[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24817]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 7, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Coast Guard



_______________________________________________________________________



33 CFR Part 151




Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans; Final Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

[CGD 93-030]
RIN 2115-AE44

 
Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is requiring all U.S. flag oil tankers of 150 
gross tons and above and all other U.S. flag ships of 400 gross tons 
and above, to carry approved shipboard oil pollution emergency plans. 
These regulations also require foreign oil tankers of 150 gross tons 
and above and other foreign ships of 400 gross tons and above, to carry 
evidence of compliance with Regulation 26 when in the navigable waters 
of the United States. The regulations implement the requirements of 
Regulation 26 of Annex I of the International Convention for the 
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol 
of 1978, as amended (MARPOL 73/78). The purpose of Regulation 26 is to 
improve response capabilities and minimize the environmental impact of 
oil discharges from ships.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on October 7, 1994.

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) (CGD 93-030), 
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 Duane (Mike) Smith, Policy 
Contact, Marine Environmental Protection Division (G-MEP-2) (202) 267-
2611. 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 LTJG 
Christina Bjergo, Project Manager, and Ms. Jacqueline L. Sullivan, 
Project Counsel, OPA 90 Staff.

Regulatory History

    On March 5, 1993, the Coast Guard released Navigation and Vessel 
Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 2-93 to provide guidance to the affected 
community on compliance before Regulation 26 became effective for new 
ships on April 4, 1993. The NVIC has no regulatory force; it simply 
provided guidance until the issuance of this regulation. The Coast 
Guard also issued Change 1 to NVIC 2-93 on July 28, 1993, providing 
shipowners with the current list of national operational contact points 
adopted by the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC). On 
February 17, 1994, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans in 
the Federal Register (59 FR 8086). The Coast Guard received 36 letters 
commenting on the proposal. A public hearing was not requested and one 
was not held.

Background and Purpose

MARPOL 73/78

    The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) 
(the Act) authorizes the Coast Guard to administer and enforce Annex I 
of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, as amended (MARPOL 
73/78). Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 is entitled ``Regulations for the 
Prevention of Pollution by Oil'' and is designed to prevent the 
discharge of oil into the marine environment. MARPOL 73/78 defines oil 
as petroleum in any form, including crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil 
refuse, and refined products; it does not include animal or vegetable 
based oil or noxious liquid substances.

Regulation 26

    The MEPC of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted 
Regulation 26 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 at its 31st session in July 
1991. Regulation 26 requires every oil tanker of 150 gross tons and 
above and every other ship of 400 gross tons and above to carry on 
board a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan approved by its flag 
state. This requirement entered into force for party states, including 
the United States, on April 4, 1993, for new ships and enters into 
force on April 4, 1995, for existing ships.
    The 32nd session of IMO in March 1992 adopted a set of guidelines 
(Resolution MEPC.54(32)) with more specific information for the 
preparation of shipboard oil pollution emergency plans. The guidelines 
are intended to assist parties to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 in developing 
regulations for domestic implementation of Regulation 26, and are the 
basis of this rule.

Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans

    Regulation 26 requires that plans be prepared according to the 
guidelines developed by IMO and written in the working language of the 
ship's master and officers. Plans must consist at least of--
    (1) The procedure to be followed by the master or other persons 
having charge of the ship to report an oil pollution incident, as 
required in article 8 and Protocol I of MARPOL 73/78;
    (2) The list of authorities or persons to be contacted in the event 
of an oil pollution incident;
    (3) A detailed description of the actions to be taken immediately 
by persons on board to reduce or control the discharge of oil following 
the incident; and
    (4) The procedures and point of contact on the ship for 
coordinating shipboard activities with national and local authorities 
in responding to the pollution.
    The Regulation 26 guidelines expand on the four mandatory 
provisions of Regulation 26, and also address the following non-
mandatory provisions: plans and diagrams, ship-carried response 
equipment, public affairs, recordkeeping, plan review, and plan 
testing.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    Thirty-six public comments were received in response to the NPRM. 
The Coast Guard has reviewed all of the comments and, in some 
instances, revised the rule as appropriate. The comments have been 
grouped by issue, and are discussed as follows.
1. Definitions
    One comment stated that the term ``oil pollution emergency plan'' 
should be defined in the rule to include the response plans required by 
other Federal agencies under OPA 90. The Coast Guard disagrees that 
this rulemaking should address response plans required by other Federal 
agencies. However, this rule does not prohibit addressing other 
Federal, State, or local requirements within the required plan.
2. Applicability
    Four comments addressed the issue of applying Regulation 26 
provisions to ships operating exclusively on the Great Lakes or their 
connecting and tributary waters, or exclusively on the internal waters 
of the U.S. Three comments stated that the requirements of Regulation 
26 of MARPOL 73/78 should apply to vessels operating exclusively in the 
Great Lakes. Because Canada will be requiring an oil pollution 
emergency plan within all waters under Canadian jurisdiction, these 
comments encouraged the U.S. Coast Guard to implement consistent 
requirements to ensure a comparable level of environmental protection 
throughout the Great Lakes. Another comment opposed applying Annexes I 
and II of MARPOL 73/78 to the Great Lakes arguing that the legislative 
history clearly indicates that Annexes I and II were intended to apply 
to seagoing vessels only and not to vessels operating in internal 
waters.
    The legislative history of the Act demonstrates congressional 
intent that Annexes I and II not apply to ships operating exclusively 
on the Great Lakes. Therefore, the Coast Guard will not apply the 
requirements to ships operating exclusively in these waters in this 
rule. The Coast Guard is still considering all comments received on 
this issue and is working with the Canadian government to determine the 
best approach to resolve inconsistent requirements for ships operating 
exclusively on the Great Lakes.
    Three comments agreed with the applicability of this rule as it 
relates to mobile offshore drilling units (MODU's) and fixed or 
floating drilling rigs or other platforms. All comments suggested 
revising the language of this section to avoid misinterpretations. One 
suggested changing the format of the applicability section to describe 
which facilities are covered rather than those that are exempt from the 
requirements. Another recommended distinguishing MODUs from other types 
of floating rigs. The final comment wanted the Coast Guard to include 
information concerning other Federal or State regulations that may be 
applicable.
    In order to remain consistent with IMO Guidelines the Coast Guard 
will not revise the language of the text. The format of the 
applicability section remains consistent with IMO Guidelines 
(Resolution MEPC.54(32)). However, for clarification, Regulation 26 
requirements apply to MODUs not engaged in their primary mode of 
operation, and apply to all MODUs while in transit. In addition, this 
rulemaking was not intended to include other Federal or State 
requirements. Rather, the Coast Guard encourages shipowners to consult 
other Federal, State, or local laws for additional requirements.
    Two comments discussed the application of Regulation 26 to unmanned 
vessels. One comment recommended that unmanned vessels be exempted from 
the requirement to have a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan 
aboard. The comment pointed out that there will be no one aboard to use 
the plan and no place to store it. The other comment questioned whether 
U.S. flag manned or unmanned tank barges will be required to carry 
approved plans. The Coast Guard recognizes the need to specifically 
address the requirements for manned and unmanned vessels. Accordingly, 
Sec. 151.27(a) has been revised. All manned vessels subject to the 
regulation must carry on board a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan 
approved by the Coast Guard. For unmanned vessels subject to the 
regulation, the notification list required in Sec. 151.25(b)(3) must be 
carried on board in the documentation container. The remaining sections 
of the plan must be maintained at the vessel's home office.
    One comment suggested that language exempting vessels ``constructed 
or operated in such a manner that no oil can be discharged from any 
portion thereof, intentionally or unintentionally * * *'' be deleted 
because there is no guarantee that oil will not be spilled. The Coast 
Guard agrees with this suggestion and has revised Sec. 151.09(d)(2) to 
state more clearly which vessels are exempted.
    One comment requested clarification on the tonnage to be used in 
determining the applicability to offshore marine service vessels. The 
Coast Guard maintains that tonnage requirements are clearly defined and 
does not agree that further clarification is necessary. Another comment 
pointed out that dedicated oil spill response vessels (OSRVs), 
including dedicated tank barges, should be specifically exempted when 
not carrying cargo in bulk or when operating in spill response areas as 
designated by the Federal On-scene Coordinator (FOSC). The Coast Guard 
does not agree with this comment because the requirements of Regulation 
26 apply to all ships that carry oil.
3. Ships of Countries not Party to MARPOL
    One comment expressed concern that non-party states may be afforded 
more favorable treatment than party states. The Coast Guard does not 
agree with this comment. As discussed in Sec. 151.29, ships operating 
under the authority of a country that is not a party to MARPOL, must 
comply with Sec. 151.21 of this rule while in the navigable waters of 
the United States. However, the Coast Guard has amended the definition 
of ``shipboard oil pollution emergency plan'' to clarify the 
requirements for non-party states.
4. Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans
    Plan format. Two comments addressed the format of the plan. One 
contended that the format and the language of the plan was too 
inflexible. The comment further stated that owners should be permitted 
to deviate from form as long as the content of the plan satisfied the 
requirements. The other comment stressed that the plan would be more 
useful in an emergency if it were a uniform, fleetwide plan. To further 
international consistency and in recognition of such plans, the Coast 
Guard has adopted the framework of the plan as set out in the IMO 
guidelines. The Coast Guard has determined that the plan allows for 
sufficient flexibility. However, the material within the required 
sections can be developed with some flexibility by owners and operators 
so they can be designed around their own ship's operations. 
Furthermore, requiring owners and operators to create their own plans 
