[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1052-1108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-118]
[[Page 1051]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
33 CFR Part 155
Vessel Response Plans; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 1052]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 155
[CGD 91-034]
RIN 2115-AD81
Vessel Response Plans
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adopting with some changes, as final, the
interim final rule which establishes regulations requiring response
plans for certain vessels that carry oil in bulk as cargo and
additional requirements for certain vessels operating in Prince William
Sound, Alaska. These regulations are mandated by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (OPA 90). The purpose of requiring vessel response plans is to
enhance private sector planning and response capabilities to minimize
the impact of spilled oil.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC
20593-0001, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LCDR Mark Hamilton, Project Manager, Response Division, (202) 267-1983.
This telephone is equipped to record messages on a 24-hour basis.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Marcia
Landman, Project Manager, and Jacqueline Sullivan, Project Counsel,
Office of the Chief Counsel.
Regulatory History
On August 30, 1991, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled Vessel Response Plans and Carriage
and Inspection of Discharge-Removal Equipment in the Federal Register
(56 FR 43534). The Coast Guard received 172 letters commenting on the
proposal.
On November 14, 1991, the Coast Guard held a public workshop in
Washington, DC, concerning the development of proposed regulations for
vessel response plans. A total of 196 persons participated in the
workshop.
On November 18, 1991, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Intent
to Form a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee in the Federal Register (56
FR 58202). On January 10, 1992, the Coast Guard published a notice in
the Federal Register announcing the establishment of the Oil Spill
Response Plan Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (the Committee) (57 FR
1139). Twenty-six organizations and the Coast Guard were members of the
Committee. The Committee met between January 8 and March 27, 1992.
Copies of the Committee's final report and all documents considered by
the Committee are available in the public docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
On June 19, 1992, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Vessel Response Plans'' in the Federal
Register (57 FR 27514). A correction notice concerning portions of the
NPRM was published on July 1, 1992 in the Federal Register (57 FR
29354). The Coast Guard received 246 letters commenting on the
proposal. Additional comments were received after the close of the
comment period. They were considered in developing the interim final
rule (IFR).
The Oil Spill Response Plan Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
reconvened August 18-20, 1992, after the close of the public comment
period on the NPRM, to review the comments received on its
recommendations. The Committee did not amend its final report. All
documents considered by the Committee during the final meeting are
available in the public docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
The Coast Guard released Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
(NVIC) No. 8-92 on September 15, 1992. Change 1 to NVIC No. 8-92 was
released on December 4, 1992. NVIC No. 8-92 and Change 1 to it provided
immediate guidance to the marine industry for preparing response plans
covering certain vessels to meet the February 1993 deadline established
by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).
On February 5, 1993, the Coast Guard published an Interim Final
Rule (IFR) entitled ``Vessel Response Plans'' in the Federal Register
(58 FR 7424). The Coast Guard received 68 letters commenting on the
IFR. These comments were considered in developing this final rule.
Background and Purpose
Section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)), as amended by section 4202 of OPA 90,
requires the owner or operator of a facility, or a tank vessel as
defined under 46 U.S.C. 2101, to prepare and submit to the President a
plan for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case
discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil or a
hazardous substance. The worst case discharge for a vessel is defined
in section 311(a)(24) of the FWPCA as the loss of the entire cargo in
adverse weather conditions (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(24)).
Oil spill response plan regulations for marine transportation-
related onshore facilities are the subject of a separate rulemaking
project (CGD 91-036).
Although OPA 90 requires response plans for oil or hazardous
substance spills, section 4202(b)(4) establishes an implementation
schedule only for oil spill response plans. Response plans for
hazardous substance spills will be the subject of a separate rulemaking
[Tank Vessel and Facility Response Plans, and Discharge Response
Equipment for Hazardous Substances; CGD 94-032 and 94-048].
Section 311(a)(1) of the FWPCA defines oil as including but not
limited to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with
waste other than dredge spoils (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(1)). While the most
common oils are the various petroleum oils (e.g., crude oil, gasoline,
diesel, etc.), non-petroleum oils such as turpentine and the various
animal fats (e.g., tallow lard, etc.) and vegetable oils (e.g., corn
oil, sunflower seed oil, palm oil, etc.) are included within the ambit
of this regulation when carried in bulk as cargo by tank vessels.
The vessel response plan requirements are applicable to all vessels
certificated under 46 CFR chapter 1, subchapter D, vessels that are
required to have a Certificate of Compliance or Tank Vessel Examination
Letter, other certificated vessels that are permitted to carry limited
quantities of oil, and uninspected vessels that carry oil in bulk as
cargo or cargo residue. The requirements are also applicable to vessels
carrying oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue pursuant to an
International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) or Noxious Liquid
Substance (NLS) certificate required by 33 CFR 151.33 or 151.35, and
dedicated response vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo or cargo
residue when not engaged in response operations. The Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-587, November 4, 1992) removed
offshore supply vessels, and certain fishing or fish tender vessels
from the definition of ``tank vessels''; therefore, those vessels do
not fall under the FWPCA's vessel response plan requirements.
[[Page 1053]]
Section 5005 of OPA 90 sets additional oil spill removal planning
requirements for tank vessels and facilities operating on Prince
William Sound (PWS), Alaska. On October 5, 1992, section 5005 was
amended by the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (Pub. L.
102-388, 106 Stat. 1520). The only vessels to which the enhanced
requirements of section 5005 now apply are tankers loading cargo at a
facility permitted under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act
(TAPAA) (43 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.).
Section 311(j)(5)(C) of the FWPCA requires that response plans
must--
(1) Be consistent with the requirements of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR part 300)
and Area Contingency Plans (ACPs);
(2) Identify the qualified individual with full authority to
implement removal actions, and require immediate communications between
that individual and the appropriate Federal official and the oil spill
removal organizations providing personnel and equipment;
(3) Identify and ensure the availability of, by contract or other
approved means, private personnel and equipment necessary to remove to
the maximum extent practicable a worst case discharge and to mitigate
or prevent a substantial threat of such a discharge;
(4) Describe the training, equipment testing, periodic unannounced
exercises, and response actions of persons on the vessel to be carried
out under the plan to ensure the safety of the vessel and to mitigate
or prevent the discharge, or the substantial threat of a discharge; and
(5) Be updated periodically and resubmitted for approval of each
significant change.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received 68 comments on the IFR. The following
discussion summarizes the comments and explains substantive changes
made to the regulation in response to the comments. Comments are
categorized by the specific section of the IFR to which they apply. In
addition to these changes, editorial changes have been made to clarify
the rule or standardize terminology. The authority citation and the
following sections have changes which are purely editorial:
Secs. 155.1025, 155.1026, 155.1052, 155.1062, 155.1115, 155.1125, and
tables 1 and 6 of Appendix B to subpart 155. For the convenience of the
public, subparts D and E have been reprinted in their entirety.
Section 155.140 Incorporation by Reference
One comment concerning the possible American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) revision of incorporated equipment standards was
received in response to this section of the IFR. This comment expressed
concern that the Coast Guard might at some time incorporate revised
ASTM equipment standards that could result in more stringent standards.
Standards that are incorporated by reference into regulations do
not change automatically when new standards are issued by ASTM or other
third party standards-setting organizations. Extensive review of
revisions to an incorporated reference, such as those from the ASTM, is
done prior to considering changing the incorporated reference in a
regulation.
If the Coast Guard determines that a change is warranted, a notice
of the change will be published in the Federal Register. While the
possibility does exist that a requirement increase would occur from the
future incorporation of revised standards, careful consideration of the
overall effectiveness of the initial requirement is the primary
benchmark. Incorporation of revised or new standards is not proposed
unless such change is warranted. If a change is considered necessary, a
notice will be published in the Federal Register, and material made
available to the public for public comment.
Section 155.1010 Purpose
Three comments were received responding to this section. One
comment supported the clarification of purpose in the preamble.
One comment asserted that the purpose of OPA 90 is to establish a
National Contingency Plan to devise mechanisms for oil spill cleanup.
The National Contingency Plan was established under section 311(d) of
the FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321) and is the responsibility of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rulemaking does not affect
the National Contingency Plan, but is complementary to it. As stated in
the preamble to the IFR, a major objective of section 311(j)(5) of the
FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321) is to create a system in which private parties
supply the bulk of equipment and personnel needed for an oil spill
response. It also requires the vessel owner or operator to be
responsible for promptly and properly removing oil and minimizing
environmental damage from a discharge without the active participation
of any Federal personnel or equipment. The Coast Guard made no
revisions to this section of the rule.
Section 155.1015 Applicability
Six comments addressed the issue of applicability of the
regulations to animal fats and vegetable oils. One comment stated that
tank vessels transporting edible oils should be exempt from these
regulations because their inclusion would be contrary to the
legislative intent of OPA 90. Five comments suggested that response and
removal methodologies for non-petroleum oils be the subject of a
separate rulemaking.
Section 311 of the FWPCA defines ``oil'' to be oil of any kind or
in any form, which includes non-petroleum oils. The Coast Guard does
not have the authority to define ``oil'' differently and must address
non-petroleum oils in any response plan requirements. The Coast Guard
agrees, however, that separate subparts for animal fats and vegetable
oils and for other non-petroleum oils is appropriate and has created
new supbarts F and G in this rule. Changes to response plan
requirements for these oils are contained in the discussion of those
subparts.
Three comments contended that fishing vessels should be exempt from
the definition of tank vessel for the purposes of applicability of
these regulations. As stated previously, section 321 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2419) has
essentially resulted in the exemption of fishing vessels or fish tender
vessels engaged only in the fishing industry and of less than 750 gross
tons from the definition of tank vessel and, consequently, from these
requirements. Another comment stated that it was not the intent of OPA
90 to regulate fishing tender vessels carrying light fuel products. The
applicability of these requirements to fishing vessels was revised by
section 321 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-
206, 107 Stat. 2419). When fishing vessels or fish tender vessels are
engaged only in the fishing industry and are less than 750 gross tons,
they are not deemed to be tank vessels. Accordingly, these vessels are
now excluded from vessel response plan requirements.
One comment argued for the exemption from these regulations of
inland river towboats operated by the same person conducting fuel
transfers. This comment further contended that these vessels should be
exempted as a secondary cargo carrier for the same reason Congress
exempted certain foreign vessels. The Coast Guard disagrees. Because
certain towboats meet the definition of tank vessel in 46 U.S.C. 2101,
owners and operators of these vessels must meet these
[[Page 1054]]
requirements. Accordingly, the Coast Guard does not have authority to
allow towboats to conduct fuel transfers without a vessel response
plan.
One comment urged negotiations between the United States and Canada
to minimize the burdens of meeting both nations' requirements for
vessel response planning. This comment stated that a vessel may transit
the water of one country only incidentally enroute to the other
country. This comment further stated that inadvertent rerouting might
entail additional collision and pollution risks. The Coast Guard agrees
with this comment; however, there is no authority for the Coast Guard
to waive the vessel response requirements for vessels transiting the
internal waters of the United States enroute to or from Canadian ports.
The Coast Guard is currently working with the Canadian government to
develop a bilateral agreement on vessel response plan requirements.
Section 155.1020 Definitions
In order to accommodate new provisions regarding non-petroleum
oils, the Coast Guard has added several definitions to this section of
this final rule. These definitions are for the terms ``animal fat'',
``other non-petroleum oil'', ``petroleum oil'', and ``vegetable oil''.
Average most probable discharge. This definition was modified in
the final rule to include a discharge of the lesser of 50 barrels of
oil or 1 percent of the cargo to be consistent with the facility
response plan requirements. One comment was received responding to this
definition in the IFR. It stated that the threshold for this definition
should be lowered to 25 barrels for the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard
disagrees with this comment. The 50-barrel response planning
requirement was based on national operational spill data over a 5-year
period and an evaluation of historical trends in smaller size spills.
Substantial data supporting a reduction to this requirement for the
Great Lakes area was not provided by the comment.
The Coast Guard further clarified the definition of average most
probable discharge in this final rule by limiting it to 50-barrel
discharges occurring during transfer operations to or from the vessels
rather than making the definition applicable to vessel offloading
operations alone.
Cargo. Although no comments were received addressing this
definition, the Coast Guard modified this definition in this final rule
to exclude oil transferred from a towing vessel to a vessel in its tow
to operate installed machinery other than the propulsion plant. The IFR
contained a similar provision, but this final rule version further
clarifies the type of transfer which is excluded and clarifies that the
propulsion plant does not qualify as installed machinery for the
purposes of this definition.
Contract or other approved means. Nine comments responded to this
definition in the IFR. Four comments generally agreed with the
definition, especially concerning the addition of the alternatives to a
formal contract.
One comment contended that legal contracts would be too restrictive
and burdensome. The Coast Guard recognizes the burden of legal
contracting, and the IFR provides an alternate means to ensure the
availability of response resources. As discussed in the IFR, a document
that provides the following information will be considered to provide
acceptable assurance that the response resource provider has the
capability to respond: (1) Clear identification of the goods and
services to be provided; (2) provision of the parties' acknowledgment
that the resource provider intends to commit its resources in the event
of a response; and (3) permission for the Coast Guard to verify the
response resources identified through tests, inspection, and exercise.
One comment argued that the Coast Guard would have difficulty
monitoring the identification of resources in a vessel response plan by
merely relying on a contractor's written consent. The Coast Guard
recognizes the problem of identifying resources that have not been
contracted. The Coast Guard has an ongoing effort to ensure that all
response plans are valid. Measures are taken whenever the Coast Guard
finds false statements in response plans. The Coast Guard encourages
continued classification of OSROs in accordance with Navigation and
Vessel Inspection Circular 12-92 (NVIC 12-92; December 4, 1992) to
ensure organizations identified by the response plan have the equipment
necessary to deliver the services in accordance with what they have
promised to vessel owners or operators.
Three comment writers believed that the definition of ``contract or
other approved means'' should be expanded: one comment writer believed
it should include a document designating each party's responsibilities;
one comment writer believed that the definition should include a
presumption in favor of demonstrating capability; and one comment
writer suggested that ``active membership'' be clarified or that
language that confirms commitment of response resources to the member
of a local or regional oil spill removal organization within this
definition be included.
The Coast Guard disagrees. A concerted effort has been made to keep
this definition from creating an onerous burden to vessel owners and
operators. The legal aspects of the response arrangements must meet the
described specific criteria for response resources and their arrival
time contained in this rule, but a dictation of specific
``responsibilities'' should be left to the discretion of the owners or
operators. Finally, while the term ``active membership'' is general, it
can be easily assessed and verified by the Coast Guard during tests,
inspections, exercises, or a combination of these three methods of
evaluation.
Although nine comments responded to this IFR definition, the Coast
Guard has determined that no substantive revisions to this definition
in the final rule are necessary. However, technical revisions were made
to reference correct section numbers in the final rule.
Dedicated response vessel. There were no comments received
responding to this definition. However, the Coast Guard revised this
definition to be consistent with escort vessel regulations that are
being developed under a separate rulemaking project [Escort Vessels for
Certain Tankers; CGD 91-202].
Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments. This final rule adds
the definition of the term ``Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive
Environments.'' Although not specifically used in this regulation, it
is added for the vessel owners and operators information when dealing
with facilities. This term is used by the marine transportation-related
facility response plan final rule and by the EPA in its final rule. For
more information on these areas and how they affect response planning
requirements, see the Coast Guard marine transportation-related
facility response plan final rule (CDG 91-036), the EPA final rule (59
FR 34070; July 1, 1994), or the ``Notice'' published by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) entitled ``Guidance for
Facility and Vessel Response Plans Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive
Environments'' published in the Federal Register on March 29, 1994. (59
FR 14714).
Great Lakes. One comment was received in response to this IFR
definition. This comment was concerned that the definition did not
clearly address the rivers tributary to the Great Lakes. The Coast
Guard disagrees. The definition for the Great Lakes specifically
includes tributary waters and is consistent with definitions found in
Coast Guard regulations governing navigation and navigable waters. This
definition treats the Great Lakes as an entire ecosystem, including
their connecting and tributary waters which
[[Page 1055]]
would be adversely affected by an oil spill. Accordingly, the Coast
Guard has not modified this definition in this final rule.
Higher volume port area. One comment was received in response to
this definition. The comment contended that the material in
Sec. 155.1050(h) of the IFR should be relocated to the definitional
section rather than cross-referenced. The Coast Guard agrees and has
relocated the material to the definition for higher volume port area.
Inland areas. Although not specifically requested by any IFR
comments, the Coast Guard has revised this definition in this final
rule. A sentence has been added to this definition in the final rule to
clarify that the Great Lakes are not included under this definition.
Maximum extent practicable. One comment expressed concern over the
meaning of the word ``practicable'' as used in the statute, and the
meaning of the word ``possible'' as used in this IFR definition at 33
CFR 153.305. The definition used in this rule pertains to the planned
capability to respond to an oil spill within the time frame and
equipment guidelines for the worst case discharge in adverse weather,
whereas 33 CFR 153.305 reflects methods for oil spill cleanup to be
applied after a spill has occurred. Because this final rule provides
for contingencies prior to a spill, the difference in wording between
the two regulations is necessary and appropriate.
Maximum most probable discharge. Two comments were received in
response to this definition. One comment disagreed with this
definition, indicating that the 2,500-barrel assignment is excessive
for Great Lake operators. This comment argued that, in the past 10
years, the largest spill in the Great Lakes was only 500 barrels of
oil. The other comment suggested that the maximum most probable
discharge be set at 500 barrels. The maximum most probable spill has
been defined as 2,500 barrels based on a statistical analysis of Coast
Guard tank vessel spill data for the years 1985 through 1989. The
figure of 2,500 barrels encompasses approximately 99% of the number of
spills which occurred during that period. It would not be feasible to
change the definition of maximum most probable discharge on a per-
location basis.
Nearshore areas. The Coast Guard revised the wording of this
definition slightly. Although the language was not substantively
changed, the definition as it appears in the final rule is now
consistent with that which appeared in the IFR for marine
transportation-related facilities (58 FR 7352; February 5, 1993).
Non-petroleum oil. One comment was received in response to this
definition. The comment argued that non-petroleum oils should be
addressed separately. The Coast Guard agrees and has added new subparts
F and G to this rule addressing animal fats and vegetable oils in
subpart F and other non-petroleum oils in subpart G. These new subparts
are discussed subsequently in this section of the preamble.
Oil field waste. The Coast Guard added this definition in the final
rule, which means non-pumpable drilling fluids with possible trace
amounts of metal and oil. Reference to response plans for barges
carrying nonhazardous oil field wastes is made at Sec. 155.1030(f) of
this final rule, which permits owners or operators of such barges to
submit response plans under Sec. 155.1045 rather than submitting plans
under Sec. 155.1035 or Sec. 155.1040. This definition was added to
distinguish this type of material from other types of material, as
owners or operators of these vessels need only plan as secondary
carriers in accordance with Sec. 155.1045 of this final rule.
On-scene coordinator or OSC. One comment was received in response
to this definition. The comment requested clarification that the on-
scene coordinator (OSC) will coordinate Federal actions with the vessel
owner's actions while the vessel owner remains in charge of the spill
response. The duties of the OSC are set forth in the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR part 300.120) and may include directing of all
response operations.
Operator. Two comments were received, both of which stated that the
definition should be the same as it appears in 33 CFR 130.2(q). The
wording for this definition has been modified to parallel or more
closely follow the wording in 33 CFR 130.2(q). The only difference from
the 33 CFR 130.2(q) definition is the deletion of the words
``including, but not limited to.'' This text was not included because
the Coast Guard has determined that the present definition properly
limits the parties affected by this rule.
Persistent oil. Three comments were received in response to this
definition as it appeared in the IFR. All contended that petroleum oils
with specific gravity of less than 1.0 should be divided into two, not
four, categories. The Coast Guard disagrees. The four categories
developed for this regulation are consistent with the protocol
developed by the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation
(ITOPF) which reflects differences in persistence. The use of the four
categories, rather than two, makes the rule more flexible and
facilitates compliance with the requirements. The definition of
persistent oil was not changed from its definition in the IFR.
Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual. Three
comments were received which addressed this definition. One comment
suggested that qualified individuals who are also owners and operators
should have the same protection from liability that contracted
qualified individuals have. As stated in the preamble to the IFR, the
Coast Guard has no authority to provide a blanket exemption from
liability to any persons, including qualified individuals designated
for response plan purposes.
One comment suggested that this definition be expanded to allow the
qualified individual to reside in Canada. Although this definition was
not revised in the final rule, the Coast Guard modified Sec. 155.1026
of the interim final rule to allow Canadian vessels to identify
Canadian-based qualified individuals if these individuals meet the same
requirements under Sec. 155.1026(b) for individuals based in the Untied
States. This provision only applies to Canadian flag vessels while they
are operating on the Great Lakes, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Puget
Sound, WA. In any other environment, the qualified individual must be
based in the United States. The close proximity, reliable
communication, and the common water boundary shared by the United
States and Canada create a unique situation, which allows a Canadian-
based qualified individual to be as effective as a qualified individual
based in the United States. In addition, the Coast Guard is presently
working with the Canadian government to reach a bilateral agreement on
response plans. When this agreement is finalized, an amendment to this
definition may be more appropriate.
One comment stated that the requirement that the qualified
individual have oil or hazardous materials experience be clarified in
this definition. The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard has left
the definition broad so that the owner or operator has the flexibility
to designate the qualified individual they feel is most suitable for
this responsibility. The Coast Guard has only required that the
qualified individual be trained in the responsibilities of the
particular response plan he or she will be coordinating.
Response area. One comment was received regarding this definition.
It stated that this definition should include predetermined areas. The
Coast Guard's experience has proven that the ``response area'' is very
difficult to
[[Page 1056]]
define accurately and fairly. Therefore, this definition has been
deleted, and replaced with the term ``response activity.'' This change
will allow the Captain of the Port more flexibility in describing the
area, vessels, and equipment involved in a spill cleanup.
Rivers and canals. Two comments suggested changes to this
definition. One comment suggested that the definition include rivers
and tributary waters of the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard disagrees. The
definition for the Great Lakes, including its connecting river and
tributary waters, is consistent with definitions found in rules
governing navigation and navigable waters. This definition treats the
Great Lakes as an entire ecosystem, including their connecting and
tributary waters which would be adversely affected by an oil spill.
