discussions, video

tapes, self study workbooks, resident training

courses, on-the-job training, or other means

as deemed appropriate to ensure proper

instruction.

3.7 New employees should complete the

training program prior to being assigned job

responsibilities which require participation

in emergency response situations.

4. Conclusion

The information in this appendix is only

intended to assist response plan preparers in

reviewing the content of and in modifying

the training section of their response plans.

It may be more comprehensive than is

needed for some vessels and not

comprehensive enough for others. The Coast

Guard expects that plan preparers have

determined the training needs of their

organizations created by the development of

the response plans and the actions identified

as necessary to increase the preparedness of

the company and its personnel to respond to

actual or threatened discharges of oil from

their vessels.

Dated: December 28, 1995.

A.E. Henn,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commandant.

[FR Doc. 96–118 Filed 1–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M