is preferable to having a uniform plan. The Coast Guard has determined 
that it helps them become familiar with their own procedures, making 
them better prepared for an emergency.
    Two comments suggested that the format proposed in the NPRM should 
be in accordance with Resolution MEPC.54(32). One of these comments 
also suggested that the Coast Guard accept and approve plans formatted 
in five sections in accordance with Resolution MEPC.54(32), as well as 
those formatted in seven sections as specified in the NPRM. The Coast 
Guard will continue to require that seven sections be included in the 
plan. These seven sections contain the same information as the five 
sections in the Resolution MEPC.54(32). The Coast Guard has only 
reorganized the numbering to include the required ``Introduction'' and 
``Appendices'' as additional sections. This organizational change was 
made to prevent misinterpretation of the requirements and help ensure 
that all requirements are incorporated into the plan. The Coast Guard 
has added a sample index in Table 151.26(b)(8) of the rule to help the 
owner or operator properly prepare the plan.
    One comment recommended that the rule specify introductory text for 
use when a plan complies with both Regulation 26 and the OPA 90 vessel 
response plan (VRP) requirements. The Coast Guard disagrees; this rule 
does not establish requirements for plans required by Sec. 155.1030. 
Shipowners who wish to submit combined Regulation 26 and OPA 90 vessel 
response plans should refer to 33 CFR 155.1030(j).
    Preamble. One comment noted that the preamble is not clear on the 
meaning of ``other shore-based plans.'' Basically, the Coast Guard 
wants the owner and operator to be cognizant of existing State plans or 
other municipal plans, and plans of other countries which may be 
applicable. They should consider if their Regulation 26 plan works well 
with other plans in the system. Another comment recommends amending the 
preamble to make Regulation 26 plans consistent with area plans. The 
Coast Guard maintains that shipboard oil pollution emergency plans are 
consistent with separate area plans. National and local coordination is 
discussed in Sec. 151.26(b)(5) which requires that information be 
provided to assist the master initiate action by the coastal state, 
local government, or other involved party. The plan must include 
guidance to assist the master in organizing a response, should there be 
no organized response by shore authorities.
    Reporting Requirements. Six comments recommended that the Coast 
Guard require an Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) or some other 
type of approved spill response contractor. They argued that these 
organizations will respond to an oil pollution incident more 
effectively than cooperatives, individually contracted by shipowners. 
Three comments suggested that ship owners or operators identify an 
individual qualified to respond. They contended that it will ensure 
that someone is authorized to make decisions for the owner or operator 
on an immediate basis. The Coast Guard has determined that, although it 
can not require this information, inclusion would enhance the plan and 
make it more effective. Further, this concept is consistent with 
guidance contained in IMO Resolution A.741(18). Therefore, the Coast 
Guard has added the identification of such persons and equipment to the 
list of non-mandatory provisions in Sec. 151.26(b)(7).
    Two comments recommended that the Coast Guard consider an umbrella 
plan which covers multiple vessels. This approach would allow incoming 
vessels to pay a fee to be covered by a State approved contingency plan 
and to have a primary contractor immediately available. The Coast Guard 
disagrees with the concept of a ``model plan'' approach because it is 
important for owners or operators to produce their own plans so that 
they are familiar with the process and the associated risks involved. 
However, we agree that owners or operators should be able to utilize a 
standard plan covering similar types of ships in their fleet. 
Accordingly, Sec. 151.27(c) has been added to incorporate this change.
    Consistent with IMO guidelines, plan writers should consider the 
many variables in determining whether ships can be grouped under the 
same plan. These variables may include type and size of ship, cargo, 
route, and shore based management structure. For example single skinned 
oil tankers could be grouped in one plan, while double hulled tankers 
should be grouped in another. It is important to note that although one 
plan can cover similar ships in an owner or operator's fleet, an 
approved plan must be on board each ship.
    Because multiple ships can be grouped under a single plan, and 
consistent with IMO guidelines, each plan must clearly identify each 
ship to which the plan applies. The Coast Guard has determined that the 
ship's name, call sign, official number, International Maritime 
Organization (IMO) international number, and principal characteristics 
are important details that ensure that the plan applies to the 
particular ship for which it was intended. Section 151.26(b)(1)(ii)(A) 
has been added to incorporate this requirement.
    Six comments addressed the notification form in Table 
151.26(b)(3)(ii)(A), that contains information to be provided in the 
initial and follow-up reports. Two of the comments suggested evaluating 
the sample report format with respect to the information required by 
the National Response Center (NRC). This would facilitate the timely 
transfer of information to the NRC when the report is made. The Coast 
Guard agrees that the information on the form should coordinate with 
that required by the NRC. The Coast Guard has worked with the NRC to 
provide consistent reporting requirements.
    Another comment noted that the information on the form differs 
slightly from the information required to be reported under 33 CFR 
151.15(e). The Coast Guard has determined that this issue warrants 
further consideration. The reporting requirements in 33 CFR part 151 
will be updated to reflect amendments to Protocol I of MARPOL 73/78 in 
a future rulemaking project.
    The other two comments pointed out that the sample report format 
should require an estimate of the volume of oil spilled during the 
incident. The Coast Guard agrees that there should be a place on the 
form to give brief details of the pollution incident; this would 
include an estimate of the quantity of cargo lost. Block ``RR'' of 
Table 151.26(b)(3)(ii)(A) already provides a place for this information 
to be recorded. Another comment notes that a space for the vessel's 
``noun name'' be included in the report. The Coast Guard agrees and has 
already provided block ``AA'' as the location for listing the ship's 
name, call sign, or flag. Additionally, one comment stated that the 
incident reports be kept on file with the plan and summarized with each 
annual letter. The Coast Guard has determined that there is no basis 
for establishing this requirement.
    Three comments stated that qualifications on reportable conditions 
should be replaced with requirements consistent with section 155.1035 
of the interim final rule (IFR) for vessel response plans (58 FR 7424; 
February 5, 1993). They noted that there is no need to add additional 
qualifiers when either a spill has occurred or there is a threat of a 
spill. The Coast Guard disagrees and points out that reporting 
requirements for this rulemaking reflect the MARPOL standard. They are 
not intended to mirror notification requirements described in 
Sec. 155.1035 which were issued under separate legislation. As a 
result, the notification requirements will remain consistent with 
Regulation 26 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 as intended.
    One comment received suggested that a note be added to indicate 
that (for vessels in U.S. waters) a report made in conformance with 46 
CFR 4.04 satisfies the reporting requirements for probable discharges. 
The Coast Guard disagrees and contends that regulations issued for 
marine casualties in 46 CFR part 4 were issued under separate 