The other comment suggested that the project depth of 12 feet or
less be changed to 18 feet to allow for use of offshore response
vessels described in the plans. As discussed in the IFR, the Coast
Guard disagrees with increasing the project depth from the 12 feet or
less mark. The Coast Guard intended the definition to only cover
narrow, inland bodies of water that are reasonably protected and
typically have wave heights of 1 foot or less on which only shallow
draft vessels operate.
Further, the Coast Guard simplified this definition in the final
rule by removing the words, ``the outer boundaries of.'' Because this
definition covers bodies of water confined within the inland area,
which would, by implication, include its outer boundaries, these
additional words were removed as redundant.
Specific gravity. Several comments encouraged the Coast Guard to
define specific gravity in the final rule. The Coast Guard agrees and
has used the definition of specific gravity found in ASTM Standard D
1298 entitled ``Standard Practice for Density, Relative Density
(Specific Gravity), or API gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid
Petroleum Product by Hydrometer Method.''
Tier. Because this concept is referenced throughout these
regulations and because a number of comments asked for clarification on
this term, the Coast Guard has developed a detailed definition to
facilitate a clearer understanding of these regulations.
Vessels carrying oil as a secondary cargo. The applicability
section of the final rule (33 CFR 155.1015) now excludes oil spill
response vessels involved in response activities from the requirement
for response plans. This revision reflects a reduction of the previous
requirements which provided for these vessels to have approved response
plans in accordance with Sec. 155.1045 (vessels carrying oil as a
secondary cargo) when not involved in response operations. Under this
final rule, these vessels are no longer required to have response plans
unless they are carrying oil as cargo outside a response operation. The
Coast Guard has therefore removed oil spill response vessel from this
definition.
Vessel of opportunity. One comment suggested that this definition
include any vessel, used in an emergency situation, that carries oil as
a primary cargo. The comment further suggested that if the vessel is
responding to a spill of an oil from a different group from that which
it carries, that vessel be temporarily relieved from the requirement of
revising its vessel response plan. This subpart does not apply to
vessels of opportunity. The clause in this definition that excludes
vessels that carry oil as a primary cargo was intended to ensure
vessels are not used for grades of oil they are not classed to carry.
For overall safety, even in an emergency situation, a tank vessel
should not load higher grade fuels than it is designed to carry. A
vessel that carries oil as a primary cargo must already have a vessel
response plan. A vessel of opportunity that is also a primary oil
carrier could assist in an oil spill response activity of an oil other
than the one for which it holds an approved response plan without
approval of a new response plan, as long as this exemption has been
granted by the Captain of the Port (COTP). Section 155.1070(c)(4) has
been changed to address this situation.
Section 155.1025 Operating Restrictions and Interim Operating
Authorization
The Coast Guard modified paragraphs (a) and (b) in Sec. 155.1025 of
the final rule to remove the statutory date of compliance which has now
passed.
The IFR stated that the Coast Guard was still studying the issue of
whether the provision in section 311(j)(5) of the FWPCA (33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5)), which allows the Coast Guard to authorize vessels to
continue operating for up to two years while the response plan is
undergoing detailed review, is applicable to both initial submission of
response plans and future plan revisions and required resubmissions.
After an in-depth evaluation, the Coast Guard has determined that this
provision is applicable to all submittals. Therefore, there is no need
to revise the regulatory text.
Three comments were received addressing this section. One comment
focused on the provision allowing vessel operation for 2 years after
submission of the response plan, pending approval, for those vessels
granted written authorization for continued operations. The comment
suggested that this provision be limited in application to vessels with
standards approved by the Secretary of Transportation. One comment
urged that the Coast Guard be reasonable and realistic in granting the
2-year interim operation authorization. The Coast Guard evaluates each
submittal on a case-by-case basis. This evaluation method ensures that
the time frame given for operating in accordance with a response plan
that does not have full Coast Guard approval is appropriate for the
given vessel and operating conditions.
One comment stated that requiring certification letters before the
6-month allowance provided in OPA 90 nullifies legislative intent and
suggested that the Coast Guard rewrite Sec. 155.1025(d) of the IFR.
Section 155.1025(d) has been rewritten to eliminate this provision as
the 6-month grace period has already ended, and all vessels must be
operating in accordance with an approved response plan. Additionally,
Sec. 155.1025(e) of the IFR has been reworded to potentially allow a
vessel owner or operator to have a vessel make one voyage to transport
or handle oil in a ``geographic area'' rather than a ``port.'' This
change was made to make this provision more flexible in that such
authorization could be granted for voyages other than those to ports.
Section 155.1026 Qualified Individual and Alternate Qualified
Individual
The Coast Guard has modified Sec. 155.1026(a) and Sec. 155.1026(b)
to clarify that a qualified individual must be available on a 24-hour
basis, but it is not necessary to have both the qualified individual
and the alternate qualified individual available coincidentally.
In response to requests for clarification, the Coast Guard has
modified Sec. 155.1026(d)(1) in this final rule to make explicit the
previously implied concept that the qualified individual must have the
authority to activate or contract for all appropriate response
resources, in addition to activating or contracting with oil spill
removal organizations. Fifteen comments were received addressing this
section of the IFR. Five of these comments addressed the general
requirements of this section. One comment urged the exemption from this
provision of vessels carrying light fuel as secondary cargo. The Coast
Guard does not have the authority to exempt any type of oil from these
regulations.
[[Page 1057]]
One comment urged the exemption from this provision of fishing
tender vessels. As discussed previously, the applicability of response
plan requirements to fishing vessels was revised by legislation
subsequent to the IFR which essentially excludes most fishing vessels
from these response plan requirements (Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat.
2419). However, it is appropriate to require identification of a
qualified individual for fish tender vessels over 750 gross tons as the
same legislative change did not affect these vessels.
Three of the comments supported the Coast Guard's revision of
paragraph (d) of this section of the IFR so that the qualified
individual's authority would be ``full'' rather than ``unconditional,''
and argued against the requirement that a qualified individual be an
individual rather than an organization. With regard to the latter
argument, these comments argued that this provision should be revised
because the employees of an organization change frequently. The Coast
Guard included in Sec. 155.1026(e) of the IFR a provision which allows
the vessel's owner or operator to designate an organization to carry
out the responsibilities of the qualified individual. However, the
designated organization must have identified specific individuals to
act as the qualified individual and the alternate. The individual that
assumes this responsibility must be familiar with the implementation of
the vessel response plan and be trained in the responsibilities of the
qualified individual under the response plan.
In regard to this section, the Coast Guard would like to clarify
that it does not intend to limit the discretion of the vessel owner or
operator to designate a substitute to assume the full range of
responsibilities of the qualified individual named in the response
plan. The requirement to designate a qualified individual and at least
one alternate is to ensure prompt implementation of the response plan.
The owner or operator of a vessel may designate any person to assume
the duties of the qualified individual at any time provided the
requirements of this section are met. If the substitution takes place
during the response to a discharge, there must be no break in
availability of the person acting as the qualified individual. The
substituted qualified individual must have a document designating them
as the qualified individual.
Nine comments suggested new language for this section which would
limit the liability of qualified individuals and alternative qualified
individuals. Six of these nine comments suggested that the Coast Guard
add language to this section stating that the qualified individual or
alternate qualified individual would not, per se, be considered the
vessel's owner, operator, or demise charterer when acting in the
capacity of a qualified individual. As stated in the IFR, a person does
not become a responsible party under the FWPCA by being designated a
qualified individual for response plan purposes. Under 33 U.S.C.
1321(c)(4), a person other than a responsible party is not liable for
removal costs or damages which result from actions taken or omitted in
the course of rendering care, assistance, or advice consistent with the
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
or otherwise directed by the President. Notwithstanding, such a person
whose acts or omissions are grossly negligent, or who engages in
willful misconduct may, as a result, become liable for the resulting
removal costs or damages. The qualified individual is not, however,
responsible for the adequacy of response plans prepared by the owner or
operator nor is the qualified individual responsible for contacting
response resources beyond the authority delegated from the owner or
operator.
Four of the comments suggesting revisions in this section supported
the addition of language distinguishing the role of qualified
individual from the role of the responsible party. One comment
suggested that the rules clarify that the qualified individual would
generally not be responsible for the adequacy or the sufficiency of the
response and suggested that this section limit the liability of the
person acting in the capacity of qualified individual. As stated in the
IFR, the Coast Guard has no authority to provide a blanket exemption
from liability to any persons, including qualified individuals
designated for response plan purposes. For vessels, the term
``responsible party'' is defined in section 1001(32)(A) of OPA 90 as
any person owning, operating, or demise chartering the vessel (33
U.S.C. 2701(32)(A)). Section 1001(26)(A) of OPA 90 defines owner or
operator of a vessel as any person owning, operating, or chartering by
demise the vessel (33 U.S.C. 2701(26)(A)). The IFR states that a person
does not become a responsible party under FWPCA by being designated a
qualified individual for response plan purposes. This rule preserves
Sec. 155.1026(g) which states that the liability of a qualified
individual is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of 33
U.S.C. 1321(c)(4). Under this section, a person other than a
responsible party is not liable for removal costs or damages which
result from actions taken or omitted in the course of rendering care,
assistance, or advice consistent with the NCP or as otherwise directed
by the President. However, as noted in the IFR, even a qualified
individual may be liable for the resulting removal costs or damages if
it is established that there was gross negligence or willful misconduct
while acting in this capacity.
Two comments addressed this section as it relates to dealings with
Canada. One comment suggested that residents of Canada be permitted to
be qualified individuals. The other comment stated that the Canadian
government recently introduced legislation similar to OPA 90 and
suggested that the United States and Canada work closely in
promulgating their respective regulations regarding oil pollution
prevention. The Coast Guard is currently working with the Canadian
government to develop a bilateral agreement on vessel response plan
requirements. In addition, the Coast Guard modified the IFR to allow
Canadian vessels to identify Canadian-based qualified individuals if
these individuals meet the same requirements of Sec. 155.1026(b) for
individuals based in the United States. This provision only applies to
Canadian flag vessels while they are operating on the Great Lakes, the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound, WA. In any other environment,
the qualified individual must be based in the United States. The close
proximity, reliable communication, and the common water boundary shared
by the United States and Canada create a unique situation, which allows
a Canadian-based qualified individual to be as effective as a qualified
individual based in the United States.
Section 155.1030 General Response Plan Requirements
Required format. One comment supporting the required response plan
format was received. The Coast Guard, however, amended the language of
this section to further clarify response plan requirements. The Coast
Guard has determined that references to Secs. 155.1035, 155.1040, and
155.1045 were redundant in that the requirements were repeated in each
specific section. Therefore, these references have been deleted.
Paragraph (c)(11) of this section was reworded to delete specific
references to vessels carrying oil as a primary cargo and unmanned tank
barges. Because this section is supposed to address general
requirements of response plans, this subparagraph now addresses the
general requirements for inclusion of a vessel-specific appendix for
the vessel or vessels covered by the plan.
[[Page 1058]]
The requirements of paragraph (d) have been clarified to indicate
that vessel owners or operators with multiple vessels may now submit
one plan for each class of vessel (i.e., manned vessels carrying oil as
primary cargo, unmanned vessels carrying oil as primary cargo, and
vessels carrying oil as secondary cargo).
The Coast Guard has added a new paragraph (f) to this section in
this final rule in response to questions in comments concerning barges
carrying non-hazardous oil field wastes. Further, this paragraph has
been reworded to make following the format requirements of
Sec. 155.1045 optional in lieu of following the requirements of
Sec. 155.1035 or Sec. 155.1040. In the IFR, paragraph (f) of this
section required oil spill response vessels to have response plans in
accordance with Sec. 155.1045 when operating outside a response area.
The applicability section of the final rule (33 CFR 155.1015) now
excludes oil spill response vessels involved in response activities
from the requirement for response plans. This revision reflects a
reduction of the previous requirements which provided for these vessels
to have approved response plans in accordance with Sec. 155.1045
(vessels carrying oil as a secondary cargo) when not involved in
response operations. Under this final rule, these vessels are no longer
required to have response plans unless they are carrying oil as cargo
outside a response operation.
The references to ``February 18, 1993'' in paragraph (g) of this
section have been deleted. That date has passed and, consequently, is
no longer relevant to these regulations.
The Coast Guard has added language to subparagraphs (i)(1) and (2)
of this section to allow notarized copies of Coast Guard approval
letters to substitute for the actual approval letters which are to be
on board vessels under this provision. This provision satisfies the
Coast Guard's need for authentication of the document through the
notarization requirement while allowing a vessel owner or operator to
keep the original approval letter in a place where it would less likely
lost or misplaced.
Plan consistency. Nine comments were received which addressed the
issue of consistency between the National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Area Contingency Plan (ACP), and
vessel response plan (VRP) requirements.
One comment asserted that State and Federal authorities would
probably not agree upon a uniform format for response plans. This
comment argued that because the authority of States with regard to
response plans is not preempted, they will be unwilling to relinquish
their authority merely to standardize the format. The Coast Guard has
provided for as much flexibility as reasonably possible. The owner or
operator is permitted to insert sections as necessary to satisfy any
additional State or International Maritime Organization (IMO)
requirements. However, the required sections and specific information
described in those sections must remain distinct, and the appendix or
table of contents must provide sufficient detail on the location of
these distinct sections. This standard format eases the administrative
burden in reviewing the plans and creates uniformity for responders who
may not be familiar with a particular plan. Further, negotiations with
various States having response plan requirements have been generally
successful in minimizing differences.
Five comments addressed the Coast Guard's development and
implementation of the ACPs. One of these comments argued that the
existing NCP and LCPs are not adequate nor are they consistent with the
legislative intent of OPA 90. This comment writer also expressed
concern regarding the IFR's silence on Coast Guard response duties.
Another two of these comments also urged consistency between the ACPs
and the NCP. Still another comment additionally argued that ACPs should
be subject to public comment. One comment concerned the development of
ACPs and their impact on planning for shoreline protection,
firefighting, and lightering resources. All of the comments discussed
in this paragraph are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
One comment recommended the revision of all VRPs 6 months after the
ACPs and the NCP are completed. The Coast Guard disagrees. To provide
time for owners or operators to prepare their response plans, the Coast
Guard requires consistency with the applicable plans (ACP/NCP) in
effect 6 months prior to the submittal date. If the ACP or NCP changes
after submittal of the response plan, the plan must be adjusted
accordingly when submitted for reapproval.
One comment urged vessel response plan consistency with ACPs so
that the Coast Guard could easily identify the inconsistencies between
what is stated in the response plan and what is required by the ACP.
Another comment stated that vessel response plans may need to be
revised in order to remain consistent should ACPs identify equipment or
personnel deficiencies in the future. The Coast Guard disagrees. All of
these plans will be subject to continuous updating. Periodic
resubmittal of vessel response plans will ensure that inconsistencies
with ACPs are minimized.
Provisions concerning Regulation 26 of MARPOL. In order to
facilitate response plan review, the Coast Guard has modified
Sec. 155.1030(j) to require that, when submitting response plans that
include provisions of Regulation 26 of Annex I to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified
by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78), a cross reference section must
be included to identify the location of the general response plan
requirements. Six comments were received addressing the portion of this
section permitting an owner or operator of a U.S. flag vessel to
address the requirements of Regulation 26 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 if
certain conditions are met.
Three comments supported the change in the rule to make compliance
with Regulation 26 optional, two of them arguing that the vessel
response plan regulation required planning for responses to discharges
of oil carried in bulk as cargo whereas MARPOL applies to all oil
discharges, including the ship's fuel oil. One of these three comments
continued by contending that the requirement for the master to notify
the coastal state and secure its authorization before undertaking
mitigating actions is misleading, confusing, and not within the spirit
of MARPOL 73/78 or OPA 90. This comment writer stated that such
notification is an obvious step.
The Coast Guard agrees that this may have caused some confusion.
Therefore, this paragraph has been modified to clearly state that the
plan should address the notification of the coastal state to determine
whether authorization is required. With reference to all three
comments, this section of the regulation blends the requirements for
Regulation 26 and the U.S. response requirements. This option will ease
the burden on the industry in that a single plan can be used for both
requirements. The notification procedures are a requirement of MARPOL
73/78; therefore, the Coast Guard does not have the authority to change
them.
The Coast Guard has, however, amended the provision regarding
submission of modified Regulation 26 response plans in lieu of response
plans under this rulemaking. This provision has been further clarified
to indicate the procedure by which a vessel owner or operator may
address Regulation 26 provisions in his or her response plan. This
paragraph, as revised, also references Sec. 155.1065 which provides
procedures for plan submission. These changes make the procedures for
[[Page 1059]]
exercising this option clearer for vessel owners or operators who want
to take advantage of this provision.
Also, the Coast Guard has added a new paragraph (k) to this
section. This new paragraph will allow secondary carriers having
response plans approved under Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78 to comply
with Sec. 155.1045 if identification of the qualified individual and
alternate, identification of an oil spill removal organization,
identification of an oil spill management team, and a geographic
specific appendix are added to the Regulation 26 response plan. This
revision would elicit the information needed by the Coast Guard while
eliminating the need for owners and operators of secondary carriers to
duplicate their efforts.
One comment argued that the Coast Guard should reinstate the
requirement for planning for fuel oil discharges, contending that the
Coast Guard has the authority to issue such regulations under section
311(j)(1)(C) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33
U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C)). The Coast Guard disagrees. The intent of OPA 90
was to have vessel owners and operators plan to respond to a spill of
oil carried in bulk as cargo. Fuel oil is not considered a cargo. The
issuance of regulations that address fuel oil discharges is outside the
scope of this rulemaking. Planning for response to such discharges is
covered by Regulation 26 of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78.
One comment urged the Coast Guard to withdraw Coast Guard
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 2-93 (NVIC 2-93; March 5,
1993), arguing that it hampers industry by further regulations. The
Coast Guard disagrees. This NVIC only provides guidance on how to
address the requirements of Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78. It pertains
only to vessels which are subject to Annex I of MARPOL (e.g., U.S.
flagged seagoing vessels wherever located, and foreign flagged vessels
located within the navigable waters of the United States) and are
already required to meet the provisions of MARPOL 73/78. Regulation 26
is the subject of a separate but coordinated rulemaking (CGD 93-030)
entitled ``Shipboard, Oil Pollution Emergency Plans'' which was
published in the Federal Register on October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51332).
Plans submitted prior to effective date of final rule. The Coast
Guard has written a provision into the final rule that requires vessel
owners or operators making initial response plan submissions after
April 11, 1996, the effective date of this final rule, to comply with
the requirements of the final rule. As indicated in the IFR, the Coast
Guard is not requiring vessel owners or operators who submitted
response plans under the IFR or NVIC to revise their response plans to
conform with the requirements of the final rule until the plan's 5-year
resubmission date. However, a vessel owner or operator who has prepared
a response plan under the NVIC or the IFR may comply with any of the
provisions of this final rule by revising the appropriate section of
the previously submitted plan in accordance with the revision and
amendment procedures in Sec. 155.1070. An owner or operator who elects
to comply with all of the requirements of the final rule must resubmit
the entire plan, for review and approval if appropriate, in accordance
with Sec. 155.1065.
Section 155.1035 Response Plan Requirements for Manned Vessels
Carrying Oil as a Primary Cargo
General information and introduction. The Coast Guard has revised
this section to require an indication of a vessel's IMO international
number in the response plan, if applicable. This international number
will provide the Coast Guard with a means of accessing Marine Safety
Information System (MSIS) data on the vessel. This information already
is required in both 33 CFR 151.26 and 33 CFR 160.207.
Notification procedures. Two comments were received which addressed
the requirement that a response plan include certain information on
notification procedures. One comment called the requirement cumbersome
and unrealistic, arguing that all notifications should be the
responsibility of the qualified individual. This comment continued by
arguing that this paragraph required unnecessary information such as
information on ship and crew size, and the date and time of the next
report. It contended that this type of information is already known by
the owner or operator and that the response plan should only list the
procedures needed for the qualified individual to activate the plan.
Another comment contended that requiring notification of State
authorities is not within the purview of the Coast Guard unless the
State specifically required the Coast Guard to do so.
As stated in the IFR, and repeated in the final rule, only the
qualified individual must be notified. However, other statutes and
regulations establish oil spill reporting requirements, and the Coast
Guard has determined that the owners or operators should address
procedures for these notifications in their response plans.
The Coast Guard amended Sec. 155.1035(b)(4), the provision in this
section which required that descriptions of primary and secondary
communications methods be included in response plans. This provision
was clarified by now stating that such descriptions should be
consistent with Sec. 155.1035(b)(1), the provision requiring a
checklist of the notifications to be made in the event of an oil spill.
This change was effectuated to clarify the instructions regarding
descriptions of communications methods in vessel response plans.
To minimize the burden on vessel owners and operators and
facilitate rapid notification of a spill, most of this information can
be provided in a checklist, which is consistent with Regulation 26 of
MARPOL 73/78. To ensure consistency with IMO Resolution A648(16), the
Coast Guard revised the rule to require that response plans include
various additional items that must be identified in the initial
notification and to establish guidelines for follow-up reports.
Shipboard spill mitigation procedures. Five comments were received
in response to this provision. Three comments supported the
subparagraph requiring the inclusion in the response plan of the
location, crew responsibilities, and procedures for use of shipboard
equipment which may be carried to mitigate an oil discharge. Two
comments opposed this provision, arguing that vessels lacked storage
room for the equipment, that having the equipment on board would reduce
crew size, that there would be a lack of trained personnel to use the
equipment, that maintenance and inspection of equipment in a special
store room would be difficult, and that the crew would have other
overriding priorities. The carriage of spill removal equipment is the
subject of a separate rulemaking (CDG 91-068). This final rule only
requires that procedures be spelled out in the response plan so that
the crew knows what its responsibilities are to mitigate an oil
discharge.
An IFR entitled ``Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels Carrying
Oil'' was published (58 FR 67995; December 22, 1993). This IFR contains
requirements to include in response plan procedures for deployment of
discharge removal equipment carried onboard the vessel and for internal
transfers of cargo as provided in the discharge removal IFR.
