[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