legislation and do not require notification to the NRC. This comment 
also suggests that we modify the information provided by MEPC/CIRC.267 
to include the phone number for the NRC. The Coast Guard supports this 
suggestion and has included the phone number in 
Sec. 151.26(b)(3)(iii)(B).
    One comment contended that rather than merely referring to Protocol 
I of MARPOL 73/78, that the specific required procedures should be 
listed. The Coast Guard disagrees, preferring to reference Protocol I 
of MARPOL which may be amended periodically by the MARPOL Parties.
    Another comment contended that this rulemaking is redundant with 
the current requirements of 33 CFR 151.15. This comment wanted it made 
clear what relationship and impact the proposed regulations have on 
current regulations in 33 CFR 151. This rule implements the 
requirements of Regulation 26 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 and will be 
added to the existing MARPOL requirements published in 33 CFR 151. The 
purpose of Regulation 26 is to improve response capabilities by 
establishing requirements to carry on board an oil pollution emergency 
plan.
    One comment noted that it is unclear whether all incidents 
resulting in equipment failure or breakdown should be reported or only 
those failures that may cause a probable discharge. They continued that 
reporting all incidents of equipment failures may result in an undue 
burden on shipboard and shoreside response personnel. Further, this 
comment agrees that the status and the role of all equipment that 
relates to the incident should be reported in the case of a probable 
discharge. Reporting requirements placed in Sec. 151.26(b)(3)(i)(A) 
require notification of equipment damage whenever there is a discharge 
or probable discharge of oil. It is recognized that it is impracticable 
to lay down a precise definition of a probable discharge which would 
warrant an obligation to report. Nevertheless, as a general guideline, 
reports should be made in cases of damage, failure, or breakdown which 
affect the safety of a ship. In addition, notification should be made 
in cases of failure or breakdown of machinery or equipment which result 
in impairment of the safety of navigation. The Coast Guard does not 
feel the notification requirements place an undue burden on ship 
operators. These requirements are currently in force under Article 8 
and Protocol I of MARPOL. Furthermore, the information could be helpful 
in preventing a possible spill. The Coast Guard agrees that information 
on the status and role of all equipment in the case of probable 
discharge would be useful. This information can be placed in the 
supplemental section of the notification form if desired. However, this 
information will not be required. Initial notification must not be 
delayed pending collection of this information.
    Steps to control a discharge. Seven comments addressed the steps to 
control a discharge section. Generally, all comments supported this 
section, but suggested additional requirements be added. One comment 
was very supportive of the required checklists. This comment also 
recommends that a new (C), (D), (E), and (F) be added. The comment 
suggested that these sections address contracting with an approved 
spill response contractor, procedures for handling oily waste and 
recovered oil, strategies for protecting the marine environment, and 
the type of communication system to be used. One comment recommended 
that this section include five more parts to be compatible with 
Washington State requirements. Four comments urged the Coast Guard to 
require prevention measures to be identified in the plan. One of the 
comments noted that prevention rather than control of an oil spill 
should be emphasized. Furthermore, one comment requested that leak 
detection equipment be required. Two comments noted that the scenarios 
should include procedures for responding to different sizes and types 
of spills. Another comment questioned whether current regulatory 
requirements exist to ensure the competency of masters and other key 
shipboard personnel such as training, prior experience, testing, and 
licensing. Additionally, one comment suggested that the Coast Guard 
require an initial or follow-up report identifying where damage 
stability and longitudinal strength information can be located.
    Regulation 26 was intended to require a simple plan. IMO guidelines 
were designed in part to help reduce error in an emergency situation. 
Additional requirements would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 
While most of the information suggested by the comments are covered by 
other plans, this information can be included in the non-mandatory 
section of the shipboard oil pollution emergency plan at the 
shipowner's discretion.
    National and local coordination. Five comments expressed concerns 
about national and local coordination. Two comments stated that the 
requirements in this section should be eliminated unless there was a 
specific purpose outside the scope of the international regulations. 
Additionally, one of these comments stated that the requirements are 
ambiguous. It should be understood that the IMO guidelines, upon which 
these rules are based, were intentionally designed to be flexible 
enough to meet the special needs of various ships operating throughout 
the world.
    One comment stated that coverage under an OPA 90 vessel response 
plan should satisfy the requirements of Sec. 151.26(b)(5), provided the 
list of agencies and contacts required in Sec. 151.26(b)(6) are 
included for all of the vessel's operating areas. Another comment 
argued that combined shipboard oil pollution emergency plans and vessel 
response plans required by this part must be prepared in accordance 
with 33 CFR part 151. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment and 
maintains that Regulation 26 requirements should remain consistent with 
international standards. However, the OPA 90 vessel response plan 
allows for submission of a combined plan that includes information from 
both the vessel response plan and the shipboard oil pollution emergency 
plan, provided the single plan complies with both sets of requirements. 
A combined plan must be prepared in accordance with 33 CFR section 
155.1030(j).
    Three comments recommended that the section requiring detailed 
information for specific areas should be required and not optional. 
Another comment suggested that the appendices should include detailed 
information for specific areas, including which resources to call and 
which countries will respond to an incident and which will not. The 
Coast Guard disagrees with these comments and will not require detailed 
information on specific areas. This information will remain optional in 
accordance with IMO guidelines. However, the Coast Guard encourages 
shipowners to voluntarily include this information to be better 
prepared in case of an oil spill emergency.
    Appendices. Four comments argued that the requirement to list and 
inform ``all parties with a financial interest in the ship'' should be 
deleted. One comment suggested that the entire appendix be omitted 
because the responsibility for informing parties with a financial 
interest in the ship usually rests with management. Furthermore, they 
argue that the master should only be concerned with notifications and 
actions necessary to mitigate the emergency, not managing business that 
can be handled by the shoreside crisis management team. Another comment 
stated that the operator's staff should determine and make the 
necessary contacts in regard to insurance and salvage interests. One 
comment believes that the list required be limited to ship and cargo 
owners and insurers only.
    The Coast Guard has revised the language of the rule to be more 
consistent with IMO guidelines. However, the Coast Guard maintains its 
position that the plan should provide details of all parties with a 
``financial interest'' in the ship who are to be advised in the event 
of an incident. The required information should be provided in the form 