Additionally, a provision was added requiring identification in the
response plan of the shore location and 24-hour access procedures for
the computerized shore-
[[Page 1060]]
based damage stability and residual structural strength calculation
programs. These computer programs are required by 33 CFR 155.240, which
was added to 33 CFR part 155, subpart B by the discharge removal
equipment IFR.
Shore-based response activities. The Coast Guard made slight
revisions to the provision regarding inclusion in the responses plans
of information concerning the organizational structure that will be
used to manage response actions. In the IFR, this provision merely
required the listing of enumerated functional areas in that part of the
response plan. The provision, as revised, requires the inclusion of
information regarding key components within each of these enumerated
functional areas. This information is currently required for approval
of response plans.
This paragraph regarding shore-based response activities have also
been reworded so as to require the inclusion in the response plan of
the functional job descriptions for each oil spill management team
position within the organizational structure. These added requirements
will better clarify the responsibilities of those involved in oil spill
cleanup, thereby promoting more efficient implementation of response
plans.
List of contacts. Two comments were received in response to this
paragraph requiring inclusion of 24-hour contact information in
response plans. One comment addressed the provision requiring inclusion
of applicable insurance representative contacts in vessel response
plans and wanted the Coast Guard to clarify that U.S. correspondents
identified by P and I (Protection and Indemnity) clubs are independent
firms and not representatives of the particular clubs. The Coast Guard
confirms this comment writer's interpretation; however the list of
contracts is appropriate, and no modification to the regulation is
necessary.
The other comment recommended that vessel owners and operators be
required to demonstrate that they have a contractual agreement with
wildlife response contractors or that the owners and operators
demonstrate that they have the equipment, training, and permits to
conduct wildlife response efforts themselves. The Coast Guard
disagrees. The vessel owner or operator is responsible for treatment or
care of damaged natural resources, but the Coast Guard is not requiring
a contract for these resources as this is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. However, in order to facilitate wildlife response efforts
in the event of oil spills, owners and operators are encouraged to
assist in financing qualified volunteer wildlife rescue organizations
which would be responding to such spills.
The Coast Guard has added a subparagraph to this provision
requiring the list of contacts to include persons to notify for
activation of the spill management team for average most probable,
maximum most probable, and worst case discharges. This requirement will
elicit the necessary information regarding the oil spill management
team so that the appropriate person could be contacted promptly in the
event of certain oil discharges.
Plan review, update, revision, amendment, and appeal procedure. The
title of this section was changed from ``Plan review and update
procedures'' to more clearly define the contents of this section.
Geographic-specific appendices for each COTP zone in which a vessel
operates. Two comments were received addressing this paragraph which
requires the inclusion of geographic-specific appendices in vessel
response plans and provides for the contents of such appendices.
Both comments called for more stringent requirements on the OSROs
required to be identified in these geographic-specific appendices. One
comment argued that the Coast Guard should set nationwide standards for
OSRO inspection, approval, and certification. This comment continued by
contending that under current regulations OSROs may avoid the voluntary
evaluation process. The comment also expressed concern that vessel
owners or operators may be left legally responsible for ensuring the
adequacy and regulatory compliance of the OSROs identified in their
geographic-specific appendices. The other comment urged the Coast Guard
to ensure through the certification process that OSROs identified in
these appendices have adequate resources to respond on behalf of each
of their members. This comment also expressed concern about over-
commitment of resources by OSROs. The Coast Guard understands these
concerns, but, as previously stated, it is the ultimate responsibility
of the owner or operator to ensure that the private resource for which
it contracts and upon which it relies in the event of a spill, is
qualified and prepared to meet the response capability needed by the
vessel. The Coast Guard does have a program for classifying contractors
(NVIC 12-92; December 4, 1992) which takes into account the quantity of
equipment, its designed purpose, the planning capacity of the
resources, and the number of trained personnel the contractor has. A
listing of these classified oil spill removal organizations is
available from Commanding Officer, National Strike Force Coordination
Center; (Attn: OSRO Classification Review); 1461 U.S. 17 North;
Elizabeth City, NC 27909; telephone number: (919) 331-6000.
The Coast Guard has amended the provision under this paragraph
regarding certain information which is repeated for each geographic
area in which the vessel operates. As revised in the final rule, the
vessel owner or operator has the option of specifying the location of
such information in the plan or providing the information in the
particular geographic-specific appendix. This revised measure should
save time in the development of vessel response plans in that
information would not have to be duplicated.
The Coast Guard also added a subparagraph to this paragraph
elaborating upon the requirement to include dispersant capabilities in
the geographic-specific appendix if the owner or operator elects to
include use of dispersants in the response plan. This subparagraph
provides that the appendix, if applicable, must identify dispersant
capability, areas of preapproval, and procedures for employing the
dispersant. Although, in the IFR, this paragraph previously required
the appendix to include information on dispersant capabilities, this
new subparagraph reiterates the requirements that were previously only
specified in section 8 of Appendix B of this part. It requires the plan
to further elaborate upon dispersant capabilities by providing
information concerning preapproval areas and dispersant employment
procedures. This date will inform the Coast Guard not only about the
availability of dispersants but also about where and how such
dispersants may be used in an oil spill situation.
Section 155.1040 Response Plan Requirements for Unmanned Tank Barges
Carrying Oil as a Primary Cargo
General information and introduction. One comment was received
regarding the general requirements of this section. This comment urged
the Coast Guard to establish requirements for towboat operators,
tankermen, and fleeting and facility operators in addition to those
requirements for owners or operators of tank barges. This comment
argued that towboat operators, tankermen, and fleeting and facility
operators often fail to notify authorities, cause damage to the barges,
and fail to implement cleanup activities. This comment contended that
these shortcomings leave a barge owner responsible despite his or her
lack of knowledge. It is the onus of a barge owner to ensure that the
[[Page 1061]]
towboat's operators are familiar with the response plan and can handle
a spill situation.
The Coast Guard has also amended this paragraph to clarify that the
list of tank barges in the response plan must include each tank barge's
country of registry, call sign, and IMO international number, if
applicable, as well as its official number. These added requirements
will further assist the Coast Guard in identifying a vessel in the
event of an oil spill.
Notification procedures. One comment was received addressing this
paragraph. It contended that a requirement to notify State authorities
is not within the purview of the Coast Guard unless the State has
specifically required the Coast Guard to do so. The Coast Guard
disagrees. As stated previously, other statutes and regulations
establish oil spill reporting requirements, and the Coast Guard has
determined that owners or operators should set procedures for these
notifications in their response plans. To minimize the burden on vessel
owners and operators and facilitate rapid notification of a spill, most
of this information can be provided in a checklist, which is consistent
with Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78. To ensure consistency with IMO
Resolution A648(16), the Coast Guard revised the rule to require that
response plans include various additional items that must be identified
in the initial notification and to establish guidelines for follow-up
reports.
Shipboard mitigation procedures. No comments specifically
addressing this paragraph were received. However, as the procedures in
Sec. 155.1035 regarding shipboard spill mitigation were affected by the
subsequent rulemaking on discharge removal equipment (58 FR 67995;
December 22, 1993), the procedures regarding shipboard spill mitigation
have been affected for unmanned vessels under this section.
Consequently, the Coast Guard has amended this paragraph to require the
inclusion of procedures for deployment of discharge removal equipment
in response plans, and the inclusion of procedures for internal
transfer of cargo in response plans as provided in the discharge
removal equipment IFR. Additionally, a provision was added requiring
identification in the response plan of the shore location and 24-hour
access procedures for the computerized shore-based damage stability and
residual structural strength calculation programs. These programs are
required by 33 CFR 155.240, which was added to 33 CFR part 155 by the
discharge removal equipment IFR.
Shore-based response activities. The Coast Guard amended this
paragraph by adding a subparagraph requiring the inclusion in the
response plan of any applicable procedures for transferring
responsibility for direction of response activities from towing vessel
personnel or tankermen to the shore-based spill management team.
Additionally, the Coast Guard amended the paragraph to require
inclusion of more detailed information concerning the organizational
structure of response actions. In the IFR, this provision merely
required the listing of enumerated functional areas in this part of the
response plan. The provision as revised requires the inclusion of
information regarding key components within each of these enumerated
functional areas. This information is currently required for approval
of response plans. This paragraph has also been reworded so as to
require the inclusion in the response plan of the functional job
descriptions for each oil spill management team position within the
organizational structure. These added requirements will better clarify
the responsibilities of those involved in oil spill cleanup, thereby
promoting more efficient implementation of response plans.
List of contacts. No comments specifically addressing this
paragraph were received. However, the Coast Guard has added a
subparagraph to this provision requiring the list of contacts to
include persons to notify for activation of the spill management team
for average most probable, maximum most probable, and worst case
discharges. This requirement would elicit the needed information
regarding the oil spill management teams so that the appropriate person
could be contacted promptly in the event of certain oil discharges.
This information is currently required for approval of response plans.
Plan review, update, revision, amendment, and appeal procedure. The
title of this section was changed from ``Plan review and update
procedures'' to more clearly define the contents of this section.
Geographic-specific appendices for each COTP zone in which a tank
barge operates. The Coast Guard has amended the provision under this
paragraph regarding certain information which is repeated for each
geographic area in which the vessel operates. As revised in the final
rule, the vessel owner or operator has the option of merely specifying
the location of such information in the plan, rather than duplicating
the information in the appendix. This revised measure should save time
in the development of vessel response plans in that efforts would not
have to be duplicated.
One comment was received addressing this paragraph which requires
the inclusion of certain geographic-specific appendices with vessel
response plans. This comment objected to the provision requiring that
these appendices certain information on the volume and type of oil on
which the required response resources are calculated. It argued that
the requirement is burdensome and redundant in that this information is
readily available on the Certificates of Inspection for barges which
already list the cargo that the barges carry and have set allowances
for the volumes. The Coast Guard disagrees. This information needs to
be included in the response plan to have a consolidated, easy, quick
reference to use in a spill situation. However, as stated above, the
Coast Guard has eliminated the previously required duplication within
the plan by changing the language of paragraph (j) to allow the barge
owner or operator to specify the location of volume and type of oil
information in the vessel response plan itself rather than including it
in the geographic-specific appendix.
If the owner or operator has proposed in the response plan the use
of dispersants, the dispersant capabilities must be listed in the
geographic-specific appendices. This discussion should identify the
following: Dispersant capability; areas of preapproval; and procedures
for employing dispersants. This data will inform the Coast Guard not
only about the availability of dispersants but also about where and how
such dispersants will be used in an oil spill situation.
Appendices for barge-specific information. Two comments were
received in response to this section. One comment argued that the
requirement to amend the vessel response plan to include required
drawings for barge-specific appendices each time an inland barge is
chartered or released is an administrative burden. This comment
suggested that, as an alternative, the Coast Guard could allow a cross-
reference to the drawing submitted in the barge owner's vessel response
plan, or the barge owner could submit a letter to the Coast Guard
citing changes in lieu of amending the vessel response plan. The Coast
Guard agrees. Separate response plans do not need to be submitted for
sister vessels and this exclusion holds true for barges.
One comment objected to the provision requiring that these
appendices contain information on the volume and type of oil on which
the required response resources are calculated. It argued that the
[[Page 1062]]
requirement is unclear, burdensome, and redundant in that this
information is readily available on the Certificates of Inspection for
barges which already list the cargo that the barges carry and have set
allowances for the volumes. The Coast Guard disagrees. Although this
information is provided in the certificate of inspection, for ease of
use during a cleanup, this information should also be listed in the
response plan.
In this final rule, the Coast Guard has added the requirement for a
list of principal characteristics (i.e., length, beam, gross tonnage,
etc.) of the vessel to be included in appendices for barge-specific
information. This information will assist the responder in gaining a
better understanding of the design of a vessel and will assist in the
efficient implementation of a response plan should the need arise. This
information is readily available and, therefore, places no extra burden
on the plan submitter. It simply presents a clarification of the
information required to be submitted in the interim final rule.
Section 155.1045 Response Plan Requirements for Vessels Carrying Oil
as a Secondary Cargo
General information and introduction. No comments specifically
addressing this paragraph were received. However, the Coast Guard has
made various amendments to this paragraph.
Paragraph (a) of the IFR has been revised and placed in new
paragraph (a)(6), and the remaining paragraphs redesignated
accordingly. In addition to other basic vessel information required to
be included in the response plan, paragraph (a)(6), as revised,
requires the inclusion of the vessel's IMO international number. This
additional requirement will better assist the Coast Guard in
identification of vessels which might be involved in an oil spill.
The provision in paragraph (a)(3) requiring inclusion of
identification of geographic areas covered by the plan has also been
reworded in this final rule. The provision has simplified the
requirements so that, with regard to identification of geographic areas
under this section, the submitter of the plan need only include a list
of COTP zones in which the vessel intends to handle, store, or
transport oil. Because the COTP zones would encompass any geographic
area covered by the plan, the Coast Guard determined that the
additional wording in this provision was redundant.
The provision requiring a vessel owner or operator to develop his
or her plan based on the total volume of oil carried in bulk as cargo,
which appeared as a separate paragraph (a) in the IFR, has been changed
to require that the vessel owner or operator specify in his or her
response plan the total volume of oil carried in bulk as cargo [See
paragraph (a)(6)]. This revision will result in the Coast Guard
receiving specific information about how much oil a vessel has on
board. This information enables the Coast Guard to better analyze the
appropriateness of response measures.
Notification procedures. One comment was received addressing this
paragraph which requires the inclusion of certain notification
information in the response plan for a secondary cargo vessel. This
comment contended that requiring vessel owners and operators to notify
State authorities is outside of the purview of the Coast Guard unless
the State has specifically required the Coast Guard to do so. The Coast
Guard disagrees. As stated previously, other statutes and regulations
establish oil spill reporting requirements, and the Coast Guard has
determined that the owners or operators should set procedures for these
notifications in their response plans. To minimize the burden on vessel
owners and operators and facilitate rapid notification of a spill, most
of this information can be provided in a checklist, which is consistent
with Regulation 26 of MARPOL. To ensure consistency with IMO Resolution
A648(16), the Coast Guard revised the rule to require response plans to
include the IMO international number, when applicable.
Shipboard spill mitigation procedures. No comments specifically
addressing these paragraphs were received. However, the Coast Guard
revised this paragraph by condensing the classifications regarding
required information about shipboard spill mitigation procedures to be
included in response plans. These vessels which would fall into the
IFR's classification covering vessels carrying more than 100 but less
than 1000 barrels of oil would be covered by the classification for
vessels carrying over 100 barrels but less than 5000 barrels of oil.
Because even a discharge of over 100 barrels could potentially cause
significant environmental damage, more detailed information than that
which was previously required will assist the Coast Guard in
ascertaining the response capabilities of vessels falling within this
category.
Shore-based response activities. Two comments were received in
response to this paragraph requiring certain information on shore-based
response activities. One comment recommended that vessel owners be
required to demonstrate either that they have a contractual agreement
with wildlife response contractors or that they have the equipment,
training, and permits to conduct wildlife response efforts themselves.
The Coast Guard disagrees. However, as stated before, owners and
operators are encouraged to financially assist volunteer wildlife
rescue organizations who would generally respond to the needs of
wildlife in the event of and oil spill.
The other comment objected to the requirement to specify a
qualified individual and a spill management team in the response plan
as these requirements apply to fishing industry tender vessels. The
comment contended that the typical spill from a fishing tender vessel
is 10 to 20 gallons, and this spill would be too small to warrant use
of such resources. Additionally, this comment argued, this provision
would be costly to the fishing industry in that OSROs usually want a
retainer of $20,000 annually. The applicability of these requirements
to fishing vessels was revised by section 321 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2419). When
fishing vessels or fish tender vessels are engaged only in the fishing
industry and are less than 750 gross tons, they are deemed not be tank
vessels. Accordingly, such vessels are now excluded from vessel
response plan requirements.
The Coast Guard amended this paragraph by adding a subparagraph
requiring the inclusion in the response plan of any applicable
procedures for transferring responsibility for direction of response
activities from vessel personnel to the shore-based spill management
team. Additionally, the Coast Guard amended this paragraph to require
inclusion of detailed information concerning the organizational
structure that will be used to manage response actions. The provision
requires the inclusion of information regarding key components within
each of these enumerated functional areas of the organizational
structure. This paragraph has also been reworded so as to require the
inclusion in the response plan of the functional job descriptions for
each oil spill management team position within the organizational
structure. These added requirements will better clarify the
responsibilities of those involved in oil spill cleanup, thereby
promoting more efficient implementation of response plans. All of these
provisions are currently required for approval of response plans.
List of contacts. The Coast Guard has added a subparagraph to this
provision requiring the list of contacts to include persons to notify
for activation of the
[[Page 1063]]
spill management team. This requirement would elicit the needed
information regarding the oil spill management teams so that the
appropriate person could be contacted promptly in the event of an oil
spill.
Training procedures. One comment was received which addressed this
paragraph regarding the listing of training procedures in response
plans for secondary cargo vessels. This comment recommended that the
Coast Guard allow a reasonable amount of time of acquire refresher
training for each individual with response duties under the vessel's
response plan. The Coast Guard agrees. These time frames are addressed
by other regulatory requirements.
The Coast Guard added a subparagraph to this paragraph clarifying
that nothing in Sec. 155.1040 is meant to relieve the vessel owner or
operator from meeting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standards for emergency response operations in 29 CFR 1910.1200.
Plan review, update, revision, amendment, and appeal procedure. The
title of this section was changed from ``Plan review, update, and
appeal procedures'' to more clearly define the contents of this
section. Although no comments were received addressing this paragraph
of Sec. 155.1045, the Coast Guard has greatly simplified this paragraph
by cross-referencing Sec. 155.1070 which contains similar requirements.
This change should facilitate interpretation and implementation of
these regulations.
Geographic-specific appendices for each COTP zone in which a vessel
operates. The Coast Guard amended this provision by requiring inclusion
in the geographic-specific appendix of a list of the spill management
team(s) available to respond to the vessel's worst case oil discharge
in each COTP zone in which a vessel operates. This requirement will
elicit information needed by the Coast Guard to determine the vessel's
response capabilities.
If the owner or operator has proposed in the response plan the use
of dispersants, the dispersant capabilities must be listed in the
geographic-specific appendices. This discussion should identify the
following: Dispersant capability; areas of preapproval; and procedures
for employing dispersants. This data will inform the Coast Guard not
only about the availability of dispersants but also about where and how
such dispersants will be used in an oil spill situation.
Appendices for vessel-specific information. The Coast Guard added
this paragraph to this section in the final rule. It requires certain
information concerning a vessel and its cargo be provided in an
appendix to the vessel response plan. This additional information will
assist the Coast Guard in determining a vessel's response capabilities.
This information is currently required for approval of response plans.
Section 155.1050 Response Plan Development and Evaluation Criteria for
Vessels Carrying Groups I Through IV Petroleum Oil as Primary Cargo
Equipment operation criteria. Eight comments were received in
response to equipment operation criteria. Five comments addressed the
issue of inspection and operation of oil spill response vessels (OSRVs)
while responding to spills of different grades of oil.
One comment suggested that the Coast Guard modify Table 1 of
Appendix B, to which this section refers, to require that 80% recovery
devices operating in wave heights up to 4 feet in the Great Lakes be
capable of accommodating the required 20% shallow water (6 feet or
less) response capability. Another comment suggested that the Coast
Guard amend the nearshore response equipment requirement to exempt
shallow water equipment from the operating requirements of Table 1 of
Appendix B to which this section refers.
The Coast Guard is aware that it may be difficult to have equipment
that meets both the wave height requirement and the shallow water
requirement at the same time. The Coast Guard has modified Table 1 to
specifically state that the equipment provided for operation in the
shallow water depths are exempt from the significant wave height
requirements. In other words, the Table 6 response requirement
capabilities could be met by separate pieces of equipment: the
specified amount of shallow waters equipment must be available, and the
complement of equipment necessary to recover the Table 6 volumes must
be capable of operating in the specified wave heights.
One comment requested clarification of the requirement to match
response equipment with the grade of oil carried. As discussed in the
NPRM, the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee originally recommended using
two oil categories: persistent and nonpersistent. They also recommended
that the Coast Guard consider the relative persistence of oils and
emulsification.
The Coast Guard has divided persistent oil into four groups based
on a protocol developed by the International Tanker Owners Pollution
Federation (ITOPF) to account for the differences in persistence. The
Coast Guard has defined oil in five groups: nonpersistent and four
other groups based on their specific gravity. While inspection of the
response vessel is more appropriately based on specific grades of oil
related to volatility; recovery capabilities are more dependent on the
specific gravity.
Use of 35% as standard for reclassifying. Three comments were
received which addressed this issue. One comment urged that
reclassification of the operating environment by a COTP be subject to a
national level review and approval in order not to compromise the one
nationwide standard which was cited in the ``Discussion of Comments and
Changes'' section of the IFR. Another comment suggested lowering the
reclassification threshold from 35% to 10% to ensure that the equipment
identified in the response plan would be available to operate during
all seasonal variations. Another comment suggested that the criteria
for reducing the classification of a body of water should be set at 85%
rather than 35%. The COTP is authorized to change the classification of
a body of water based on 35% of the existing conditions. As discussed
in the IFR, the Coast Guard has based the criteria on 35% as this
figure is considered to be the most appropriate.
Requirements for response resources. One comment was received which
addressed this issue. It requested clarification on how grades of oil
correspond to groups of oil and argued that the grade of oil spilled
may not be the same as the grade of oil recovered. The Coast Guard
recognizes that oil characteristics may change with time and
weathering. Basing the response on the grade of oil carried is a
starting point. A well-formulated response plan will recognize these
possible changes and provide for the recovery of weathered oil.
Average most probable discharge requirements. Eleven comments were
received responding to the provision in this paragraph for a waiver for
vessels moored at facilities. Four comments supported the provision.
One comment supported the provision with reservations: This comment
suggested that the requirement that the response resources include a
containment boom in a quantity equal to twice the length of the largest
vessel involved in the transfer be amended to include an alternative to
this requirement. This comment also suggested that, in the alternative,
the quantity of the containment boom be in the quantity needed to
contain a 50-barrel discharge. The Coast Guard disagrees. Recognizing
that oil will react differently depending
[[Page 1064]]
on the environmental conditions, the Coast Guard has elected to base
the average most probable discharge boom requirements on the length of
the vessel.
Two comments objected to this waiver provision for vessels moored
at facilities, on contending that a vessel response plan should require
that vessels plan for an average most probable discharge and other
contending that this provision exposes terminal operators to additional
legal and financial liability for acts of third-party vessel operators.
The Coast Guard agrees that a vessel owner or operator should plan for
responding to such discharges, and has amended the rule to reflect this
change. This change will not require the contracting of resources. A
vessel's response planning requirements are independent of the legal
and financial liability of the terminal operator.
The Coast Guard has determined that it is not necessary to require
both the facility and vessel owners or operators to ensure, by contract
or other approved means, that resources are available to respond to an
average most probable discharge. Requiring the facility to plan for and
ensure the availability of these resources is consistent with 33 CFR
154.545, which already requires facilities to have access to discharge
containment equipment to control an oil discharge from operations from
that facility. If the facility has identified these response resources,
the Coast Guard has determined that they will be readily available to
respond to an average most probable discharge from the vessel occurring
during transfer operations. The wording of the regulation has been
modified to clarify the responsibilities.
One comment questioned the provision allowing vessels to name
terminals as resources available for vessel discharge response, arguing
that the OSRO is placed in a position of initiating work for a party
(vessel owner or operator) with whom financial assurance mechanisms
have not been established. Likewise, another comment disagreed with
this provision, contending that the IFR seems to amend the statute by
imposing on terminal owners and operators the duty to respond to any
spill during a transfer, even if the spill is from a vessel. This
comment argues that the Coast Guard cannot alter respective duties
imposed by OPA 90. The Coast Guard agrees. The response plan
regulations have not relieved the responsibility of either party from
responding to a spill. The responsible party is always required to
promptly respond to a spill. Paragraph 1050(d)(3) applies only to
average most probable discharges and simply provides that the vessel
owner or operator need not ensure the availability of resources to
respond to an average most probable discharge through a contract or
other approved means.
One comment suggested that the delivering lightering vessel be
treated as a vessel delivering at a facility and be granted a waiver
from the requirement of identifying resources necessary to respond to
an average most probable discharge. This comment further suggested that
the receiving vessels be assigned the responsibility of identifying the
response resources. The Coast Guard disagrees. Both vessels engaged in
cargo transfer operations must plan and ensure resources for an average
most probable discharge. These resources may be the same; however, they
must be identified and ensured available by contract or other approved
means by each vessel.
One comment requested that the Coast Guard clarify that a vessel
transferring oil at a facility with a plan in accordance with NVIC 8-92
does not have to secure the resources to respond to an average most
probable discharge. This comment further stated that NVIC 8-92 makes
this clear, but it is not clear in the IFR. The Coast Guard agrees, and
the wording has been changed to clarify this situation.
One comment was received in response to the applicability of the
average most probable discharge requirements to bunkering. This comment
sought clarification as to whether barges would have to plan for twice
the length of the longest vessel in the transfer and whether a waiver
could be obtained from the boom deployment requirement when barges are
supplying fuel to vessels in the Mississippi River. This comment stated
that it would appear more logical to focus efforts on collecting oil
where it would be instead of where it was and argued that the
containment boom fails in currents greater than 1 knot. It is most
effective to contain and remove the oil at the source, not to wait
until the oil has flowed down stream and dispersed throughout a wider
area. Measure can be taken in currents greater than 1 knot to ensure
that response equipment is deployed in an effective manner so that
current has as little impact on the equipment as possible.
Ten comments were received in response to the applicability of the
average most probable discharge requirements to lightering. One comment
urged that tank vessels less than 100 feet long be exempt from the
requirements of Sec. 155.1050(d)(1)(i) of the IFR. This comment also
suggested that the language of the paragraph regarding the containment
boom requirement be amended to require deployment of the containment
boom within 2 hours of oil spill detection. The Coast Guard does not
consider it appropriate to exempt vessels under 100 feet long from this
requirement. Cargo transfer operations involving any vessel pose a risk
to the environment; therefore, it is necessary to require equipment to
mitigate the effects of that spill. Rapid containment is an essential
element of minimizing impact and providing for efficient removal.
Therefore, the 1-hour maximum arrival time is appropriate.
Several comments were received regarding lightering operations.
They argued that most lightering operations occur at distances in
excess of 12 miles offshore. At these distances, they argued that the
practical result of requiring an owner or operator to plan for the
deployment of boom and skimmers within 1 and 2 hours, respectively, of
an operational spill is that the equipment must be maintained on-scene.
They further argued that this provision will either require the
carriage of the equipment on board one of the vessels engaged in the
lightering operation or on board a support vessel which stands by and
assists the operation.
These comments stated that the costs of modifying a support vessel
with the necessary equipment would be between $400,000 and $600,000,
and the costs of having the support vessel stand by on-scene would be
in excess of $3,000 per day. They maintained that these costs are not
justified by the relatively minimal benefits of having response
equipment immediately available on-scene to recover a 50-barrel spill
in the open ocean environment. The comments also argued, that for a
small operational spill there would be ample time to mobilize the
necessary response equipment prior to the spill reaching any sensitive
areas. These resources would be the same ones already identified in the
response plan, and ensured by contract or other approved means, to
respond to a maximum most probable discharge and worst case discharge.
For a maximum most probable discharge or for Tier 1 of the worst
case discharge, resources must be capable of arriving on-scene in the
open ocean area within 24 hours plus travel time from shore. A further
argument presented is that, in a lightering situation, the two vessels
are lashed together with large fenders between them, creating positive
containment for any oil that may spill. A 50-barrel spill will be
captured between the two vessels until voluntary action is taken to
separate the vessels and allow response activity to begin. Many
comments argued that the
[[Page 1065]]
containment created in this manner is more effective than the use of
ocean boom.
A number of comments to the docket also recommended that the
quantity and size of the required boom be reduced. No specific changes
were recommended. The Coast Guard agrees that the time limits for
responding to spills beyond 12 miles are inappropriate. However, as
stated above, the use of boom is a major factor in the effective
cleanup of a spill. The amount of boom required is based on an estimate
of how much boom would be needed for initial containment of a 50-barrel
oil discharge either alongside or between two vessels involved in an
oil transfer operation.
During the course of plan review, the Coast Guard received several
requests for waivers from the response time planning requirements for
the average most probable discharge for vessels engaged in lightering
operations, noting that, for lightering operations well offshore,
response equipment would either have to be prestaged or a support
vessels would have to be on scene. The costs of a support vessel with
the necessary equipment are estimated to be between $400,000 and
$600,000. Having the support vessel stand by on-scene would be in
excess of $3,000 per day. The regulatory text in the final rule has
been modified to make the response time a function of the distance from
the nearest shoreline for lightering operations that occur 12 or more
miles offshore. For discharges occurring between 0 and 12 miles
offshore, no additional travel time is permitted, as these operational
transfers occur in the typically more environmentally sensitive areas
close to shore. Even in this zone, this may mean that equipment will
have to be prestaged and/or on-scene in order to meet these short time
requirements. From 12 to 200 miles, the allowed response time is 1 hour
plus travel time, using an assumed transit speed of 5 knots. For
example, the required response time for boom and skimmers for a vessel
lightering anywhere from 0 to 12 miles from shore is 1 and 2 hours,
respectively. For a vessel lightering at 12.5 miles, the required
response time for both boom and skimmers is 3.5 hours (1 hour plus 12.5
miles/5 knots). The available data on lightering operations and spills
incident to these operations did not indicate an obvious break point
which could be used to determine which operations should be subject to
the stricter response times. The 12 mile distance was selected, in
part, because it would have limited impact on industry and, in part,
because it is a recognized international boundary for pollution
purposes. Since virtually all lightering takes place greater than 12
miles from the shoreline, this change should facilitate response
planning for most vessel operators by allowing them to factor in travel
time. Vessel operators who contemplate lightering within 12 miles of
shore will have to balance the convenience and cost savings of close-in
operations against the cost of meeting the short response times
specified. The provisions of this change have already been allowed for
owners and operators who have submitted written requests for response
time alternatives.
One comment questions the advisability of requiring vessels engaged
in lightering to plan for a 50-barrel spill by requiring a containment
boom of twice the length of the largest vessel and suggested that the
average most probable discharge requirements for lightering be combined
with the maximum most probable discharge requirements for lightering.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The response times required for maximum most
probable spills are inappropriate for smaller average most probable
discharges. Response to smaller spills may require less equipment;
therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the deployments in response
to these more frequent spills be extremely timely.
Several comments have encouraged that the Coast Guard address
contracting of specific resources for transfer operations. The Coast
Guard has amended Sec. 155.1070(c)(5) to permit owners or operators to
change the OSRO who has been contracted to provide AMPD response
coverage for a transfer operation without having to change the response
plan. The vessel response plan must identify a contracted resource for
this coverage, however, the owner or operator may substitute another
OSRO who is capable of responding in the appropriate operating
environment, within the required response time.
Maximum most probable discharge requirements. Three comments
suggested the elimination of the language in the preamble stating that
response resources should be in an adjacent COTP zone. One of these
comments argued that there should be no provision dictating where
resources should be located as long as response times are met. The two
other comments merely suggested deletion of the word ``adjacent'' from
the COTP zone reference in the preamble, citing that the rule itself
does not require that resources be located in an adjacent COTP zone.
The Coast Guard agrees with these comments that the rule does not
include any reference to ``adjacent COTP zone'' in the text. No
limitation on the location of these resources was intended.
Worst Case Discharge Requirements
General requirements. Four comments were received in response to
worst case discharge requirements in general. One comment requested
clarification as to whether the amount of boom identified by the owner
or operator of a vessel as sufficient to respond to a worse case
discharge would also be considered sufficient to respond to a discharge
of lesser size. The Coast Guard has changed the wording of the
regulations to clarify that the boom should be sufficient to respond to
a discharge up to and including a worst case discharge.
One comment objected to the omission of credit in the form of
reduced planning standards or response times for taking preventive
measures such as having vessels with double hulls, double bottoms,
protective cargo, and ballast pumping. The Coast Guard disagrees with
this suggestion. While these preventive measures would probably reduce
the likelihood of oil spills and mitigate the damage therefrom,
preparation for response to oil spills is still a necessary factor in
oil pollution prevention. Accordingly, requirements should not be
waived merely because an owner or operator has taken additional
precautions against oil pollution.
This comment further asserted that a statement in the ``Summary of
Benefits'' section of the IFR that the principle benefit of the vessel
response plan requirement is the potential reduction in oil spilled is
false and argued that the IFR dealt exclusively with response rather
than prevention. The Coast Guard disagrees with this assertion: the
goal of preparing for response to oil spills would be to mitigate the
amount of pollution resulting from an actual oil spill. Mitigation of
oil pollution is prevention; therefore, the IFR is dealing with
prevention in that it is providing regulations for preparing for
response with the goal of preventing extensive oil spill damage to the
marine environment.
One comment recommended that the Coast Guard require owners and
operators to ensure availability of response resources for potential
spills which would be smaller than a worst case discharge. They argued
that such a requirement would minimize the majority of impact on the
environment which occur before the 12-24 hour Tier 1 response time is
met.
The Coast Guard agrees. The intent of the regulation has always
been to have response resources for the full range of spill volumes up
to and including a worst case discharge. The Coast Guard has modified
the language in the
[[Page 1066]]
regulation to clarify that the responsibility of an OSRO for a specific
condition (i.e., maximum most probable discharge) is also responsible
for response to spills of lesser amounts of oil.
With reference to prepositioned equipment in the State of
Washington, one comment recommended that offshore response equipment be
staged in Port Angeles until Neah Bay can support offshore response
vessels. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking project.
Shallow water response equipment. Seven comments responded to the
worst case discharge requirements as they apply to shallow water
activities. One comment stated that it was reasonable for the Coast
Guard to require 20% of the response equipment to operate in 6 feet or
less water depth; however, the comment continued by arguing that the
requirements in Table 1 of Appendix B should be reduced to require that
only 80% recovery devices operate in wave heights up to 4 feet. As
stated previously, the Coast Guard has modified Table 1 of Appendix B
to clarify that equipment designed to operate in water of less than 6
feet does not necessarily have to meet the significant wave height
planning requirements. The regulatory text of this provision has also
been changed to reflect this exemption from the significant wave height
planning requirements of Table 1 of Appendix B of part 155.
One comment argued that the requirement may be counterproductive in
that it may result in the reduction of the amount of available response
equipment capable of operating up to 12 miles offshore. The comment
further states that this reduction might be especially likely on the
West Coast where deep water and rough conditions are typical. The Coast
Guard disagrees with this statement. The response plan must account for
the total volume of the response capability caps in Table 6 of Appendix
B. The fact that some equipment will be capable of operating offshore
and some in shallow water does not detract from this accountability
requirement. However, it remains the responsibility of the owner or
operator to ensure that the proper equipment necessary for a spill is
available. This assurance may include contracting for additional
equipment if it is anticipated that it will be needed.
One comment recommended the addition of a provision requiring a
minimum level of sorbent material as part of the recovery capacity to
support mechanical equipment used in shallow-water operations. The
comment argued that because sorbents are the best means of recovery in
some areas such as marshes and cattails, failure to include such a
requirement would make it difficult or impossible to comply with the
20% standard of this section. The Coast Guard does not dispute the
value of sorbent material. The availability of this material and the
ease of getting it to the shallow water areas make it unnecessary for
the Coast Guard to include it in the regulated planning requirements. A
well-developed response plan will recognize the potential benefits of
this material and provide for its procurement and use.
One comment agreed that the shallow water requirements were
reasonable for the Great Lakes but not for shallow water with waves
measuring 4 feet breaking on the shoreline. This comment stated that no
recovery equipment capable of operating in these shallow water bodies
exists and recommended that the Coast Guard amend the nearshore
response equipment requirement so that shallow water equipment would
not have to meet the operational requirements of Table 1 of Appendix B.
The Coast Guard agrees. As discussed previously, the Coast Guard is
aware that it may be difficult to have equipment that meets both the
wave height requirement and the shallow water requirement at the same
time. Therefore, the Coast Guard is allowing response requirement
capabilities of Table 6 of Appendix B to be met by separate pieces of
equipment.
One comment generally supported these requirements but not as they
apply to operation in waters of 6 feet or less. This comment stated
that such application was overly restrictive in that if the vessel
owner or operator was responsible for identifying a large number of
shallow water skimming systems and shallow water shuttle barges to meet
the 20% requirement, the result might be a potentially complex and
unsafe operation. The comment suggested that the Coast Guard specify a
more practical operating range, such as 6-12 feet of water depth, to
allow for the use of crafts with deeper drafts and all the benefits of
larger displacement. The Coast Guard disagrees. The requirement for
being able to operate in water of 6 feet or less is necessary to allow
for cleanup in the area between the 6-foot point and the shoreline. It
is not appropriate to ignore this portion of the cleanup area.
One comment questioned the basis for establishing the percentages
of response equipment mandated to operate in certain water depths
because the majority of equipment available today is capable of being
deployed in waters of less than 6 feet. Therefore, this comment states,
by necessity, the response equipment will be part of most vessel
response plans. The Coast Guard agrees. Because use of this equipment
is already a consideration in a properly prepared planning document,
inclusion of information on this equipment should not be a burden on
industry.
One comment supported the requirement as it applied to shoreline
and nearshore operations.
Response times for tiers. Three comments were received regarding
response times for the three response tiers established by the IFR. One
comment stated that the response times in the IFR were more realistic
than in the NPRM, but believed that more time may be required for
cascading in larger items (i.e., boats) to remote locations. Prior to
the enactment of OPA 90, this belief may have been warranted. However,
a basic goal of this rulemaking project is to enhance response
resources availability, and for the most part, the project has been
successful in this regard. The response tiers in the IFR are reasonable
and set realistic goals.
One comment stated that the Great Lakes response times as required
in this section of the IFR are a significant improvement over those in
the NPRM, but further argued that neither volumes transported, vessel
traffic, nor spill history justify more rapid response times than for
other inland areas. Due to the confined nature of the Great Lakes
system and the imminent impact of spills on the surrounding shoreline,
the response times for the Great Lakes are justified and reasonable.
The maximum allowable response times provided in the tiers for the
other inland areas are based on the remote nature of some of these
areas and the difficulty of deploying equipment to those areas.
One comment suggested that the Coast Guard clearly state that the
planned-for response times do not include time for deployment of the
response equipment. The Coast Guard feels this point is clearly stated
in Sec. 155.1050(g). Where it is intended that equipment be deployed in
a specific time, as with average most probable discharge requirements
in Sec. 155.1050(d), it is specifically stated.
Higher volume port area. In this final rule, this paragraph was
moved to Sec. 155.1020. However, six comments were received in response
to this paragraph in the IFR. Two comments agreed with these
designations.
Two comments suggested designating Cape Flattery as the reference
point for the 50-mile seaward arc for the high volume port of Puget
Sound. One of these comments suggested that this area be designated in
lieu of Port Angeles, WA. The other comment also suggested that the
tugs necessary for use with the
[[Page 1067]]
response vessels in these areas should have the dual capability to
rescue disabled ships within a 6-hour response time. One comment urged
the inclusion of Cook Inlet as a higher volume port area. One comment
argued that the definition of a higher volume port area avoids the
concept of environmental sensitivity.
The higher volume port areas were determined by the Coast Guard
based on a study of persistent and non-persistent oil movement by
vessels, tank ship and tank barge transits, and overall vessel transits
in a port area. Methods for determining the higher volume port areas
were addressed in the notice of proposed rulemaking for these
regulations (57 FR 27514; June 19, 1992). For a uniform national
standard, the Coast Guard has determined that the overall volume of
shipped oil, and not environmental sensitivity, is the best indicator
of those areas requiring an enhanced standard for response equipment.
The area contingency plans may contain additional strategies based on
unique local consideration, including environmental sensitivity.
Notification and mobilization times. Two comments were received in
response to these provisions. One comment requested clarification as to
whether the IFR required that all Tier 1 resources be capable of the
initial mobilization within 2 hours after notice as required in this
section. All Tier 1 resources must be mobilized within a maximum of 2
hours. Because of the nature of oil spill cleanup, all equipment should
be mobilized and deployed on scene as quickly as possible.
The other comment recommended that the Coast Guard require Tier 1
resources to be located within the COTP zone for which the resources
are required. The Coast Guard disagrees. The Tier 1 equipment does not
have to be located within the COTP zone; however, it must be on the
scene within the specified Tier 1 times. The tiered time frames are
provided as maximum time frames for the minimum amount of equipment.
The equipment should be on-scene and deployed as soon as possible to
allow for the most efficient cleanup.
Dispersants. Eight comments were received in response to this
paragraph of the IFR. Four comments supported the inclusion of a
provision allowing credit for using dispersants. One of these comments
also supported making use of dispersants optional. Another of these
four comments also recommended allowing a credit as high as 100%. The
Coast Guard disagrees. Mechanical recovery is the preferred method as
it provides for the removal of the oil from the environment, and the
25% credit value in preapproved areas was a recommendation of the
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The final rule also retains the
language indicating that identification of dispersant capability in a
response plan provides no assurance that their use will be authorized
during a spill response.
One comment strongly opposed permitting credit, claiming that
allowing this credit will not lessen the amount of oil released into
the environment. This comment further contended that caps already
severely limit on-water mechanical recovery and that mechanical
recovery should not be further reduced through dispersant credits. This
comment also argued that if dispersants are allowed, the Coast Guard
should shorten the required response time to 8 hours to ensure
application during the optimal window of opportunity for dispersant
use. Two comments recommended that the 12-hour response time be
increased to 24 hours. One comment claimed that this increase is
supported by current research. The writer of the comment, however, did
not reference such research. The other comment argued that the 12-hour
response time would only be feasible if a fleet of dedicated aircraft
were chartered to respond to the spill. Another comment also
recommended shortening the response time to 6 hours, arguing that
responding to an oil discharge within 12 hours would be too late. One
comment recommended that the final rule provide that during the first
day of response activity, dispersants must arrive on scene within 12
hours, and, during the remainder of the response activity, dispersants
should be available as needed to sustain the assumed rate of dispersant
application.
The Coast Guard disagrees with the comments discussed in the
previous paragraph regarding dispersants and response times. The
specified caps do not limit mechanical recovery, they only provide a
minimum requirement for ensuring equipment by contract or other
approved means. Increases in the caps are scheduled for 1998 and
possibly in 2003 if further increases are justified. The Coast Guard
also disagrees with changing the minimum on-scene arrival time for
dispersants. Comments to the NPRM indicated that the recommended
arrival times on-scene are between 6 hours to an unspecified time less
than 24 hours. The Coast Guard required that dispersants arrive on
scene within 12 hours of discovery of the discharge. As with many
aspects of oil spill response, early action facilitates efficient
cleanup and, if use of dispersants is appropriate, dispersants should
normally be applied as soon as possible. However, there is no
justification for mandating the shorter time period for planning
purposes.
One comment does not support the use of dispersants but argued
that, if their usage is permitted, it is not sufficient to merely
require identification of dispersants. This comment continued by
contending that the Coast Guard should require that sources of
dispersants be purchased or contracted for and that the owner or
operator of a vessel should be required to contract for equipment, such
as planes, that are necessary for the dispersant application. The Coast
Guard partially agrees. Although the rule does not require that a
supply of dispersants actually be purchased, it does require the owner
or operator to make firm arrangements to have dispersants available
when needed and authorized. This provision [now Sec. 155.1050(j)]
clarifies that the dispersants and the necessary resource to apply them
must be ensured by contract or other approved means in order to receive
the 25% credit.
Salvage and firefighting. Twelve comments were received responding
to this paragraph. One comment supported the Coast Guard's intent of
ensuring adequate marine salvage and firefighting capability in the
United States.