of a contact list. The Coast Guard recognizes that in the event of a 
serious incident, ship's personnel will be fully engaged in saving life 
and taking steps to minimize the effects of the casualty. The 
comprehensive list of contacts may be maintained in the corporate 
office if so noted in the plan. While procedures may vary between 
companies it is important that the plan clearly specifies who will be 
responsible for informing the various interested parties such as cargo 
owners, insurers, and salvage interests. It is also essential that both 
the ship's plan and its shoreside plan are coordinated to guarantee 
that all parties having an interest are advised and to avoid 
duplication of reports.
    One comment noted that the list of agencies or administrations 
which receive and act upon incident reports contained in this section 
should not include areas of the world not traveled such as Asia and 
Europe for U.S. coastwise vessels. They believe that only rescue 
coordination centers should be listed. The Coast Guard requires that 
ship owners or operators whose vessels operate exclusively within U.S. 
coastal waters include in the list of coastal state administrations the 
agencies or officials of only those coastal states reasonably expected 
to be affected in the case of a spill. However, the Coast Guard has not 
changed the requirement to provide this list.
    Non-mandatory provisions. Five comments indicated that the non-
mandatory provisions should remain non-mandatory and in accordance with 
Regulation 26 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. However, six comments argued 
that the non-mandatory provisions should become mandatory and not be 
left to the discretion of the owner or operator. Additionally, one 
comment noted that plan exercising should be the only element of these 
provisions that should be mandatory. One comment contended that the 
non-mandatory provisions of Regulation 26 should be completely 
withdrawn from the final rule. One comment advised the Coast Guard to 
change certain terminology to make section 151.26(b) ``advisory'' 
instead of mandatory. The Coast Guard has determined to keep the non-
mandatory provisions voluntary. To better clarify this point the word 
``should'' in Sec. 151.26(b)(7) has been replaced by the word ``may''. 
The Coast Guard encourages ship owners or operators to include non-
mandatory provisions in their plans. This information is only intended 
to assist in an emergency.
    One comment, in favor of making these provisions mandatory, made 
several specific recommendations as to what each section should 
describe and include. One other comment recommended that it be made 
clear that a point of contact must be established on board to 
coordinate response activities. Also, according to this comment, the 
onboard coordinator should have the authority to commit to the hiring 
of resources in a timely manner. As previously stated, the Coast Guard 
has added designation of an Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) and 
an Individual Qualified to Respond to the list of non-mandatory 
provisions. Additional information can be included in plans submitted 
if desired.
5. Plan Submission and Approval.
    Eight comments discussed the time-frame for submission of shipboard 
oil pollution emergency plans for initial review, reapproval, or for 
corrections to deficiencies in the plan. Five of those comments 
questioned whether 60 days is adequate time for the Coast Guard to 
review the plans. Three comments discussed expanding the time limit. 
Their suggestions included expanding the deadline from 60 days to 6 
months, 120 days, and 60 days prior to April 4, 1995. Two comments 
urged the Coast Guard to make provisions to allow vessels that have 
submitted plans by the required 60 days prior to April 4, 1995, but who 
have not received Coast Guard approval by April 4, 1995, to continue 
operating.
    The Coast Guard has modified the time-frame for submission of 
shipboard oil pollution emergency plans in response to these comments. 
The rule has been revised so there will be adequate time for the plans 
to be reviewed. Plans must be submitted for new ships 90 days before 
the ship intends to begin operations. Existing ships are required to 
submit plans no later than January 4, 1995 (90 days prior to April 4, 
1995). The Coast Guard will make determinations on all submitted 
shipboard oil pollution emergency plans meeting this deadline. Because 
the April 4, 1995 deadline is fixed, the Coast Guard encourages ship 
owners or operators to submit their plans as soon as possible, in case 
subsequent revisions are required.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that there is a possibility that a plan 
received by January 4, 1995, may not receive Coast Guard approval by 
April 4, 1995. Therefore, the Coast Guard intends to develop a policy 
of conditional acceptance, whereby plans having a completed review by 
April 4, 1995, would be subject to a preliminary review checklist. If 
the plan meets the criteria of the preliminary review, a letter would 
be sent to the shipowner or operator authorizing continued operations 
until the Coast Guard completes its final review.
    One comment recommended allowing 45 days for correction of 
deficiencies in the plan. One other comment recommended a 60-day period 
for reapproval of the plan. The time period allowed for submitting plan 
revisions has been changed from within 45 days of receipt of the 
notice. Revisions are to be resubmitted within the required time period 
specified in the written notice. Although the time period for 
resubmission will normally be 45 days, this time period could be 
lengthened by the Coast Guard when extensive revisions are required.
    Six comments addressed where the plans should be sent for review 
and approval. Four of the comments specifically stated that the review 
process should take place at Coast Guard Headquarters. The other two 
comments suggested that any single entity perform the review. The bases 
for their suggestions are for consistency in review, to avoid 
misinterpretation of the regulations, and to avoid the confusion and 
varying levels of quality that a multiple-authority review system would 
cause. The Coast Guard generally agrees with these comments. Therefore, 
Secs. 151.27 and 151.28 have been revised to reflect that all plans 
will be submitted to Commandant (G-MEP-6) at U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters. As a result of this decision, the Coast Guard has changed 
the final rule to require only one copy of the plan to be submitted to 
Headquarters.
    One comment noted that this section should be modified to clarify 
how operators can submit amendments to their existing OPA 90 VRP to 
satisfy these requirements. The provisions for amending existing vessel 
response plans are located in 33 CFR section 155.1070. One other 
comment recommended charging a fee of $55.00 for the review of response 
plans to recover the Federal Government's costs associated with the 
implementation of this rule. Imposition of a ``user fee'' is outside 
the scope of this rulemaking. It may be separately addressed in a 
future rulemaking.
6. Plan Review and Revision.
    Four comments addressed a specific time limit for plan review or 
revision. One of these comments noted that a time limit for submission 
of revisions or amendments should be in place. The Coast Guard finds 
that the requirements in Sec. 151.28, that the review must occur within 
1 month of the anniversary date of Coast Guard approval of the plan, 
establishes a time limit.
    One comment stated that the 5-year approval period for the plan 
seems excessive. It suggested that the regulations should require 
notification to the Coast Guard within 3 months of implementing any 
changes to the plan, but that the approval should continue 
indefinitely. The 5-year approval expiration date was selected to align 
with the VRP requirements. The Coast Guard has determined that an 
indefinite approval is not possible. The Coast Guard finds that the 
plan validity needs to be evaluated at least every 5 years. Therefore, 