Four respondents to the IFR commented on the 24-hour required
response time for firefighting and salvage resources. Three of these
comments stated that they were uncertain whether this 24-hour response
time would be realistic in 1998. One comment suggested reducing the
time to a maximum of 1 hour for high volume ports and 12 hours in the
open ocean. The Coast Guard recognizes that private salvage and marine
firefighting capability is currently limited in the United States.
Complying with this requirement has been delayed until 1998 to provide
sufficient time for the industry to assess the existing capability
fully and to take steps to address any shortfalls. As stated many times
previously, early action is imperative to efficient cleanup. The Coast
Guard, however, does not find justification for shortening the response
time planning requirement for firefighting and salvage equipment.
Three comments urged that the Coast Guard provide adequate time for
public comment when issuing regulations upgrading salvage requirements
in 1998. The Coast Guard agrees that, in the event it intends to
increase salvage requirements in excess of the already stated 1998
levels, it will allow for adequate time for public comment.
[[Page 1068]]
Two comments expressed concern that implementation of the
regulation regarding salvors would result in more owners and operators
contracting with non-capitalized salvors rather than legitimate salvors
with adequate equipment to conduct salvage operations. Two comments
argued that the imposition of minimum standards on salvage and
firefighting contractors named in the vessel response plans is
consistent with the clear intent of OPA 90. These comments suggested
more stringent requirements with regard to salvage contractors,
especially in the areas of salvage assets, performance, and response.
The Coast Guard did not specify requirements for salvage and
firefighting contractors as each situation will require different types
of equipment. The salvage or firefighting contractor will need to have
sufficient expertise and equipment available to respond to various
situations. A prudent owner or operator will ensure that the identified
contractor has the ability to respond to his or her anticipated needs.
One comment supported the identification of salvage and
firefighting resources as opposed to contracting for these resources.
One comment stated that ship incidents requiring salvage and
firefighting response occur too infrequently to support the resources
that would be necessary to meet proposed response times. The Coast
Guard disagrees. Although these incidents may be rare as this comment
argued, the damage resulting to the environment from the absence of
salvage and firefighting equipment where such equipment is needed could
be quite significant.
One comment argued that firefighting and salvage resources should
be guaranteed by contract and recommended that resources be on scene
within 24 hours. The Coast Guard would like to first point out that the
writer of this comment misunderstood the IFR to be requiring contracts
after 1998. The IFR requires that owners and operators currently have
these resources available through contract or other means. Secondly,
the Coast Guard disagrees with this comment's assertion that the
salvage and firefighting resources should be on scene within 24 hours
of a discharge. While this will essentially be the requirement in 1998,
time is needed to establish available firefighting and salvage
resources in geographically remote areas.
Emergency lightering. Seven comments were received in response to
this provision. One comment agreed that these requirements appear to
offer a practical means of controlling a spill at its source. Three
comments argued that this requirement to ensure the availability of
response resources for lightering operations through contract or other
approved means should require assurance through identification of
lightering resources rather than contracting for lightering resources.
One of these comments asserted that the contracting requirement would
require owners and operators to contract with thousands of barge owners
to provide adequate response on all coasts.
OPA 90 specified that response resources should be ensured.
Identification of resources for offshore areas is not adequate
assurance because this capability is not as readily available as in
river and canal areas of operation. The Coast Guard is aware that
ensuring adequate emergency lightering capability may require
contracting with more than one vessel broker for storage capacity.
Three comments argued that the requirement for availability of
portable pumps and ancillary equipment necessary to offload the
vessel's largest cargo tank in 24 hours of continuous operation should
be altered to require that there be adequate equipment to offload the
vessel's largest cargo tank in 36 hours of continuous operation for
vessels displacing 80,000 deadweight tons or more. The Coast Guard
disagrees. It is equally, if not more, important to expeditiously
offload cargo from the larger tank vessels as it is from the smaller
tank vessels. This equipment is readily available in areas where these
vessels operate.
One comment disagreed with the provision that resources reach open
ocean locations within 36 hours of notification. This comment argued
that meeting this requirement would not be possible, particularly for
fendering equipment, larger pumps, and power packs which may be beyond
the capability of air delivery. The Coast Guard disagrees. The
effective mitigation and prevention of further discharge of rapidly
escaping oil is dependent on quick response to the incident: 36 hours
is deemed to be a reasonable maximum time for arrival of this equipment
in the offshore operating area.
Shoreline protection. Three comments were received in response to
this paragraph regarding the assurance of availability of response
resources for shoreline protection operations. One comment recommended
that requirements for vessel response plans and facility response plans
be the same. The Coast Guard disagrees. Because vessels operate in a
variety of environments including offshore, the equipment necessary to
provide shoreline protection as identified in Table 2 of Appendix B is
appropriate for vessels but would not necessarily be appropriate for
facilities.
One comment supported the recognition of a national standard rather
than resources identified in the area contingency plans; however, this
comment takes exception to the preamble text in the IFR which stated
that the Coast Guard may adjust requirements if the area contingency
plans indicate such a need. This comment asserted the Coast Guard
should decide either to have a national standard or to allow the area
contingency plans to create area specific standards. The Coast Guard
appreciates the concerns expressed in this comment; however, it would
not be prudent to adhere to stringent national requirements without
being flexible enough to make exceptions where they are warranted.
One comment generally supported the shore protection requirements
of this paragraph, particularly the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP)
exemption. However, this comment also recommended that the area
contingency plans adopt a uniform national standard for shoreline
protection measures. The Coast Guard does not consider it appropriate
to restrict the strategies in the area contingency plans. They are the
appropriate forum for addressing local needs.
Shoreline cleanup. Four comments were received in response to this
paragraph dealing with assurance of the availability of response
resources for shoreline cleanup operation. One comment pointed out that
this paragraph fails to address the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard has
noted this omission and has included the Great Lakes in the
corresponding paragraph in the final rule.
One comment supported the recognition of a national standard rather
than resources identified in the area contingency plans; however, this
comment takes exception with the preamble text in the IFR which stated
that the Coast Guard may adjust requirements if the area contingency
plans indicate such a need. This comment asserted the Coast Guard
should decide either to have a national standard or to allow the area
contingency plans to create area specific standards. Another comment
generally supported these requirements with particular support for the
LOOP exemption. However, this comment recommended that area contingency
plans adopt a uniform national standard for shoreline cleanup. The
Coast Guard appreciates the concerns expressed in these comments;
however, it would not be prudent to adhere to stringent national
requirements without being
[[Page 1069]]
flexible enough to make exceptions where warranted.
One comment asserted that national standards for shoreline cleanup
might be inadequate because of the unique circumstances of a particular
area. This comment further argued that the national standard may be too
rigid for one area and leave gaps in another area. The Coast Guard
agrees that this may pose a potential problem and, therefore, may
adjust these requirements, by the rulemaking process, for specific
areas if found to be necessary.
Oil spill removal organizations. Although no comments were received
which specifically addressed this provision, the Coast Guard has added
the Great Lakes to the enumerated bodies of water in Sec. 155.1050(n)
where owners or operators of vessels transiting with primary cargoes of
groups I through IV petroleum oil must identify and ensure the
availability of oil spill removal organizations. The Great Lakes was
inadvertently excluded from this provision in the IFR.
Caps. Nine comments were received in response to this paragraph
that references Appendix B of part 155, which establishes the caps
recognizing the practical and technical limits of response capabilities
for which an individual vessel owner or operator can contract in
advance.
One comment supported the 1993 caps. Two comments argued against
the 1998 caps as established in the IFR, contending that the caps
established were arbitrary. The Coast Guard disagrees. The caps were
established to provide a clear upper target for which the vessel owners
or operators and the oil equipment response industry must plan. The
proposed increase of 25% has already resulted in encouraging industry
to increase their response capability. The Coast Guard will evaluate
the proposed cap increases before they become effective to determine if
they remain practicable. These evaluations will be conducted through
public notice and comment before the cap increases become effective.
Two comments recommended that the Coast Guard drop the time
requirement of this provision. One of these comments contended that
this time requirement overstates the intent of the Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee agreement. The Coast Guard disagrees. The concept
of response tiers was defined during the regulatory negotiation
process. The Coast Guard added the time requirements as they are a
critical component of the intended response capability. To eliminate
this portion of the requirement would result in greatly reducing the
effectiveness of the planning requirements.
One comment asserted that the reduction of the Great Lakes caps in
the IFR compared to those in the NPRM are an improvement; however, the
comment continued by arguing that the levels of 2,000, 4,000, and 8,000
feet should be considered. The Coast Guard disagrees. The existing caps
were developed through public discussions and comment, and it was
determined that they are reasonable.
One comment expressed concern over the additional costs which would
be incurred by owners and operators by having to comply with this
requirement. The Coast Guard is aware of the possible costs of this
requirement; however, the Coast Guard did a cost and benefit study
prior to developing this regulation, and determined that the benefits
justify the costs.
One comment argued that it is impractical for every tank vessel to
list all needed equipment above the caps and suggested that the Coast
Guard use the data collected by the Coast Guard National Response
Center at Elizabeth City, NC in lieu of requiring this listing. Another
comment suggested that the availability of any additional resources
should be determined in the area contingency plans, and the results
should be available to all planholders within a given area. The Coast
Guard does not want owners and operators to identify each piece of
equipment available above the caps. It only wants the identification of
organizations, their locations, and their capabilities
(classification), not specific detailed lists of equipment. The source
of this additional equipment may be the same provider as that which is
providing the contracted capability. The Coast Guard has clarified that
the additional resources above the caps must be provided by a
commercial source.
One comment asserted that the caps should be at least doubled,
arguing that the current level will not be able to respond to a worst
case discharge. This comment also suggested that caps for 2003 be set
now and be under contract by 1993, 1998, and 2003. The Coast Guard
disagrees with increasing the caps at this time. The caps have been set
considering the amount of equipment that can reasonably be expected to
be available and contracted for as of these effective dates. The Coast
Guard has modified the regulations in Sec. 155.1050(o) to require the
identification of additional resources, for all three tiers, equal to
two times that which has already been ensured available by contract.
One comment argued that identifying equipment in excess of only the
Tier 3 cap is inadequate and contrary to the Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee agreement. This comment continued by contending that
equipment to respond to the entire worst case discharge planning volume
must be identified. The Coast Guard has clarified the language of the
regulation to reflect that certain vessel owners and operators shall
identify sources of additional equipment equal to twice the cap listed
for each tier or the amount necessary to reach the calculated planning
volume, whichever is lower. This policy was published in NVIC 8-92 and
has been followed in reviewing plans submitted under the IFR.
One comment asserted that the requirement to identify sources of
additional equipment is not practicable. This comment continued by
arguing that there will not be sufficient resources in a given area to
both satisfy the contracting cap requirement and any additional
equipment above the cap which might be required to be identified by the
regulations. The response resources above the caps need only be
identified to the extent that the equipment is available. The final
rule has been changed to clarify this requirement. However, the Coast
Guard contends that a prudent owner or operator will research the
equipment outside their specific geographic area so that in the event
of a spill, the equipment can be located easily to ensure the entire
spill is cleaned up.
One comment asserted that the caps may not reflect what is
practicable to accomplish in the United States. This comment continued
by arguing that there is no information in the IFR to justify that the
caps represent the ``maximum extent practicable.'' This comment urged
the Coast Guard to reject caps and reevaluate the objective of this
provision using rational analysis to determine what is practicable.
This comment did not specify to what other methods they were referring.
The Coast Guard disagrees with eliminating the concept of caps. The
caps were developed through two rulemaking documents and various public
meetings, including the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meetings, to
determine what is practicable. There have been no compelling arguments
to change these requirements at this time.
Cap review process. Five comments were received in response to this
paragraph regarding the review of cap increases and other requirements
contained within subpart D that are scheduled to be phased-in over
time. One comment supported the Coast Guard's initiating review of the
practicality of future cap increases. Three comments supported using
factors such as improvement of technology and research and
[[Page 1070]]
development efforts in reviewing the caps for determination of possibly
new caps in 1998. Four comments urged the Coast Guard to clarify in the
final rule that the scheduled increases for equipment in 1998 will not
exceed 25% of the current requirement.
There will be a review process prior to the 1998 increase. The
possibility exists that the caps could increase above the specified 25%
if it is found to be appropriate.
Two comments supported the changes from the NPRM in the language of
this review process requirement.
Section 155.1052 Reponse Plan Development and Evaluation Criteria for
Vessels Carrying Group V Petroleum Oil as a Primary Cargo
Four comments were received addressing this section. One comment
expressed concern that the IFR was requiring equipment and technology
which may not be available, proven, or practicable. One comment
questioned the need to address this issue with regard to offshore and
open ocean operations. One comment supported the different plan
requirements applicable to various situations; however, this comment
disagreed with the stringent response times required by this section.
This comment argued that a 24-hour response time is unnecessary in that
once oil sinks it does not migrate. This comment continued by arguing
that the longer oil sits, the harder it becomes, and the easier it is
to recover by means such as cutting the oil and raising it by nets
suspended from a crane. One comment requested that the Coast Guard
consider not imposing minimum response standards on salvors.
Group V oils encompass a wide variety of oils which behave
differently in the marine environment. The response plan regulations
require procedures, strategies, and identification of equipment to
locate, recover, and mitigate discharges of these substances. This
equipment does exist and has been cited in numerous response plans
received to date. The response time for this equipment is considered to
be reasonable. The 24-hour deployment requirement applies to the
equipment arriving at the port nearest the area where the vessel is
operating, not the actual spill location. Minor editorial changes have
been made to this section, but no substantive requirements are
affected.
Section 155.1054 Response Plan Development and Evaluation Criteria for
Vessels Carrying Non-Petroleum Oil as a Primary Cargo
This section covered the specific response plan development and
evaluation criteria for vessels carrying non-petroleum oil as a primary
cargo. The Coast Guard received nine comments on this section.
One comment argued that Congress did not intend edible oils to be
regulated under OPA 90 and that these oils are already adequately
regulated by the FWPCA. One comment stated that owners or operators of
vessels carrying Group V and non-petroleum oils should be subject to
the same planning requirements as vessels carrying other types of oils.
The comment suggested that the Coast Guard change Tables 3 and 4 of
Appendix B to include these oils or allow the owner or operator to
submit a formula for determining the worst case discharge planning
volume. One comment recommended that the Coast Guard should delay
response requirements for non-petroleum oils until more information
about these oils is available.
Five comments stated that response and removal methods for non-
petroleum oils should be addressed in a separate rulemaking. In
response to the comments received, the Coast Guard has removed this
section and replaced it with new Subparts F and G to specifically
address non-petroleum oils. These new subparts are discussed
subsequently in this section of the preamble.
Section 155.1055 Training
The Coast Guard received several comments on this section. One
comment recommended that the Coast Guard provide in the final rule
enough time for individuals to receive refresher training. The Coast
Guard agrees that refresher training is needed; however, these time
frames have already been set in 29 CFR 1910.120.
One comment stated that owners or operators should not be liable
for the training of shore-based personnel. That comment and one other
stated the requirement that owners ensure that oil spill removal
organizations (OSROs) maintain training records is sufficient. However,
five comments stated that the 3-year training record maintenance
requirement would be an unreasonable burden on the owner or operator,
and that this requirement should be the OSRO's or Coast Guard's
responsibility. Two of those comments also stated if the Coast Guard
certified the OSROs, then recordkeeping would not be necessary. The
Coast Guard disagrees. It is the responsibility of the owner or
operator to ensure that the organizations upon which they rely for
spill response are adequately prepared.
One comment stated that the final rule should clarify that training
and drill requirements apply solely to employees and contractors hired
by unmanned tank barge owners or operators and not to auxiliary
personnel. The Coast Guard disagrees. The training requirements apply
to anyone contracted to have involvement in a spill cleanup.
One comment recommended that the word ``or'' be added after
Sec. 155.1055(b)(1). Addition of the word ``or'' after
Sec. 155.1055(b)(1) is not necessary as the listing of possible
locations of training records is in the disjunctive, meaning that the
records must be located in one of the three places listed.
One comment suggested that the Coast Guard maintain a list of
approved contractors which includes information on equipment and
personnel. The Coast Guard does have a program for classifying
contractors (NVIC 12-92; December 4, 1992) which takes into account the
quantity of equipment, its designed purpose, the planning capacity of
the resources, and the number of trained personnel the contractor has.
A listing of these classified oil spill removal organizations is
available from Commanding Officer, National Strike Force Coordination
Center; (Attn: OSRO Classification Review); 1461 U.S. 17 North;
Elizabeth City, NC 27909; telephone number: (919) 331-6000.
One comment recommended that the final rule state that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the authority
to enforce shore-based response personnel working conditions. Although
the Coast Guard acknowledges that OSHA does have this authority, there
is nothing in these regulations which discredits this authority.
Additionally, the language of this section clearly states that nothing
in the response plan requirements relieves the shore-based
organizations from complying with the OSHA requirements regarding
training for emergency response operations. It is the responsibility of
the vessel owners and operators contracting with the individual OSROs
to ensure that the OSHA requirements are being met.
The Coast Guard has amended this section of the final rule. This
section has been reworded to provide for identification of training for
persons having responsibilities under the plan, regardless of whether
or not such persons are members of the vessel crew. This change was
made to ensure that all persons involved in oil spill cleanup
operations are adequately trained. Also, the Coast Guard added a
subparagraph to this final rule which provides that a training plan may
be prepared in accordance with ``Training Elements for Oil Spill
Response'' to satisfy the requirements of this section. This
[[Page 1071]]
publication along with the added Appendix C to this rulemaking will
provide guidance and clarification of the training requirements to
owners and operators in the development of the training portions of
response plans, no additional requirements have been added.
Section 155.1060 Exercises
The Coast Guard has extensively revised Sec. 155.1060 which was
previously entitled ``Drills'' and is now entitled ``Exercises.'' The
changes make the terminology in the final rule consistent with the
National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP). In response
to the need to provide owners or operators with additional direction on
conducting exercises, the Coast Guard has revised this section to
specify that compliance with PREP fulfills all exercise requirements.
The National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) was
developed through a joint effort of the Federal agencies implementing
OPA 90 response plan regulations and other Federal representatives
(e.g., natural resource trustees), State agencies, members of the
regulated community, and oil spill removal organizations. These efforts
resulted in the creation of unified guidelines that reduce the
possibility of owners and operators having to participate in numerous
duplicative exercises. Following the PREP guidelines has been
determined to be an acceptable means to satisfy the OPA 90
requirements. The changes to the final rule were based on the PREP;
therefore, participation in the PREP will result in compliance with
this final rule. However, participation in the PREP itself remains
voluntary. If owners or operators do not choose to participate in the
PREP, they may develop their own program for compliance with the
exercise requirements in the regulation. The changes to the wording of
the regulatory text provide consistency with the PREP and have resulted
in reduced requirements.
Three comments stated that the owner or operator should determine
the extent to which the OSROs and spill management teams participate in
drills rather than the COTP, while another comment recommended that the
qualified individual should decide. One comment suggested that the
phrase ``Need not participate'' in Sec. 155.1060(d) be changed to read
``Shall not be required to participate.'' The Coast Guard has
determined that in a ``government initiated unannounced exercise,'' the
parameters of which are set by the COTP, it is appropriate for the COTP
to determine who will participate in the exercise and to what extent
they will participate, as this determination will facilitate accurate
tests of the preparedness of the responders.
Several comments were received regarding drill credit. Six comments
requested that credit for participation in unannounced drills be
extended from 24 to 36 months. Credit for participation in a
``government initiated unannounced exercise'' has been extended to 36
months. Three comments stated that the provisions for drill credit need
to be clarified. Two comments proposed that credit be given for
announced drills with unannounced scenarios. Two comments suggested
credit should also be given for responses to actual spills, while
another comment recommended credit for table top drills and further
suggested combining drills for both vessels and facilities annually.
One comment recommended that the Coast Guard should conduct an
unannounced drill in higher volume ports once a year and that a vessel
should receive credit only if a drill were completed satisfactorily.
Equipment deployment exercises are vital for maintaining readiness
and for testing the effectiveness of a response plan. The variety of
required exercises test different aspects of a response plan. However,
if an exercise includes components which fulfill the requirements for
some other type of required exercise (e.g. an equipment deployment
exercise that includes a qualified individual notification) then both
requirements may be fulfilled by the single exercise. Both announced
and unannounced drills are required by the PREP. This promotes full
familiarization with the response plans. Under PREP, vessels which have
an actual response situation may get exercise credit. The standards in
the rule are in accordance with the requirements of the PREP program.
For more detailed information, the PREP guidelines should be consulted.
Three comments were concerned with the scope and resulting costs of
unannounced drills. These comments suggested that a vessel owner or
operator be required to ensure that each element of a plan is exercised
at least once every 3 years rather than to ensure a drill which
exercises the entire plan. One of the comments also stated that many
drill exercises are redundant because most companies employ the same
OSROs. This comment also requested 24-48 hour advance notice for
unannounced drills. There is usually no advance notice of a spill.
Unannounced exercises serve an important purpose in maintaining
response resource readiness. The revised exercises section of the final
rule includes requirements for unannounced exercises. Section
155.1060(a)(5) states that annually, one of the required exercises
(emergency procedures, spill management team tabletop, equipment
deployment) must be conducted unannounced. Additionally, the owner or
operator may be required by the Coast Guard to conduct an unannounced
exercise, which would involve equipment deployment to respond to an
average most probable discharge spill scenario. If a vessel
participates in an unannounced exercise initiated by the Coast Guard,
they will be exempt from participating in another Coast Guard initiated
unannounced exercise for at least 3 years.
One comment stated that drill planning requirements should be
delayed pending further guidance from the Coast Guard. Two comments
suggested that drills should be closely coordinated and coincide with
local and State activities. As discussed previously, the PREP was
developed, in part, to coordinate all the various drill requirements.
This coordination should alleviate some of the burden of the drill
requirements.
In response to the need to provide owners or operators with
additional direction on conducting exercises and to ease the burden of
meeting the OPA 90 requirements, the PREP was developed through a joint
effort of the Federal agencies implementing OPA 90 response plan
regulations with involvement from other Federal representatives (e.g.,
natural resource trustees), State agencies, members of the regulated
community, and OSROs. These efforts resulted in the creation of unified
guidelines that reduce the possibility of owners and operators having
to participate in numerous drills. Following the PREP guidelines has
been determined to be an acceptable means to satisfy the OPA 90
requirements. The changes to the final rule were based on the PREP;
therefore, participation in the PREP will result in compliance with
this final rule. However, participation in the PREP itself remains
voluntary. If an owner or operator does not choose to participate in
the PREP, they may develop their own program for compliance with the
exercise requirements in the regulation. The changes to the wording of
the regulatory text provide consistency with the PREP, and have
resulted in reduced requirements.
One comment agreed with the requirement that vessel owners and
operators ensure that the OSROs' records for drills be maintained. Two
comment writers felt that this places an excessive burden on owners and
operators. The Coast Guard disagrees
[[Page 1072]]
that this burden is excessive. Although the owners and operators are
still responsible for ensuring that the exercise records are maintained
under the final rule, the final rule also maintains the provision
allowing records of exercises conducted off the vessel to be maintained
at the United States location of either the qualified individual, the
spill management team, the vessel owner or operator, or the response
organization. The response plan must specify the location of the drill
records.
Section 155.1062 Inspection and Maintenance of Equipment
Six comments were received on this section. Four comments stated
that the owners or operators, especially overseas shippers, should not
be responsible for the inspection and maintenance of shore-based
response equipment. One of these comments recommended that the Coast
Guard should inspect and certify OSRO response equipment and personnel,
while the other three comments did not specify who should be
responsible in these areas. One comment stated that the Coast Guard
should notify and require the contractor's permission before the OSRO
is named in a response plan. Another comment stated that if the Coast
Guard classified OSROs, then the owners and operators would not have to
keep records of equipment maintenance and inspection.
The Coast Guard disagrees with the comments suggesting that
responsibility for inspection and maintenance of equipment be shifted
to someone other than the owner or operator. It is the ultimate
responsibility of the vessel owner or operator to ensure that the OSRO
which he or she has listed is capable of providing the oil spill
cleanup services it claims it can provide. The Coast Guard does have a
voluntary program to classify OSROs, and the Coast Guard encourages
OSROs to participate in this program; however listing an OSRO does not
guarantee the capabilities of the OSRO's future performance. The
guidelines for classification and inspection of OSROs are contained in
the Coast Guard's Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 12-92
(NVIC 12-92; December 4, 1992) and may be used by vessel owners and
operators to evaluate the OSROs they have under contract.
Alternatively, the vessel owner or operator may ensure the OSRO's
equipment is being maintained properly by having third party inspection
of the OSRO by a classification society.
Section 155.1065 Plan Submission, Approval and Appeal Procedures
Several comments were received on this section, and although not
discussed in the regulation, the topic of plan review by regional
citizens advisory councils (RCACs) has been a topic of previous
preamble discussions. One comment argued that the RCACs should not
review response plans because of their lack of technical knowledge and
objectivity. The Coast Guard disagrees. The RCACs have a particular
interest in the adequacy of oil spill prevention and response plans for
tankers operating in Prince William Sound or Cook Inlet. The mode of
review is to have vessel owners and operators submit plans directly to
the RCACs, not via the Coast Guard, and the RCACs provide any comments
they may have regarding a specific plan directly to the applicable
vessel owner or operator. This method of review provides an opportunity
for valuable interaction between the RCACs and the vessel operators or
owners.
One comment suggested that the 60-day waiting period for vessels
which have submitted response plans be reduced to 30 days for newly-
built vessels and for vessels with interim assignments in U.S. waters.
One comment requested that response plan submission and approval
procedures be shortened for vessels carrying oil as a primary cargo so
that the 60-day waiting period could be reduced. One comment requested
that the item to correct response plan deficiencies be extended from 45
to 60 days.
The Coast Guard performs a two stage review of vessel response
plans in order to expedite authorization of vessel operation in U.S.
waters. The initial review provides the vessel owner or operator the
list of deficiencies. The Coast Guard has removed the specific time
frame of 45 days to respond to deficiencies and has changed this
response time to that which is specified in the written deficiency
notice provided by the Coast Guard. This revision will allow the Coast
Guard to determine the appropriate time frame on a case-by-case basis
according to the specific circumstances. The time frame allowed is
intended to provide the owner or operator sufficient time to address
any deficiencies. Nothing in the regulations prohibits operation in
U.S. waters during that time frame permitted for rectifying
deficiencies if the Coast Guard has issued a letter authorizing the
vessel to operate under the provisions of Sec. 155.1025(c).
One comment expressed concern that contractors reviewing response
plans were unfamiliar with fishing vessel tender operations and that,
because of work schedules, crewmen would not have the opportunity for
redress prior to the implementation of response plans. The
applicability of these requirements to fishing vessels was revised by
section 321 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-
206, 107 Stat. 2419). When fishing vessels or fish tender vessels are
engaged only in the fishing industry and are less than 750 gross tons,
they are not deemed to be tank vessels. Accordingly, such vessels are
now excluded from vessel response plan requirements.
The Coast Guard has modified the IFR provisions to reduce the
number of copies of the plan to be submitted to one and to indicate in
the certifying statement accompanying the response plan whether the
vessel or vessels covered by the plan are primary manned, primary
unmanned, or secondary carriers. This added information will facilitate
an efficient plan review process.
The Coast Guard has also added two paragraphs to this section in
this final rule. One paragraph allows the submission of a request for
acceptance of alternative planning criteria for owners or operators of
a vessel who believe that national planning criteria contained
elsewhere in 33 CFR part 155 are inappropriate. The provision should
lessen the burden of owners or operators by providing the possible
option of using alternative planning criteria.
The other added paragraph allows an owner or operator to meet the
response plan requirements of Regulation 26 of MARPOL and subparts D,
E, F, and G by stating this intention in writing when submitting the
response plan. This provision should also alleviate the burden of
owners and operators in that they would not have to duplicate their
efforts.
OPA 90 requires a vessel owner or operator to resubmit response
plans to the Coast Guard for information or approval, as appropriate.
In the IFR, the Coast Guard required that response plans must be
resubmitted every 5 years regardless of whether any revisions have been
made. In his memorandum of April 21, 1995, President Clinton directed
agencies to reduce by one-half the frequency of regularly scheduled
reports that the public is required to provide to the Government. An
exception to this requirement is provided when the agency head
determines that such action would not adequately protect the
environment or would impede the effective administration of the
agency's program. The Coast Guard has reviewed the need for
resubmission of response plans at 5-year intervals, and has concluded
that extending this to 10 years would not
[[Page 1073]]
ensure that plans were still viable and would not meet the goal of OPA
90, to improve the response to spills of oil. Changes in technology and
in available response resources over a 5-year period may make a
response plan fall below acceptable standards. To effectively
administer an oversight program and ensure that the maximum practicable
response capability is being utilized, review of response plans at 5-
year intervals is considered to be an appropriate balance between
program needs and reporting burden. The Secretary of Transportation has
approved retaining the requirement to submit response plans at a
maximum interval of 5 years.
Section 155.1070 Procedures for Plan Review, Revision, Amendment, and
Appeal
A number of comments were received on this section. One comment
requested clarification as to whether the Coast Guard could complete
review of response plans within 60 days after a new certification has
been submitted due to a change in the owner or operator of a vessel.
With reference to this section, neither the IFR nor this final rule
imposes any definite time frame within which the Coast Guard must
complete review of a response plan. Additionally, such a time frame
could not be definitely established because the length of the review
process would be dependent upon unknown factors such as how many
response plans would be submitted at a given time, and how many
deficiencies would be discovered.
One comment stated that the requirement for response plans to be
revised only if significant changes had occurred was too vague and
needs to be better defined. The Coast Guard disagrees. The rule
specifies many events which will require revisions of the response
plans. The provisions covering ``significant'' changes apply to those
areas which are uniquely within the knowledge of the vessel owner or
operator, such as the vessel's configuration or emergency response
procedures, and include a residual requirement for unanticipated
changes which may occur. The vessel owner or operator is responsible
for knowing what is sufficiently significant to require updating of the
plans.
Two comments stated the Coast Guard should evaluate response plans
in the broader context of the company's overall response capabilities
rather than focusing only on the response requirements of the vessel's
crew. The Coast Guard agrees. The means of ensuring effective
preparation and actual response to a spill is dependent upon the total
preparation of both the vessel crew and the company's support. In
evaluating a response plan, the Coast Guard does consider all these
factors.
The Coast Guard has made various changes to this section of the IFR
to clarify what must be submitted. Under this final rule, revisions to
a plan must include a cover page that provides a summary of the changes
being made and the pages being affected. Revised pages must further
include the number of the revision and date of that revision. This
amendment will help facilitate efficient review of response plans in
that Coast Guard reviewers will not have to search the entire document
to ascertain what revisions have been made.
The Coast Guard has also amended the procedures regarding when an
entire plan must be resubmitted to the Coast Guard for reapproval.
Although the IFR provided for resubmission for reapproval 6 months
before the end of the Coast Guard approval period identified in the
initial approval letter from the Coast Guard, this final rule also
provides for submission for reapproval of an entire plan whenever there
is a change in the owner or operator of the vessel, if that owner or
operator provided the certifying statement required by
Sec. 155.1065(b). In the IFR, such a change precipitated submission of
revisions or amendments rather than the entire plan. If the owner or
operator that certified the plan is no longer the owner or operator,
major changes to the plan will be necessary to describe the new
conditions of the new owner or operator. Alternatively, the new owner
or operator needs to certify and resubmit the plan to show that he or
she agrees with the existing plan. In the latter case, review will be
minimal; but the new owner or operator will be responsible for being
familiar with, and ensuring the accuracy of, the plan.
With reference to submission of revisions and amendments for
approval, this submission must be effectuated under this revised
section when there is a change in the vessel's owner or operator when
such owner or operator is not the one who provided the certifying
statement under Sec. 155.1065(b). As provided in the IFR, this
submission must also be done when there is a change in the vessel's
operating area that includes ports or geographic areas not covered by
the previously approved plan.
Regarding this change of ports or geographic areas transited, this
subparagraph has been changed to provide that a vessel may operate in
an area not covered in the previously approved plan upon receipt of the
written acknowledgment by the Coast Guard that a new geographic-
specific appendix has been submitted for approval by the vessel owner
or operator and the certification required in Sec. 155.1025(c) has been
provided. In the IFR, such written authorization from the Coast Guard
was not required prior to operation.
Under this section as revised, changes in the qualified individual
and additions of vessels to the plan are among the revisions and
amendments to an approved response plan which must be submitted for
approval by the vessel's owner or operator. When a vessel is added to
the response plan, it must include a vessel-specific appendix and owner
or operator's certification required by Sec. 155.1025(c).
This revised section also provides that when a change in the type
of oil cargo carried aboard affects the required response resources but
is authorized by the COTP for purposes of assisting in an oil spill
response activity, such change does not have to be documented by a
revision or amendment submission. As in the IFR, changes in the type of
oil cargo carried aboard which affects the required response resources
in situations other than those where the vessel is authorized in
assisting in an oil spill response activity must be submitted to the
Coast Guard for approval as a revision or amendment.
Under this section in the final rule, revisions or amendments must
be submitted 30 days in advance of operation, in order to give the
Coast Guard time to review the revisions, and must be accompanied by
the certification required in Sec. 155.1065(b). These amendments should
result in the Coast Guard having more up-to-date information about a
vessel's owner or operator. They should also result in more owner or
operator accountability with regard to the certifications made by
vessel owners and operators.
This section, as revised, also provides for review by the
Commandant (G-M) of decisions regarding deficiency determination
objections submitted by vessel owners and operators. Previously, in the
IFR, such petitions for review were to be done by the District
Commander. This revision should result in a more centralized review
system which should accordingly streamline the entire response plan
review process. The Coast Guard will continue to monitor this appeal
process including the time frames for appeals and may modify the
process in the future.
[[Page 1074]]
Subpart E--Additional Response Plan Requirements for Tankers Loading
Cargo at a Facility Permitted Under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act
Section 155.1120 Operating Restrictions and Interim Operating
Authorization
Four comments were received on this section. One comment pointed
out that the vessel response plan approval is contingent on funding of
citizen's advisory programs, as provided in section 5002(k) of OPA 90,
and requested that our response in the preamble should be revised
accordingly. Alternative funding requirements are prescribed under
subsections (k) and (o) of section 5002 of OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2732 (k)
and (o)). If no funding is provided under either subsection, approvals
under these rules respecting owners or operators referred to in 33
U.S.C. 2732(k) are rendered ineffective as a matter of law.
One comment recommended that the Coast Guard and not the vessel
owners or operators be responsible for certifying shore-based spill
response contractors. This comment further stated that the
certification requirements should be consistent with the requirements
being developed by Alaska. The Coast Guard disagrees. It is the onus of
the vessel owner or operator to ensure that the oil spill response
organizations with which he or she has contracted meet the requirements
of this rulemaking.
One comment stated that the owner or operator certification under
this section should be the same as the requirements referenced in
Sec. 155.1025(c). The Coast Guard agrees. In both the IFR and this
final rule, the Coast Guard has worded the operator certification
requirements as similarly as possible to those in Sec. 155.1025(c)
within the confines of the statutory requirements.
Section 155.1125 Additional Response Plan Requirements
Two comments were received on this section. One comment recommended
that the requirement to submit a drill schedule to the COTP should be
deleted because the COTP, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, the vessel owners or operators, and Alyeska already
coordinate drill schedules. The comment suggested that this requirement
may be more appropriately addressed in the area contingency plan. The
Coast Guard agrees that exercise, or drill, requirements should be
coordinated with both local and national authorities. As elaborated
upon in the discussion of comments with reference to Sec. 155.1060, the
PREP was developed to allow for this coordination.
The other comment stated that a specific time for removal of a
spill of 200,000 barrels of oil is not mentioned in this section. The
comment recommended a period of 4 days since that time would be
consistent with the period for nearshore and inland areas included in
Table 3. The Coast Guard disagrees. There is no evidence that cleanup
in this period of time could be achieved. The Coast Guard has never
specified a time for completion of spill removal as this factor is
specifically dependent on the circumstances of the spill. This same
comment also suggested that the communities of Seward, Seldovia, Homer
and Kodiak, Alaska should receive spill training, and that the final
rule should specify that a minimum of 2,000 personnel be trained for
removal of a discharge of 200,000 barrels of oil. The Coast Guard finds
that the existing list of communities is currently sufficient and is
not adding the communities suggested in the comment. However, should
circumstances change, a COTP may recommend adding ports if the spill
training requirements are deemed appropriate. This change would be
subject to a notice and comment rulemaking project. There were no
specific details included in this comment as to the basis for requiring
2,000 personnel for a spill of 200,000 barrels. The COTP has a great
deal of experience in this type of operation, and he or she is the one
who makes the determination as to the number of personnel necessary for
the cleanup of a spill.
Section 155.1130 Requirements for Prepositioned Response Equipment
Two comments were received on this section. One comment expressed
the opinion that the proposed Federal requirement of a daily recovery
capacity of 110,000 barrels of oil within 36 hours is below the limit
of 200,000 barrel capacity required by Alyeska and that the Federal
standards should be raised to reflect Alyeska's capacity requirements.
The other comment received recommended that requirements for positive
displacement pumps used for transfer of oil for intermediate storage
should be added to paragraph (e) of this section.
The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. The Coast Guard is
aware that, in certain geographic areas, the existing response
capabilities have increased over the past few years and exceed the 1993
caps. However, the Coast Guard has stated that it will not consider
increasing the caps until 1998, and the proposed cap increases will be
evaluated at that time to determine if they are still appropriate.
These evaluations will be conducted through public notice and comment
process before the cap increases become effective.
Section 155.1140 Tankers Contracting With a Facility Permitted Under
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act
Two comments were received on this section which argued that the
Coast Guard seems to be giving special consideration to vessels
contracting with a Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA)
facility. The other comment protested the special consideration given
to TAPAA tankers which contract with a TAPAA facility. The Coast Guard
agrees that this section gives the perception of special consideration.
Because the confusion caused by this section outweighs the benefits
which might be derived from it, the Coast Guard has removed this
section from the final rule.
Section 155.1145 Submission and Approval Procedures
Four comments were received on this section. Two comments concerned
vessel response plan review procedures. One comment recommended that
the plan review process include a provision to make plans available for
public review and that a mechanism for interested parties to appeal
Coast Guard determinations on the adequacy of response plans should be
provided. The comment also stated that the public has a right to review
response plans under the Administrative Procedure Act. The other
comment stated that the plan review procedure did not provide for RCAC
review, approval, and appeal as set forth in OPA 90. As discussed
previously in this preamble, the RCACs have a particular interest in
the adequacy of oil spill prevention and response plans for tankers
operating in Prince William Sound or Cook Inlet. The mode of review is
to have vessel owners and operators consult directly with the RCACs,
not via the Coast Guard, and the RCACs provide any comments they may
have regarding a specific plan directly to the applicable vessel owner
or operator. This method of review provides an opportunity for valuable
interaction between the RCACs and the vessel operators or owners.
One of the two other comments on this section suggested that the
Coast Guard list facilities that have large storage capacities which
could be used to hold recovered oil. This proposed list would be more
appropriate for discussion in the area contingency plans
[[Page 1075]]
and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
New Subpart F--Response Plan Requirements for Vessels Carrying Animal
Fats and Vegetable Oils in Bulk as Cargo
In the preamble to the IFR, the Coast Guard stated that it had been
unable to verify that the evaporation and emulsification factors in
Appendix B of the IFR were applicable to both petroleum oils and non-
petroleum oils. As a result of that determination, non-petroleum oils
were distinguished from petroleum oils in the regulations. In response
to the comments on the IFR on this issue, the Coast Guard is further
distinguishing non-petroleum oils by dividing them into three
categories. These categories are as follows: Subpart F includes animal
fats and vegetable oils, and subpart G includes other non-petroleum
oils. Animal fats include lard, tallow and other oils of animal origin.
Vegetable oils include oils from seeds, nuts, kernels or fruits of
plants such as corn oil, safflower oil, jojoba oil, coconut oil or palm
oil. Other non-petroleum oils include those oils which are not animal
fats or vegetable oils such as essential oils, turpentine and tung oil.
This separation of animal fats and vegetable oils from other non-
petroleum oils recognizes that while animal fats and vegetable oils
have harmful effects, they are not toxic to the marine environment as
may be other non-petroleum oils. These new subparts and categories are
intended to form the foundation of possible future rulemaking efforts
in this area. The Coast Guard is interested in information that may be
useful in determining the types and quantities of response equipment
necessary to respond to a discharge of animal fats and vegetable oils
and other non-petroleum oils. It also is interested in information on
new or innovative response techniques that will be appropriate for non-
petroleum oils. This information will be evaluated in determining
whether additional rulemaking should be initiated.
In response to comments, the Coast Guard has placed the majority of
the response plan requirements for vessels carrying animal fats and
vegetable oils in bulk as cargo in a separate subpart. This new subpart
requires these vessels to also meet the applicable requirements set
forth in subpart D of this part.
Subpart F was created to address concerns that some of the criteria
proposed in subpart D of this part were not applicable to animal fats
and vegetable oils. The Coast Guard received numerous comments on this
issue. The comments proposed that animal fats and vegetable oils should
be more clearly differentiated from petroleum-based oils. The comments
also suggested allowing unique response procedures for animal fats and
vegetable oil spills, and exempting from response plan preparation any
vessel carrying animal fats or vegetable oils as a secondary cargo.
In support of their proposals, the comments provided an industry-
sponsored study entitled ``Environmental Effects of Releases of Animal
Fats and Vegetable Oils to Waterways'' and an associated study. The
study claimed that the presence of animal fats and vegetable oils in
the environment does not cause significant harm. The study reached its
conclusion based upon its assertions that animal fats and vegetable
oils are not toxic to the environment; are essential components of
human and wildlife diets; are readily biodegradable; and are not
persistent in the environment like petroleum oils. However, the
industry study also found that these oils can coat aquatic biota and
foul wildlife, causing matting of fur or feathers which may lead to
hypothermia; and that animal fats and vegetable oils in the environment
have a high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) which could result in oxygen
deprivation where there is a large spill in a confined body of water
that has a low flow and dilution rate.
The comments acknowledged that the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Subcommittee on Bulk Chemicals recently recognized
the potentially harmful effect on birds from contact with floating
animal fats and vegetable oils discharged from vessels. The comments
also concluded, based upon Coast Guard data, that the likelihood of an
animal fat or vegetable oil spill of a magnitude to cause environmental
harm is extremely small. Additionally, the comments noted the
differences in the average size of the vessels which carry petroleum
and non-petroleum oils.
In the preamble to the IFR, the Coast Guard disagreed with comments
on the NPRM which claimed that edible oils pose less relative risk to
the environment. The environmental effects of discharges of animal fats
and vegetable oils are clearly documented and, in some respects, are
similar to the environmental effects of discharges of petroleum oils.
In letters to the Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior
(DOI), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), discussed the environmental
effects of discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils. DOI, NOAA and
the FWS all concluded that animal fats and vegetable oils pose risks to
the marine environment when spilled in quantity.
The agencies attributed the detrimental effects of animal fats and
vegetable oils to the similarity in physical properties between
petroleum and non-petroleum oils. The effects outlined by DOI and NOAA
include physical coating of bird feathers and mammal fur leading to
hypothermia, a loss of buoyancy, and subsequent mortality. All three
agencies also confirmed the industry report's conclusion that
discharges of animal fats and vegetable oils can result in increased
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in receiving waters, thereby decreasing
available oxygen in the affected waterbody and often resulting in
fishkills. NOAA also stated that coconut and palm oils are very viscous
and when spilled in most coastal waters would exhibit qualities akin to
vegetable shortening which would probably persist for over a decade.
The FWS letter specifically responded to the industry-sponsored
study. It expressed great concern over the veracity of many of the
study's conclusions. The FWS characterized the industry study as
``misleading, weak and erroneous'' and stated that ``key facts have
been misrepresented, are incomplete or are omitted,'' and that ``[t]he
biggest oversight of the [industry study] is the insignificance given
to the fouling potential of the edible oils.''