the Coast Guard concludes that the 5-year plan approval expiration date 
will remain and a formal request must be made to the Coast Guard at 
that time for reapproval of the existing plan or approval of a new 
plan.
    Three comments opposed the requirement to submit an annual letter 
to the Coast Guard certifying that the review has been completed. Two 
comments supported the review, but viewed the letter as unnecessary. 
Further, one of the comments stated that the Coast Guard should only 
require the owner or operator to perform the annual review. They 
contended that this would minimize unnecessary paperwork. The other 
comment suggested that rather than just requiring a review and a letter 
to the Coast Guard, a requirement that the letter highlight alterations 
needed to the plan and discuss any spill incidents occurring within the 
past year should be added to this section of the regulation. 
Additionally, one comment stated that the annual review letter should 
be more specific and summarize spill incidents and identify the 
preventive measures taken. The Coast Guard has determined that 
receiving an annual letter certifying that the annual review has been 
completed helps keep the Coast Guard abreast of plan revisions on a 
yearly basis. The Coast Guard opposes requiring additional information 
because it might create an unnecessary burden for shipowners or 
operators.
    Four comments addressed the term ``homeport.'' Two of the comments 
contended that the term is incorrect. They suggested use of the terms 
vessel's ``port of certification'' or ``port of record.'' One of the 
comments stated that the NPRM should address procedures for plan 
approval should a vessel change its homeport. As discussed earlier, the 
Coast Guard has eliminated the requirements to have plans, revisions, 
and annual letters submitted to the COTP or OCMI at the ship's home 
port. Therefore, the term ``homeport'' is no longer used in the 
regulations.
    One comment writer found the reference to ``appropriate 
appendices'' confusing, and suggested that a better approach would be 
to use language similar to that contained in Sec. 155.1070(a)(3). The 
Coast Guard agrees that the reference to ``appropriate appendices'' 
could be misunderstood. Therefore, Sec. 151.28(d) has been revised to 
specify that a record of the annual review and changes to the plan must 
be maintained in the last appendix of section six.
    Four comments expressed concern about consistency with other plans, 
such as the vessel response plan and the Washington State contingency 
planning requirements. Their biggest concern was that the requirements 
of this plan may cause major revisions to their existing plans, and 
that they may not provide for a rational mix of the requirements. The 
Coast Guard understands the concerns expressed in these comments. 
However, this plan does not require extensive revisions to any plan. 
The VRP IFR allows for the submission of a vessel response plan which 
complies with both sets of response plan requirements. Tank vessel 
owners or operators may find it helpful to refer to Sec. 155.1030 of 
the VRP IFR for additional requirements. This rule does not address 
other State or local requirements.
7. Foreign Ships
    One comment argued that the rule discriminates against foreign flag 
vessels and, therefore, is not in accordance with customary 
international law. Furthermore, the comment states that U.S. vessels 
should be subject to the same standards as foreign vessels in the 
navigable waters of the U.S. Both U.S. ships and foreign ships must 
carry a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan on board while in the 
navigable waters of the United States.
8. Discussion of Other Comments
    One comment supported the Coast Guard's efforts to require a larger 
segment of the maritime industry to plan for spills and supports 
working within the MARPOL Convention to establish international 
consistency. Furthermore, the comment stated that consistency in 
planning requirements is the key to a better and more efficient system. 
The Coast Guard agrees that ensuring consistency in planning 
requirements is one key step towards a more efficient system. The Coast 
Guard finds that this plan is consistent on an international level. The 
comment also urged the Coast Guard to increase the specificity of the 
planning requirements. The Coast Guard finds that an appropriate amount 
of specificity is included. Therefore, the Coast Guard has concluded 
that it has provided a sufficient framework to build on. One comment 
requested an extension of the comment period. The Coast Guard received 
comments after the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking 
had closed. These comments were reviewed and included in the discussion 
of comments and changes.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under 
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) of 
that order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory 
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 
FR 11040; February 26, 1979). A draft Regulatory Evaluation under 
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT has been 
prepared and is available in the docket (CGD 93-030) for inspection or 
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The Evaluation is summarized 
as follows. This rule will not result in annual costs of $100 million 
or more. It will have no significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, or other aspects of the economy, and will not result in a 
major increase in costs and prices.
    The Coast Guard assumes that 1,234 existing non-tank vessels will 
prepare shipboard oil pollution emergency plans to meet the 
requirements of Regulation 26. In addition, the Coast Guard assumes 
that 284 existing tank vessels will prepare and submit combined 
shipboard oil pollution emergency plans and OPA 90 vessel response 
plans. The Coast Guard estimates that 16 ships will be constructed in 
the United States between April 4, 1993 and April 4, 1995. Therefore, 
the Coast Guard estimates that a total of 1,534 U.S. flag ships must 
comply with Regulation 26 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.
    Based on hourly cost data of those required to comply with 
Regulation 26, it is estimated to cost $4,320.00 to prepare a shipboard 
oil pollution emergency plan. It is estimated to cost $855.00 to 
prepare the additional requirements of a VRP that complies with MARPOL 
Regulation 26. The total cost to respondents for initial plan 
preparation in the first year (1994) is estimated to be $5,642,820. In 
following years, the cost to industry will be based upon new vessels 
that need to prepare an initial plan and vessels already complying that 
need to make revisions and obtain annual certification. Review and 
revisions will take an average of 2 hours per vessel per year. Because 
an increasing number of new vessels will be preparing initial plans 
each year, the costs will change accordingly. The Coast Guard will 
review submitted shipboard oil pollution emergency plans to ensure 
compliance with Regulation 26. Total government costs associated with 
the review of the plans are estimated to be $423,228 in the first year 
(1994). Review of revisions and certification is expected to take an 
average of 0.75 hours per vessel per year. Again, the costs will change 
each year based on an increasing number of new vessels coming into 
service. The net present value of the cost for the first 3 years, 
discounted at 7 percent, is $5,626,297.25 to industry and $484,282.92 
to the Coast Guard. The total net present value of the regulation for 
1994, 1995, and 1996, is $6,110,580.17.
    The dollar value of direct societal benefits derived from the rule 
are not quantifiable, but may be substantial. Historical data is 
insufficient to quantify benefits. However, this program should improve 
response capabilities and minimize the environmental impact of oil 
discharges from ships. If efficiencies in the cleanup of spilled oil go 
up by only a small percentage, the savings that would accrue to the 
maritime industry and to the public would exceed the costs.