The FWS acknowledged that there are differences between petroleum
and animal fats and vegetable oils including different toxicity levels.
It pointed out that physical fouling is similar for both petroleum and
non-petroleum oils. Additionally, it stated that the removal of non-
petroleum oils can be more difficult and strenuous for the wildlife
because, in many instances, complete removal can only be accomplished
with scalding hot water and excessive washing. The FWS also stated that
wildlife rehabilitators consider edible oils and fats to be some of the
most difficult substances to remove from wildlife because the low
viscosity of many of these oils allows deeper penetration into the
plumage, or fur, creating a more thoroughly contaminated animal.
The FWS was extremely critical of the industry study for suggesting
that ingestion of edible oils is harmless to wildlife. The FWS stated
that the study misleads uniformed readers by not clarifying that these
oils, if consumed in large quantities, will cause harm to organisms
through means other than toxicity. For example, according to the FWS,
the ingestion of large quantities of animal fats and vegetable oils can
cause lipid pneumonia, diarrhea, and
[[Page 1076]]
dehydration in birds or other wildlife which try to clean these oils
from their feathers or coats by preening. This problem is magnified,
also according to the FWS, by the fact that these oils do not have a
repugnant smell or iridescent appearance to frighten wildlife away,
therefore making it more likely that wildlife will come in contact with
them during a spill.
In addition to the agency letters, the Coast Guard has placed in
the docket several studies attesting to the harmful effects of animal
fats and vegetable oils in the environment. One such study, conducted
by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is titled ``Harmful
Effects on Birds of Floating Lipophilic Substances Discharged from
Ships.'' This study examined the literature concerning non-petroleum
oils spilled into the environment and concluded that a number of
lipophilic substances, including vegetable oils, cause lethal harm to
birds as a specific group of marine life. The study found that
lipophilic substances adhere to the feathers of seabirds due to the
lipophilic character of the feathers' wax layer. This causes the grid
structure of the plumage to be disrupted, thereby destroying its
insulating properties.
The IMO study gives numerous examples of lethal contamination of
seabirds by lipophilic substances spilled from ships. These examples
include the death of thousands of seabirds because of a discharge of
palm oil off the Netherlands coast; over 300 dead birds as a result of
a 1,000 liter spill of rapeseed oil into the harbor of Vancouver,
Canada; diseased gannets found along the Dutch coastline whose plumage
was coated with paraffin and consequently was no longer water
repellent; and surveys of Dutch beaches in 1990 which found that 25% of
the dead birds washed ashore were at least partly contaminated with
vegetable oils. The IMO study also warns that a serious discharge of
lipophilic substances in the open sea would cause more harm to seabirds
than a nearshore discharge because the birds in the open sea would be
unable to rest on shore to clean their plumage.
For these reasons, the Coast Guard has determined that a discharge
of animal fats and vegetable oils from a vessel could reasonably be
expected to cause harm to the environment. Therefore, vessels that
carry non-petroleum oils in bulk as both primary and secondary cargos
are required to prepare and submit response plans for Coast Guard
approval.
Because there is insufficient data to support a finding that a
spill of a large quantity of animal fats and vegetable oils will have
less adverse impact on the environment than a spill of other kinds of
oil, the Coast Guard does not believe that a vessel carrying non-
petroleum oils in bulk as cargo should be allowed reduced response
requirements. However, the Coast Guard does acknowledge that non-
petroleum oils may behave differently from a petroleum or petroleum-
based oil.
Subpart F requires owners or operators of vessels carrying animal
fats and vegetable oils in bulk as cargo to identify the procedures and
equipment necessary to respond to a worst case discharge of these oils
to the maximum extent practicable. The new subpart does not include
specific requirements for identifying the amount of response resources.
Instead, it allows the owner or operator of the vessel to propose the
amount of equipment needed to respond to a worst case discharge of
animal fats and vegetable oils to the maximum extent practicable. The
Coast Guard will then evaluate the information submitted by the owner
or operator of the vessel to determine if the resources identified are
consistent with the volume of animal fats and vegetable oils that may
be spilled as a result of the worst case discharge.
As with petroleum oils, the owner or operator must ensure the
availability of removal equipment through contract or other approved
means. At a minimum, the owner or operator of the vessel must obtain a
letter from an oil spill removal organization stating that it will
respond to a worst case discharge from the vessel. It is not intended
that this letter imply a formal contractual agreement between the
parties but that the owner or operator has identified specific response
resources and that those resources will respond to a worst case
discharge from the vessel.
Subpart F also requires the owner or operator of a vessel which
carries animal fats and vegetable oils in bulk as cargo to contract for
firefighting resources should the vessel not have access to sufficient
local firefighting resources. The Coast Guard believes that these
procedures meet both the intent and spirit of OPA 90.
The Coast Guard has included in subpart F, for animal fats and
vegetable oils, a paragraph on the use of dispersants and other
similar, new, or unconventional spill mitigation techniques including
mechanical dispersal. Response plans for vessels located in
environments with year-round preapproval for use of chemical
dispersants will be allowed to identify such devices, substances, and
techniques and receive a credit of up to 25 percent of the plan's
required worst case planning volume. In all cases the identified
response measures must comply with the NCP and the applicable ACP.
New Subpart G--Response Plan Requirements for Vessels Carrying Other
Non-Petroleum Oils in Bulk as Cargo
In response to comments the Coast Guard has placed the majority of
the response plan requirements for vessels carrying other non-petroleum
oils in a separate subpart G entitled ``Response plan requirements for
vessels carrying other non-petroleum oils in bulk as cargo.'' This new
subpart requires such vessels to also meet the applicable requirements
set forth in subpart D of this part.
Subpart G was created to separate other non-petroleum oils from
animal fats and vegetable oils to address concerns that some of the
criteria proposed in subpart D of this part were not applicable to
these oils and that they also differ from animal fats and vegetable
oils and petroleum oils. The Coast Guard received numerous comments on
this issue. There is a detailed discussion of these comments in the
preamble to Subpart F above.
Subpart G requires owners or operators of vessels carrying other
non-petroleum oils in bulk as cargo to identify the procedures and
equipment necessary to respond to a worst case discharge of these oils
to the maximum extent practicable. The new subpart does not include
specific requirements for identifying the amount of response resources.
Instead, it allows the owner or operator of the vessel to propose the
amount of equipment needed to respond to a worst case discharge of
other non-petroleum oils to the maximum extent practicable. The Coast
Guard will then evaluate the information submitted by the owner or
operator of the vessel to determine if the resources identified are
consistent with the volume of other non-petroleum oils that may be
spilled as a result of the worst case discharge.
As with petroleum oils, the owner or operator must ensure the
availability of removal equipment through contract or other approved
means. At a minimum, the owner or operator of the vessel must obtain a
letter from an oil spill removal organization stating that it will
respond to a worst case discharge from the vessel. It is not intended
that this letter imply a formal contractual agreement between the
parties but that the owner or operator has identified specific response
resources and that those resources will respond to a worst case
discharge from the vessel.
Subpart G also requires the owner or operator of a vessel which
carries non-petroleum oils in bulk as cargo to contract for
firefighting resources
[[Page 1077]]
should the vessel not have access to sufficient local firefighting
resources. The Coast Guard believes that these procedures meet both the
intent and spirit of OPA 90.
Appendix B to Part 155--Guidelines for Determining and Evaluating
Required Response Resources for Vessel Response Plans
Section 2. Two comments were received on this section. One comment
stated that an on-water barge speed of 8 knots was more accurate for
response planning purposes than either the 10 knots used by the EPA and
the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) or the 5 knots
proposed by the Coast Guard. Both EPA and RSPA have reevaluated their
regulations and have found 5 knots to be more appropriate. Their
respective rules have been changed accordingly. If a vessel owner or
operator can show that his or her equipment is capable of arriving on-
scene faster, the response plan could reflect this capability. The
other comment stated that the owners or operators should be responsible
for ensuring compatible connectors only for booms of the same basic
type or function. This statement in the regulations is only there to
remind vessel owners and operators to ensure that the equipment on
which they are going to rely in the event of an oil spill will be
capable of carrying out the function for which it is intended. If the
boom of varying types will never be used together, the need for
compatible connectors is moot.
Section 3. Based on numerous comments fielded, the Coast Guard
modified Sec. 155.1050(d)(1) to allow travel time at a speed of 5 knots
for equipment responding to an average most probable discharge 12 or
more miles from the shoreline. Two additional comments were received on
this section. Both comments recommended that paragraph 3.1 should
include the exemption in Sec. 155.1050(d)(3) of this part. This
exemption concerns average most probable discharge planning criteria
for vessels conducting transfer operations at a facility that is
required to submit a response plan. The Coast Guard disagrees. The
exemption is provided for in Sec. 155.1050(d)(3). The only reason
someone would be referring to this part of the regulations is if he or
she were required to ascertain their planning requirements.
One of the comments also recommended that the Coast Guard should
use the effective daily recovery rate for oil recovery devices--which
is defined by the formula in paragraph 6.2.1--in paragraph 3.1.2 and
throughout Appendix B. The Coast Guard agrees. The regulatory text has
been revised by changing the phrase ``effective recovery rate'' to
``effective daily recovery rate.''
Section 5. One comment was received on this section. The comment
stated that the Coast Guard should specify the amount of boom required
for a worst case discharge and also argued that, in general, the
requirements in this section are too vague for the Coast Guard to use
while objectively evaluating response plans. The Coast Guard disagrees.
The quantity of boom that is required for oil containment and
collection is not explicitly stated, and is left to the owner or
operator to determine based on the specific recovery equipment
strategies that will be employed.
The same comment also recommended that only vessels which draw a
maximum of 6 feet of water when fully loaded should be credited with
having shallow water response capabilities. The Coast Guard concludes
that the response plan must demonstrate that sufficient resources are
available to operate in shallow water. It may be necessary to operate
vessels at less than their fully loaded draft. In that event, it may be
necessary for the response plan to identify additional resources due to
vessels not being able to operate at their fully loaded draft. However,
ideally only those vessels which can be utilized in a full range of
loading conditions in waters of 6 feet or less depth should be listed
for use in close-to-shore response activities (10% of those to be used
in the offshore areas and 20% of those to be used in the nearshore,
inland, Great Lakes, and rivers and canals).
Section 8. Two comments were received on this section. One comment
recommended that the Coast Guard provide an example of dispersant
resources needed so that vessels could receive credit for 25% of their
Tier 2 and 3 on-water recovery capability. The other comment supported
credit for in-situ burning and recommended that the Coast Guard develop
criteria for using in-situ burning as a high-rate response method. The
Coast Guard disagrees. Mechanical recovery is the preferred method as
it provides for the removal of the oil from the environment. The amount
of dispersant needed will vary depending on area of operation, type of
oil carried, and type of dispersant. Because of these varying factors,
the use of dispersants and the amount needed to receive credit will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In addition, identification of
dispersant capability in a response plan provides no assurance that the
dispersant's use will be authorized during a spill response.
Section 9. Several comments were received on this section. One
comment opposed requiring additional response equipment on the vessel,
arguing that crewmen would be too busy during an accident to perform
oil removal operations. It may not be appropriate for the crew to be
involved with the specific cleanup of a spill; however, as stated in
section 9, the owner or operator of a vessel is responsible for
ensuring that sufficient numbers of trained personnel are available to
sustain response operations to completion.
One comment recommended that vessel response plans require a
minimum amount of sorbent material which could be applied against the
20% equipment requirement for shallow water areas. The Coast Guard
disagrees with this comment. Table 1 specifically addresses response
equipment, not consumables such as sorbent material. The Coast Guard
does not dispute the value of sorbent material. The availability of
this material and the ease of getting it to the shallow water areas
make it unnecessary for the Coast Guard to include it in the regulated
planning requirements. A well-developed response plan will recognize
the potential benefits of this material and provide for its procurement
and use.
Five comments were received regarding temporary storage for
recovered oil. One comment stated that the Coast Guard should keep a
list of storage facilities of certain sizes and prearrange for their
use in emergencies because foreign operators were unfamiliar with local
storage availability. Formulating such a list would be outside the
scope of this rulemaking, and it is the vessel owner's or operator's
responsibility to arrange for the use of these facilities. However,
specific response resources are identified in the Area Contingency
Plan.
Two comments supported the reduction in temporary storage capacity
when justified by an analysis of the waste stream or the availability
of alternative storage areas. One of these comments stated that this
incentive could lead to improved technologies. One comment stated that
the requirement for temporary storage, equivalent to twice the
effective daily recovery capacity required on-scene, may be too low
given the 20% downgrading factor for skimming device efficiencies. This
comment noted that the State of Washington requires a storage volume of
up to five times the daily recovery capacity and recommended further
study or raising the amount of storage until such time as skimming
efficiencies improve. One comment stated that the owner or
[[Page 1078]]
operator should be able to demonstrate the capability to transfer oil
to a storage area at a rate which sustains the recovery capacities of
equipment identified in the plan. The comment recommended considering
factors such as pumping capacity and number of discharge stations in
making this determination.
The Coast Guard provided, in the IFR, for vessel owners or
operators to identify storage capacity for less than the volume
addressed in section 9.2 of this appendix if the owner or operator
provides a waste stream analysis to show the efficiencies of its
identified recovery devices. The ability to decant water from the
storage devices, the availability of alternative storage, or disposal
locations in the area where the vessel operates results in reducing the
volume of material requiring temporary storage.
Two comments stated that the general requirements in paragraph 9.1
were too vague to allow vessel owners or operators to adequately ensure
that sufficient additional equipment was available to sustain response
operations to completion. One of these comments recommended that the
Coast Guard include specific standards to determine what additional
resources are needed. The Coast Guard disagrees. The owner or operator
of a vessel should be sufficiently prepared to provide the response
resources necessary to complete the cleanup for their particular
vessel.
One comment stated that the Coast Guard needs to establish methods
for evaluating the adequacy of temporary storage and should assume
recovery operations that continue for 10 hours per day. The Coast Guard
disagrees. The storage capacity should be based on the types and
quantities of oil recovery devices identified in the plan.
One comment suggested a separate section to address disposal
requirements, which should identify long and short term disposal sites
and include provisions for handling wildlife. These additional
requirements would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Table 1. Two comments were received on this table. One comment
stated that the Coast Guard should apply rivers and canals criteria to
the St. Lawrence, Detroit, St. Clair and St. Mary river areas of the
Great Lakes because 4-foot seas do not occur on these rivers. Another
comment stated that recovery equipment on the Great Lakes should not be
required to operate in 4-foot waves in shallow water areas because
recovery equipment cannot operate in shallow water under these
conditions.
The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. Table 1 is based on
information for equipment selection in the 1991 World Catalog of Oil
Spill Response Products (Schulze, Robert, ed., 1991). The American
Society of Testing and Material (ASTM) used this resource as the
starting point for its oil recovery equipment standard. The Great Lakes
criteria are derived from conditions unique to that area. The equipment
operating and design criteria are consistent with specifications noted
in the World Catalog for oil recovery operations in areas such as the
Great Lakes. As discussed previously, Table 1 has been modified to
clarify that equipment designed to operate in shallow water does not
necessarily have to be able to operate in the significant wave height
planning criteria.
Table 2. Two comments were received on this table. One comment
stated that national planning standards are paramount to local
standards and that this issue should be addressed in the final rule and
in paragraph 2.m of the Commandant's Notice 16471. The other comment
stated the boom requirements for vessels should also apply to marine
transportation-related facilities because spills from both may involve
shoreline protection of a similar magnitude.
The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. The national
planning standards are not necessarily paramount to local standards.
The response plans should be consistent with the national response
requirements as well as the local requirements. With regard to boom
requirements for marine transportation-related facilities, because
vessels operate in a variety of environments including offshore, the
equipment necessary to provide shoreline protection as identified in
Table 2 of Appendix B is appropriate for vessels but would not
necessarily be appropriate for facilities.
Table 3. All seven comments on this table argued that the
percentages and wide variances in the additive values in the table have
no technical basis and that the percentages for a specific geographic
area should not total more than 100%. The values in Table 3 were drawn
from deliberations among the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. They are
based on the general behavior of oil that has been observed during
actual discharges. The variances in values reflect the amount of oil
most likely to be available for recovery.
As noted in the preamble to the NPRM, in the inland, nearshore, and
offshore portions of the table, the percentages do not add up to 100%.
This reflects an adjustment in the on-water percentage to increase the
quantity of resources that are planned for mobilization in the first 3
days of the response. Because the oil may rapidly impact the shoreline
in these areas, quick mobilization is essential. In addition, the
volume of oil that must be recovered may increase due to the effects of
emulsification. The intended purpose of having the percentages exceed
100% was to increase the quantity of on-water resources that are
planned for mobilization in the first 3 days of the response.
One of the comments stated that the criteria in the table is
inconsistent with the approach proposed by ITOPF and that to which was
agreed by the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; however, another comment
stated that these values were drawn from Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee deliberations. The Coast Guard has made every effort to
ensure that the findings of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee are
reflected in these regulations.
Table 4. The Coast Guard received seven comments on the
emulsification factors listed in this table. One comment recommended
that the owners or operators should have the same option of
demonstrating that a lower factor is appropriate as is now afforded for
testing recovery devices for 10-hour periods. Because emulsification
factors vary considerably within an oil group and are dependent on
temperature, weather conditions, and many other factors, it is
inappropriate to consider them on a case-by-case basis. The proposed
Table 4 values were derived from ITOPF data and reflected the maximum
amount of emulsification that could occur over a prolonged period of
time in environmental conditions that favored the emulsification
process.
Six comments argued that emulsification is already taken into
consideration through the 20% rating factor applied to oil recovery
devices in section 6 of Appendix B. The Coast Guard disagrees. The
emulsification factors listed in Table 4 are to account for
emulsification that occurs to the oil prior to the oil being
encountered by the skimming equipment. The 20% rating factor includes,
among other things, consideration of the efficiency of the actual
skimming device to remove oily material from water. The two issues are
unrelated.
One of these comments suggested that the factors were too high
because evaporation, distance from shore, and future improvements in
recovery rates were not considered in establishing such factors. As
discussed in the IFR, the Coast Guard recognizes that emulsification
depends on a variety of factors. The proposed Table 4 values
[[Page 1079]]
were derived from ITOPF data and reflected the maximum amount of
emulsification that could occur over a prolonged period of time in
environmental conditions that favored the emulsification process. There
was no other method suggested to account for the variables.
Table 6. The Coast Guard received three comments on response
capability caps in this table. One comment stated that the scientific
data is insufficient to support the caps listed. This comment suggested
that further review by the Coast Guard would provide more realistic
values for caps. One comment objected to the proposed 25% increase in
caps in 1998 and welcomed further Coast Guard review of this issue.
However, another comment stated that both the 1993 and 1998 caps were
too low and recommended that they be doubled.
The caps, as required at this time, are based on the equipment
available in the different geographic areas. The proposed increases for
1998 will be reviewed prior to that date and, if revisions are
proposed, will be subject to public comment. The Coast Guard is
interested in information which concerns possible justifications for
proposed increases or which provides substantial documentation to
invalidate the increases approximately 2 years prior to the effective
date.
Appendix C to Part 155--Training Elements for Oil Spill Response Plans
This appendix was added to the final rule to provide guidance to
owners and operators of vessels in the development of the training
portions of their response plans. These guidelines were developed in
the same manner as the PREP rulemaking project which is addressed in
the discussion in this section of the preamble of the revisions to
Sec. 155.1060.
Assessment
This final rule is a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under that order. It requires an assessment
of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
is significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). A final
Assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The Assessment
is summarized as follows.
1. General costs. This rulemaking will cost the oil transportation
industry and the general public more than $100 million annually. It has
generated substantial public interest and controversy. These
regulations will also impact cleanup contractors, oil spill
cooperatives, and other not-for-profit cleanup organizations.
The final rule contains requirements for vessel response plans, as
well as additional requirements for certain vessels operating in Prince
William Sound, Alaska. The impact of these requirements has been
analyzed separately and was discussed in the IFR.
In the IFR, the Coast Guard solicited public comment on the draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for vessel response plans and the
draft Regulatory Evaluation (RE) for Prince William Sound. A summary of
the public comments received appears later in this discussion. The
draft RIA and RE have been reviewed based on changes made to the IFR.
The effects of these changes on costs were insignificant and did not
require alteration of either the RIA or RE.
The final RIA and final RE are available in the docket for
inspection or copying, as indicated under ADDRESSES. They have also
been placed in a separate docket (CGD 91-047) established to facilitate
review of the programmatic RIA for titles IV and V of OPA 90.
2. Vessel response plan costs and benefits. In the aggregate, the
requirement for vessel response plans will result in substantial costs
to the industries affected. The present value of the cost of this
regulation for the period 1992 through 2015 is estimated at $2.8
billion. The benefit analysis indicates that the rulemaking will
prevent 220,000 discounted barrels of oil from entering the water. The
resulting cost per benefit ratio is $12,513 per barrel, net present
value.
3. Additional response plan requirements for certain vessels
operating in Prince William Sound, Alaska: PWS costs and benefits. Over
the 10-year period of 1993 to 2002, the present value of costs for
compliance for TAPS vessels will be $164 million. The present value of
quantified benefits for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP) traffic was
estimated in total barrels of oil recovered.
For the TAP traffic, quantified benefits from the regulations
expressed in present value are estimated at 42,000 barrels of oil
recovered over the 10-year study period. This regulation is, therefore,
expected to cost $3,899 per discounted barrel of oil recovered, net
present value.
There are additional benefits which are not quantifiable.
Effectiveness of response operations is enhanced both by the training
of citizens and hatchery employees so they may assist in nearshore and
onshore operations, and by prepositioning containment and cleanup
equipment near where it would be utilized. Also, area drills are
expected to improve the proficiency of operations.
4. Public comments on the draft vessel response plan RIA and Prince
William Sound RE. Two comments suggested that submitting a letter
noting changes in lieu of revising the vessel response plan would
reduce the information collection burden when chartering barges. In
chartering situations, response plans do not need to be reapproved if
the barge owner originally obtained approval for the response plan. If
the barge operator changes, only a change to the approved response plan
need be submitted, not an entire resubmittal of the response plan.