Small Entities

    No comments received addressed the effects of this rulemaking on 
small entities. The Coast Guard expects that few new costs will be 
associated with this rule because few small entities own ships of the 
gross tonnage to which this regulation will apply. Therefore, the Coast 
Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements in 
Secs. 151.26, 151.27, and 151.28. The Coast Guard 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 assigned approval number 2115-0610. The Coast Guard 
has consolidated this information collection (OMB approval number 2115-
0610) into the information collection for response plans (OMB approval 
number is 2115-0595). The Coast Guard is currently awaiting approval of 
this consolidated information collection requirement.

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that 
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule 
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2 of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. This rule is expected to contribute to the 
reduction of the occurrence of ship-generated oil spills in the marine 
environment. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the 
docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151

    Administrative practice and procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR part 151 as follows:

PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE 
AND MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE

Subpart A--Implementation of MARPOL 73/78

    1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 151, subpart A, has been 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C) and 1903(b); E.O. 12777; 3 
CFR 1971-1975 Comp. p. 793; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. In Sec. 151.05, the definition of New ship is amended by adding 
paragraph (5), and the definition of Shipboard oil pollution emergency 
plan is added to read as follows:

Subpart A--Implementation of MARPOL 73/78


Sec. 151.05  Definitions.

* * * * *
    New ship means a ship--
* * * * *
    (5) For the purposes of Secs. 151.26 through 151.28, which is 
delivered on or after April 4, 1993.
* * * * *
    Shipboard oil pollution emergency plan means a plan prepared, 
submitted, and maintained according to the provisions of Secs. 151.26 
through 151.28 of this subpart for United States ships or maintained 
according to the provisions of Sec. 151.29(a) of this subpart for 
foreign ships operated under the authority of a country that is party 
to MARPOL 73/78 or carried on board foreign ships operated under the 
authority of a country that is not a party to MARPOL 73/78, while in 
the navigable waters of the United States, as evidence of compliance 
with Sec. 151.21 of this subpart.
* * * * *


Sec. 151.09  [Amended]

    3. Section 151.09 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to 
read as follows:
* * * * *
    (c) Sections 151.26 through 151.28 apply to each United States 
oceangoing ship specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this 
section which is--
    (1) An oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above or other ship of 400 
gross tons and above; or
    (2) A fixed or floating drilling rig or other platform, when not 
engaged in the exploration, exploitation, or associated offshore 
processing of seabed mineral resources.
    (d) Sections 151.26 through 151.28 do not apply to--
    (1) The ships specified in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (2) Any barge or other ship which is constructed or operated in 
such a manner that no oil in any form can be carried aboard.
    4. Section 151.21(a) is amended by adding the words ``that is party 
to MARPOL 73/78'' in the last sentence after the word ``country''.
    5. Sections 151.26 through 151.29 are added under the heading ``Oil 
Pollution'' to read as follows:


Sec. 151.26  Shipboard oil pollution emergency plans.

    (a) Language of the plan. The shipboard oil pollution emergency 
plan must be available on board in English and in the working language 
of the master and the officers of the ship, if other than English.
    (b) Plan format. The plan must contain the following six sections. 
A seventh non-mandatory section may be included at the shipowner's 
discretion:
    (1) Introduction. This section must contain the following:
    (i) Introductory text. The introductory text of the plan must 
contain the following language:

    This plan is written in accordance with the requirements of 
Regulation 26 of Annex I of the International Convention for the 
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the 
Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78).
    The purpose of the plan is to provide guidance to the master and 
officers on board the ship with respect to the steps to be taken 
when a pollution incident has occurred or is likely to occur.
    The plan contains all information and operational instructions 
required by the guidelines (Resolution MEPC.54(32)). The appendices 
contain names, telephone numbers, telex numbers, etc. of all 
contacts referenced in the plan, as well as other reference 
material.
    This plan has been approved by the Coast Guard and, except as 
provided below, no alteration or revision may be made to any part of 
it without the prior approval of the Coast Guard.
    Changes to the seventh section of the plan and the appendices do 
not require approval by the Coast Guard. The appendices must be 
maintained up-to-date by the owners, operators, and managers.

    (ii) General information.
    (A) The ship's name, call sign, official number, International 
Maritime Organization (IMO) international number, and principal 
characteristics.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (2) Preamble. This section must contain an explanation of the 
purpose and use of the plan and indicate how the shipboard plan relates 
to other shore-based plans.
    (3) Reporting Requirements. This section of the plan must include 
information relating to the following:
    (i) When to report. A report shall be made whenever an incident 
involves--
    (A) A discharge of oil resulting from damage to the ship or its 
equipment, or for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or 
saving life at sea;
    (B) A discharge of oil during the operation of the ship in excess 
of the quantities or instantaneous rate permitted in Sec. 151.10 of 
this subpart or in Sec. 157.37 of this subchapter; or
    (C) A probable discharge. Factors to be considered in determining 
whether a discharge is probable include, but are not limited to: ship 
location and proximity to land or other navigational hazards, weather, 
tide, current, sea state, and traffic density. The master must make a 
report in cases of collision, grounding, fire, explosion, structural 
failure, flooding or cargo shifting, or an incident resulting in 
failure or breakdown of steering gear, propulsion, electrical 
generating system, or essential shipborne navigational aids.
    (ii) Information required. This section of the plan must include a 
notification form, such as that depicted in Table 151.26(b)(3)(ii)(A), 
that contains information to be provided in the initial and follow-up 
notifications. The initial notification should include as much of the 
information on the form as possible, and supplemental information, as 
appropriate. However, the initial notification must not be delayed 
pending collection of all information. Copies of the form must be 
placed at the location(s) on the ship from which notification may be 
made.

BILLING CODE 4910-14-P

TR07OC94.020


TR07OC94.021


BILLING CODE 4910-14-C
    (iii) Whom to contact. (A) This section of the plan must make 
reference to the appendices listing coastal state contacts, port 
contacts, and ship interest contacts.
    (B) For actual or probable discharges of oil, the reports must 
comply with the procedures described in MARPOL Protocol I. The reports 
shall be directed to either the nearest Captain of the Port (COTP) or 
to the National Response Center (NRC), toll free number 800-424-8802.
    (4) Steps to control a discharge. This section of the plan must 
contain a discussion of procedures to address the following scenarios:
    (i) Operational spills: The plan must outline procedures for 
removal of oil spilled and contained on deck. The plan must also 
provide guidance to ensure proper disposal of recovered oil and cleanup 
materials;
    (A) Pipe leakage: The plan must provide specific guidance for 
dealing with pipe leakage;
    (B) Tank overflow: The plan must include procedures for dealing 
with tank overflows. It must provide alternatives such as transferring 
cargo or bunkers to empty or slack tanks, or readying pumps to transfer 
the excess ashore;
    (C) Hull leakage: The plan must outline procedures for responding 
to spills due to suspected hull leakage, including guidance on measures 
to be taken to reduce the head of oil in the tank involved either by 
internal transfer or discharge ashore. Procedures to handle situations 
where it is not possible to identify the specific tank from which 
leakage is occurring must also be provided. Procedures for dealing with 
suspected hull fractures must be included. These procedures must take 
into account the effect of corrective actions on hull stress and 
stability.
    (ii) Spills resulting from casualties: Each of the casualties 
listed below must be treated in the plan as a separate section 
comprised of various checklists or other means which will ensure that 
the master considers all appropriate factors when addressing the 
specific casualty. These checklists must be tailored to the specific 
ship. In addition to the checklists, specific personnel assignments for 
anticipated tasks must be identified. Reference to existing fire 
control plans and muster lists is sufficient to identify personnel 
responsibilities in the following situations:
    (A) Grounding;
    (B) Fire or explosion;
    (C) Collision;
    (D) Hull failure; and
    (E) Excessive list.
    (iii) In addition to the checklist and personnel duty assignments 
required by paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, the plan must 
include--
    (A) Priority actions to ensure the safety of personnel and the 
ship, assess the damage to the ship, and take appropriate further 
action;
    (B) Information for making damage stability and longitudinal 
strength assessments, or contacting classification societies to acquire 
such information. Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
creating a requirement for damage stability plans or calculations 
beyond those required by law or regulation; and
    (C) Lightening procedures to be followed in cases of extensive 
structural damage. The plan must contain information on procedures to 
be followed for ship-to-ship transfer of cargo. Reference may be made 
in the plan to existing company guides. A copy of such company 
procedures for ship-to-ship transfer operations must be kept in the 
plan. The plan must address the coordination of this activity with the 
coastal or port state, as appropriate.
    (5) National and Local Coordination. This section of the plan must 
contain information to assist the master in initiating action by the 
coastal State, local government, or other involved parties. This 
information must include guidance to assist the master with organizing 
a response to the incident should a response not be organized by the 
shore authorities. Detailed information for specific areas may be 
included as appendices to the plan.
    (6) Appendices. Appendices must include the following information:
    (i) Twenty-four hour contact information and alternates to the 
designated contacts. These details must be routinely updated to account 
for personnel changes and changes in telephone, telex, and 
telefacsimile numbers. Clear guidance must also be provided regarding 
the preferred means of communication.
    (ii) The following lists, each identified as a separate appendix:
    (A) A list of agencies or officials of coastal state 
administrations responsible for receiving and processing incident 
reports;
    (B) A list of agencies or officials in regularly visited ports. 
When this is not feasible, the master must obtain details concerning 
local reporting procedures upon arrival in port; and
    (C) A list of all parties with a financial interest in the ship 
such as ship and cargo owners, insurers, and salvage interests.
    (D) A list which specifies who will be responsible for informing 
the parties listed and the priority in which they must be notified.
    (iii) A record of annual reviews and changes.
    (7) Non-mandatory provisions. If this section is included by the 
shipowner, it should include the following types of information or any 
other information that may be appropriate:
    (i) Diagrams;
    (ii) Response equipment or oil spill removal organizations;
    (iii) Public affairs practices;
    (iv) Recordkeeping;
    (v) Plan exercising; and
    (vi) Individuals qualified to respond.
    (8) Index of sections. The plan must be organized as depicted in 
Table 151.26(b)(8).

Table 151.26(b)(8)--Index of Sections--Sample Format

Mandatory

Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Preamble
Section 3: Reporting requirements
Section 4: Steps to control a discharge
Section 5: National and local coordination
Section 6: Appendices

Voluntary

Section 7: Non-mandatory provisions


Sec. 151.27   Plan submission and approval.

    (a) No manned ship subject to this part may operate unless it 
carries on board a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan approved by 
the Coast Guard. An unmanned ship subject to this regulation must carry 
the notification list required in Sec. 151.26(b)(3) on board in the 
documentation container; remaining sections of the plan must be 
maintained on file at the home office. For new ships, plans must be 
submitted at least 90 days before the ship intends to begin operations. 
For existing ships, plans must be submitted at least 90 days prior to 
April 4, 1995, and an approved plan must be on board by April 4, 1995.
    (b) An owner or operator of a ship to which this part applies shall 
prepare and submit one English language copy of the shipboard oil 
pollution emergency plan to Commandant (G-MEP-6), U.S. Coast Guard, 
2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
    (c) An owner or operator with multiple ships to which this part 
applies may submit one plan for each type of ship with a separate ship-
specific appendix for each vessel covered by the plan.
    (d) Combined shipboard oil pollution emergency plans and response 
plans meeting the requirements of subparts D and E of part 155 of this 
chapter must be prepared according to Sec. 155.1030(j) of this chapter.
    (e) If the Coast Guard determines that the plan meets all 
requirements of this section, the Coast Guard will notify the owner or 
operator of the ship and return a copy of the approved plan along with 
an approval letter. The approval period for a plan expires 5 years 
after the plan approval date.
    (f) If the Coast Guard determines that the plan does not meet all 
of the requirements, the Coast Guard will notify the owner or operator 
of the plan's deficiencies. The owner or operator must then resubmit 
two copies of the revised plan, or corrected portions of the plan, 
within time period specified in the written notice provided by the 
Coast Guard.


Sec. 151.28   Plan review and revision.

    (a) An owner or operator of a ship to which this subpart applies 
must review the shipboard oil pollution emergency plan annually and 
submit a letter to Commandant (G-MEP-6) certifying that the review has 
been completed. This review must occur within 1 month of the 
anniversary date of Coast Guard approval of the plan.
    (b) The owner or operator shall submit any plan amendments to 
Commandant (G-MEP-6) for information or approval.
    (c) The entire plan must be resubmitted to Commandant (G-MEP-6) for 
reapproval 6 months before the end of the Coast Guard approval period 
identified in Sec. 151.27(e) of this subpart.
    (d) A record of annual review and changes to the plan must be 
maintained in the last appendix of section six of the plan.
    (e) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, revisions 
must receive prior approval by the Coast Guard before they can be 
incorporated into the plan.
    (f) Revisions to the seventh section of the plan and the appendices 
do not require approval by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard shall be 
advised and provided a copy of the revisions as they occur.


Sec. 151.29   Foreign ships.

    (a) Each oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above and each other ship 
of 400 gross tons and above, operated under the authority of a country 
other than the United States that is party to MARPOL 73/78, shall, 
while in the navigable waters of the United States or while at a port 
or terminal under the jurisdiction of the United States, carry on board 
a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan approved by its flag state.
    (b) Each oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above and each other ship 
of 400 gross tons and above, operated under the authority of a country 
that is not a party to MARPOL 73/78, must comply with Sec. 151.21 of 
this subpart while in the navigable waters of the United States.

    Dated: September 29, 1994.
E.L. Ziff,
Acting Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental 
Protection.
[FR Doc. 94-24817 Filed 10-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P