However, if the previous barge operator obtained the approval for the
response plan, then it will be necessary to submit a new response plan
for approval.
Seven comments expressed the view that placing responsibility for
response equipment maintenance, inspection, and training records
requirements on oil spill response resource providers would reduce
administrative burdens. Vessel owners and operators are not required to
keep such records; however, they need to verify that oil spill response
resource providers are keeping such records. However, owners and
operators must be able to make records available to the Coast Guard
upon request. This requirement may be treated in a contract between the
owner or operator and the provider.
Four comments expressed the view that the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) understated the costs of the rulemaking or otherwise
challenged the RIA's efficacy with respect to cost. One of these
comments questioned how overall costs could shift from $1.3 billion as
reported in the preliminary RIA to $2.8 billion in the most recent
version. The difference in total cost is due to three key factors. The
first factor is the reduction of the discount rate from 10 percent to 7
percent, reflecting a change in OMB guidance between publication of the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and publication of the interim
final rule (IFR). This change escalates the estimated cost of the
rulemaking by nearly $540 million, 24 percent of the present value of
the rulemaking's cost.
The second key factor consists of changes in estimated costs,
particularly with respect to spill response capability and the
qualified individual. The RIA for the IFR reflected substantial further
development in spill response capability analysis, such as the
emergence of the National Response Center (NRC), clarification of
Marine
[[Page 1080]]
Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) costs with proper allocation of costs
between vessels and facilities, and the addition of Great Lakes
capability. Further development and analysis of these areas revealed
cost estimates that together totaled 2.1 billion, an increase of about
$970 million compared with estimates contained in the preliminary RIA.
The cost element for the qualified individual was virtually unknown at
the time of the preliminary RIA's publication. By the time of the
Interim RIA's publication, costs for qualified individuals were firmly
established and could be estimated with reasonable certainty. Addition
of qualified individual cost estimates raised the estimated cost of the
rulemaking by an additional $133 million.
The third key factor consists of changes in incremental
percentages, the proportion of expenditures directly attributable to
this rulemaking. These changes were made in response to comments
concerning the preliminary RIA. One-third of cooperative expenditures
are apportioned to the rulemaking and nearly all plan development costs
are apportioned to the ruleamking, compared with about half in the
preliminary RIA. Plan development and maintenance costs, drills and
exercises, and Coast Guard costs were very little changed between the
two report versions, other than the elevating effect of a reduced
discount rate. Changes that were made reflect the development of such
more accurate information in these areas during the intervening months
between preliminary RIA and the version accompany the IFR.
One comment expressed concerns about impact analysis with respect
to the Great Lakes. The comment contended that the RIA did not consider
meaningful input from Great Lakes operators and further contends that,
as a result of this assertion, the RIA is of questionable value. Great
Lakes response requirements were not considered in the preliminary RIA.
In response to comments received on the preliminary RIA and
subsequently to guidance issued in NVIC 8-92, Great Lakes response
capability requirements and costs were analyzed and included. Given the
difficulty of knowing exactly how many resources will be required to
meet the relaxed caps for the Great Lakes, the cost estimates were
conservatively developed and totaled at $54 million for the 23-year
period of the cost analysis.
The comment also expressed concern that there were insufficient
petroleum transport businesses on the Great Lakes to spread costs and
survive. The cost of preparing a vessel response plan is not
significantly affected by the number of businesses requiring a plan in
a particular geographic region. A comprehensive RIA for the Great Lakes
was suggested; however, the Coast Guard does not consider a separate
RIA to be necessary.
Comments from two sources suggested exemption of lightering
operations from coverage under vessel response plans. Costs were cited,
and one comment expressed the view that no environmental benefits
offset the costs. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The risk
of spills during transfer operations is considered sufficient to
warrant vessel response plans. For further discussion regarding
lightering operations, see the reference to Sec. 155.1050 in the
``Discussion of Comments and Changes'' section of this final rule.
Small Entities
Several comments were received addressing this regulation's impact
upon small fishing vessels. However, subsequent legislation has
essentially exempted vessels under 750 gross tons from vessel response
plan requirements under this final rule. This regulation might still
have a significant impact upon small operators of inland barges. The
Coast Guard has examined the impact of this rule on small entities. Its
analysis indicates that the majority of small businesses subject to
this regulation should be able to absorb the estimated compliance costs
without experiencing significant adverse economic effects. The Coast
Guard certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1990 that this
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Copies of the final Regulatory Impact Analysis are
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
Collection of Information
This rule contains collection of information requirements. The
Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB has approved them. The
Coast Guard is currently requesting a revision of a currently approved
collection, OMB control number 2115-0595. For subpart D, the section
numbers are Secs. 155.1025, 155.1035, 155.1045, 155.1055, 155.1060,
155.1065, and 155.1070, and the corresponding OMB approval number is
OMB Control Number 2115-0595. For subpart E, the section numbers are
Secs. 155.1125 and 155.1130, and the corresponding OMB approval number
is OMB Control Number 2115-0594. Subpart F and subpart G refer to
subpart D as it pertains to collection-of-information requirements.
Accordingly, additional OMB approval is not needed.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this final rule according to the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (October 26,
1987), and has determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Executive Order 12612 and the FWPCA emphasize the Presidential and
Congressional intent to preserve State authority to address matters of
pollution prevention and response. Executive Order 12612 directs a
Federal Executive branch agency (which includes the Coast Guard) to
encourage States to develop their own policies to achieve program
objectives. Consequently, a Federalism Assessment would be necessary
only if the vessel response plan rules unduly impinged on a State's
authority to establish its own regulatory structure, or imposed undue
costs on a State.
The FWPCA provides convincing evidence of Congress' intent that,
within 3 miles of shore, the protection of the marine environment
should be a collaborative Federal and State effort. Chevron v.
Governor, State of Alaska, 726 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,
471 U.S. 1140 (1985). For example, section 402 of the FWPCA (33 U.S.C.
1342) establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
a regulatory program for regulating the discharge of pollutants into
U.S. navigable waters. Minimum Federal standards apply to the discharge
of certain pollutants, but the States have authority to establish and
administer their own permit systems and to set standards stricter than
the Federal ones (33 U.S.C. 1342(b) and 1370). Further, in the
Declaration of Goals and Policy contained in section 101 of the FWPCA
(33 U.S.C. 1251), Congress states that it is the policy of the Congress
to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and
rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution of land
and water resources.
United States courts have long recognized the rights of States to
make both U.S.-flag and foreign-flag vessels conform to ``reasonable,
nondiscriminatory conservation and environmental protection measures *
* * imposed by a State.'' Ray v. Atlantic Richfield, 435 U.S. 151, 164
(1973). Also, section 311(o)(3) of the FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321(o)(3))
contains express nonpreemption language.
[[Page 1081]]
Therefore, a State standard setting more stringent planning
requirements for tank vessel owners and operators in the regulating
State's waters is encouraged under the FWPCA and is valid as long as
the State requirement does not preclude compliance with the Federal
requirements. Similarly, if a State chose to establish performance
requirements for response to an oil spill, the Federal vessel response
plan rules would not preclude that option. The Federal vessel response
plan rules preempt State rules only to the extent that State rules may
make it impossible to comply with Federal requirements. Florida Lime
and Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963).
Environment
The Coast Guard prepared a preliminary Environmental Assessment
(EA) for requirements under 311(j) of the FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)),
and a separate one for Prince William Sound requirements under 5005 of
OPA 90. These documents were prepared in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B implementing the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Prince William Sound EA was revised entirely when section 352
of the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, in effect, made
section 5005 of OPA 90 inapplicable to non-TAPS-trade vessels. The
original language of section 5005 created special response plan
provisions applicable to all tank vessels operating in Prince William
Sound, including non-TAPS vessels. The EA prepared for section 311(j)
requirements was amended when section 5209(b) of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-587, Title V, 106 Stat. 5039,
5068) declared offshore supply vessels and certain fishing vessels not
to be ``tank vessels'' for purposes of implementing the vessel response
plan rule. We received no comments on the EAs.
The Coast Guard has identified and studied the relevant
environmental issues and alternatives, and based on its assessment,
does not expect this final rule to result in a significant impact on
the quality of the human environment. Therefore, Findings of No
Significant Impact (FONSIs) have been prepared. The revised and amended
EAs and the FONSIs are available in the public docket.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155
Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the interim rule amending
33 CFR part 155, which was published at 58 FR 7424 on February 5, 1993,
is adopted as final with the following changes:
PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
1. The authority citation for part 155 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3715; sec. 2, E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46.
Secs. 155.100-155.130, 155.350-155.400, 155.430, 155.440,
155.470, 155.1030 (j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) also issued under 33
U.S.C. 1903(b); and Secs. 155.1110-155.1150 also issued under 33
U.S.C. 2735.
2. Subpart D, consisting of Secs. 155.1010 through 155.1070, is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart D--Response Plans
Sec.
155.1010 Purpose.
155.1015 Applicability.
155.1020 Definitions.
155.1025 Operating restrictions and interim operating
authorization.
155.1026 Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual.
155.1030 General response plan requirements.
155.1035 Response plan requirements for manned vessels carrying oil
as a primary cargo.
155.1040 Response plan requirements for unmanned tank barges
carrying oil as a primary cargo.
155.1045 Response plan requirements for vessels carrying oil as a
secondary cargo.
155.1050 Response plan development and evaluation criteria for
vessels carrying groups I through IV petroleum oil as a primary
cargo.
155.1052 Response plan development and evaluation criteria for
vessels carrying group V petroleum oil as a primary cargo.
155.1055 Training.
155.1060 Exercises.
155.1062 Inspection and maintenance of response resources.
155.1065 Procedures for plan submission, approval, requests for
acceptance of alternative planning criteria, and appeal.
155.1070 Procedures for plan review, revision, amendment, and
appeal.
Subpart D--Response Plans
Sec. 155.1010 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to establish requirements for oil
spill response plans for certain vessels. The planning criteria in this
subpart are intended for use in response plan development and the
identification of resources necessary to respond to the oil spill
scenarios prescribed during the planning process. The development of a
response plan prepares the vessel owner or operator and the vessel's
crew to respond to an oil spill. The specific criteria for response
resources and their arrival times are not performance standards. They
are planning criteria based on a set of assumptions that may not exist
during an actual oil spill incident.
Sec. 155.1015 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this
subpart applies to each vessel that is constructed or adapted to carry,
or that carries, oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue, and that--
(1) Is a vessel of the United States;
(2) Operates on the navigable waters of the United States; or
(3) Transfers oil in a port or place subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States.
(b) This subpart also applies to vessels which engage in oil
lightering operations in the marine environment beyond the baseline
from which the territorial sea is measured, when the cargo lightered is
destined for a port or place subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.
(c) This subpart does not apply to the following types of vessels:
(1) Public vessels and vessels deemed public vessels under 14
U.S.C. 827.
(2) Vessels that, although constructed or adapted to carry oil in
bulk as cargo or cargo residue, are not storing or carrying oil in bulk
as cargo or cargo residue.
(3) Dedicated response vessels when conducting response operations.
(4) Vessels of opportunity when conducting response operations in a
response area.
(5) Offshore supply vessels as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101.
(6) Fishing or fishing tender vessels as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101
of not more than 750 gross tons when engaged only in the fishing
industry.
(7) Foreign flag vessels engaged in innocent passage.
(d) Vessels covered by this subpart that are not operating within
the navigable waters or the exclusive economic zone of the United
States must meet all requirements of this subpart except for--
(1) Identifying and ensuring, through contract or other approved
means, the availability of response resources including the shore-based
spill management team;
(2) Providing the geographic-specific appendices required in
Sec. 155.1035, 155.1040, or 155.1045, as appropriate; and
(3) Identifying and designating a qualified individual and
alternate
[[Page 1082]]
qualified individual required in Sec. 155.1026.
Sec. 155.1020 Definitions.
Except as otherwise defined in this section, the definitions in
Sec. 155.110 apply to this subpart and subparts F and G of this part.
For the purposes of this subpart only, the term:
Adverse weather means the weather conditions that will be
considered when identifying response systems and equipment in a
response plan for the applicable operating environment. Factors to
consider include, but are not limited to, significant wave height, ice,
temperature, weather-related visibility, and currents within the
Captain of the Port (COTP) zone in which the systems or equipment are
intended to function.
Animal fat means a non-petroleum oil, fat, or grease derived from
animals and not specifically identified elsewhere in this part.
Average most probable discharge means a discharge of the lesser of
50 barrels of oil or 1 percent of the cargo from the vessel during
cargo oil transfer operations to or from the vessel.
Bulk means any volume of oil carried in an integral tank of the
vessel and oil transferred to or from a marine portable tank or
independent tank while on board a vessel.
Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone means a zone specified in 33 CFR
part 3 and, for coastal ports, the seaward extension of that zone to
the outer boundary of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Cargo means oil that is transported to and off-loaded at a
destination by a vessel. It does not include--
(1) Oil carried in integral tanks, marine portable tanks, or
independent tanks for use by machinery, helicopters, and boats carried
aboard the vessel, or for use by helicopters that are directly
supporting the vessel's primary operations; or
(2) Oil transferred from a towing vessel to a vessel in its tow to
operate installed machinery other than the propulsion plant.
Contract or other approved means includes--
(1) A written contractual agreement between a vessel owner or
operator and an oil spill removal organization. The agreement must
identify and ensure the availability of specified personnel and
equipment required under this subpart within stipulated response times
in the specified geographic areas;
(2) Certification by the vessel owner or operator that specified
personnel and equipment required under this subpart are owned,
operated, or under the direct control of the vessel owner or operator,
and are available within stipulated response times in the specified
geographic areas;
(3) Active membership in a local or regional oil spill removal
organization that has identified specified personnel and equipment
required under this subpart that are available to respond to a
discharge within stipulated response times in the specified geographic
areas;
(4) A document which--
(i) Identifies the personnel, equipment, and services capable of
being provided by the oil spill removal organization within stipulated
response times in the specified geographic areas;
(ii) Sets out the parties' acknowledgment that the oil spill
removal organization intends to commit the resources in the event of a
response;
(iii) Permits the Coast Guard to verify the availability of the
identified response resources through tests, inspections, and
exercises; and
(iv) Is referenced in the response plan; or
(5) With the written consent of the oil spill removal organization,
the identification of an oil spill removal organization with specified
equipment and personnel which are available within stipulated response
times in the specified geographic areas. This paragraph is an other
approved means for only--
(i) A vessel carrying oil as secondary cargo to meet the
requirements under Sec. 155.1045(i)(3);
(ii) A barge operating on rivers and canals to meet the
requirements for lightering capability under Secs. 155.1050(l),
155.1052(g), 155.1230(g), and 155.2230(g);
(iii) A vessel to meet the salvage and firefighting requirements in
Secs. 155.1050(k), 155.1052(f), 155.1230(f), and 155.2230(f); and
(iv) A vessel to meet the resource requirements in
Sec. 155.1052(c), 155.1230(c), and 155.2230(c).
Dedicated response vessel means a vessel of which the service is
limited exclusively to oil and hazardous substance spill response-
related activities, including spill recovery and transport, tanker
escorting, deployment of spill response equipment, supplies, and
personnel, and spill response-related training, testing, exercises, and
research.
Exclusive economic zone means the zone contiguous to the
territorial sea of United States extending to a distance up to 200
nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured.
Great Lakes means Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and
Ontario, their connecting and tributary waters, the Saint Lawrence
River as far as Saint Regis, and adjacent port areas.
Higher volume port area means the following areas, including any
water area within 50 nautical miles seaward of the entrance(s) to the
specified port:
(1) Boston, MA.
(2) New York, NY.
(3) Delaware Bay and River to Philadelphia, PA.
(4) St. Croix, VI.
(5) Pascagoula, MS.
(6) Mississippi River from Southwest Pass, LA to Baton Rouge, LA.
Note: Vessels destined for, departing from, or offloading at the
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port are not considered to be operating in this
higher volume port area.
(7) Lake Charles, LA.
(8) Sabine-Neches River, TX.
(9) Galveston Bay and Houston Ship Channel, TX.
(10) Corpus Christi, TX.
(11) Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, CA.
(12) San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, and Suisun
Bay to Antioch, CA.
(13) Strait of Juan De Fuca at Port Angeles, WA to and including
Puget Sound, WA.
(14) Prince William Sound, AK.
Inland area means the area shoreward of the boundary lines defined
in 46 CFR part 7, except that in the Gulf of Mexico, it means the area
shoreward of the lines of demarcation (COLREG lines) as defined in
Secs. 80.740 through 80.850 of this chapter. The inland area does not
include the Great Lakes.
Maximum extent practicable means the planned capability to respond
to a worst case discharge in adverse weather, as contained in a
response plan that meets the criteria in this subpart or in a specific
plan approved by the Coast Guard.
Maximum most probable discharge means a discharge of--
(1) 2,500 barrels of oil for vessels with an oil cargo capacity
equal to or greater than 25,000 barrels; or
(2) 10% of the vessel's oil cargo capacity for vessels with a
capacity of less than 25,000 barrels.
Nearshore area means the area extending seaward 12 miles from the
boundary lines defined in 46 CFR part 7, except in the Gulf of Mexico.
In the Gulf of Mexico, a nearshore area is one extending seaward 12
miles from the line of demarcation (COLREG lines) as defined in
Secs. 80.740 through 80.850 of this chapter.
Non-persistent or Group I oil means a petroleum-based oil that, at
the time of shipment, consists of hydrocarbon fractions--
(1) At least 50% of which by volume, distill at a temperature of
340 degrees C (645 degrees F); and
[[Page 1083]]
(2) At least 95% of which by volume, distill at a temperature of
370 degrees C (700 degrees F).
Non-petroleum oil means oil of any kind that is not petroleum-
based. It includes, but is not limited to, animal fats and vegetable
oils.
Ocean means the open ocean, offshore area, and nearshore area as
defined in this subpart.
Offshore area means the area up to 38 nautical miles seaward of the
outer boundary of the nearshore area.
Oil field waste means non-pumpable drilling fluids with possible
trace amounts of metal and oil.
Oil spill removal organization means an entity that provides
response resources.
On-scene coordinator or OSC means the Federal official
predesignated by the Coast Guard or Environmental Protection Agency to
coordinate and direct Federal removal efforts at the scene of an oil or
hazardous substance discharge as prescribed in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency
Plan) as published in 40 CFR part 300.
Open ocean means the area from 38 nautical miles seaward of the
outer boundary of the nearshore area, to the seaward boundary of the
exclusive economic zone.
Operating in compliance with the plan means operating in compliance
with the provisions of this subpart, including ensuring the
availability of the response resources by contract or other approved
means and conducting the necessary training and exercises.
Operator means person who is an owner, a demise charterer, or other
contractor, who conducts the operation of, or who is responsible for
the operation of a vessel. For the purposes of this subpart only, the
operator of a towing vessel is not, per se, considered the operator of
a vessel being towed.
Other non-petroleum oil means an oil of any kind that is not a
petroleum oil, an animal fat, or a vegetable oil.
Owner or vessel owner means any person holding legal or equitable
title to a vessel; provided, however, that a person holding legal or
equitable title to a vessel solely as security is not the owner. In a
case where a Certificate of Documentation has been issued, the owner is
the person or persons whose name or names appear on the vessel's
Certificate of Documentation provided, however, that where a
Certificate of Documentation has been issued in the name of a president
or secretary of an incorporated company, such incorporated company is
the owner.
Persistent oil means a petroleum-based oil that does not meet the
distillation criteria for a non-persistent oil. For the purposes of
this subpart, persistent oils are further classified based on specific
gravity as follows:
(1) Group II--specific gravity of less than .85.
(2) Group III--specific gravity equal to or greater than .85 and
less than .95.
(3) Group IV--specific gravity equal to or greater than .95 and
less than or equal to 1.0.
(4) Group V--specific gravity greater than 1.0.
Petroleum oil means petroleum in any form including crude oil, fuel
oil, mineral oil, sludge, oil refuse, and refined products.
Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual means a
shore-based representative of a vessel owner or operator who meets the
requirements of 33 CFR 155.1026.
Response activity means the containment and removal of oil from the
water and shorelines, the temporary storage and disposal of recovered
oil, or the taking of other actions as necessary to minimize or
mitigate damage to public health or welfare or the environment.
Response resources means the personnel, equipment, supplies, and
other capability necessary to perform the response activities
identified in a response plan.
Rivers and canals mean bodies of water confined within the inland
area, including the Intracoastal Waterways and other waterways
artificially created for navigation, that have a project depth of 12
feet or less.
Secondary Cargo (see Vessels Carrying Oil as a Secondary Cargo)
Specific gravity means the ratio of the mass of a given volume of
liquid at 15 degrees C (60 degrees F) to the mass of an equal volume of
pure water at the same temperature.
Spill management team means the personnel identified to staff the
organizational structure identified in a response plan to manage
response plan implementation.
Substantial threat of such a discharge means any incident involving
a vessel that may create a significant risk of discharge of cargo oil.
Such incidents include, but are not limited to, groundings, strandings,
collisions, hull damage, fire, explosion, loss of propulsion, flooding,
on-deck spills, or other similar occurrences.
Tanker means a self-propelled tank vessel constructed or adapted
primarily to carry oil or hazardous material in bulk in the cargo
spaces.
Tier means the combination of required response resources and the
times within which the resources must arrive on scene. Appendix B of
this part, especially Tables 5 and 6, provide specific guidance on
calculating the response resources required by each tier. Sections
155.1050(g), 155.1135, 155.1230(d), and 155.2230(d) set forth the
required times within which the response resources must arrive on
scene. Tiers are applied in three categories:
(1) Higher volume port areas;
(2) The Great Lakes; and
(3) All other operating environments, including rivers and canals,
inland, nearshore, and offshore areas.
Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat not specifically
identified elsewhere in this part that is derived from plant seeds,
nuts, kernels or fruits.
Vessel of opportunity means a vessel engaged in spill response
activities that is normally and substantially involved in activities
other than spill response and not a vessel carrying oil as a primary
cargo.
Vessels carrying oil as a primary cargo means all vessels except
dedicated response vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo or cargo
residue that have a Certificate of Inspection issued under 46 CFR
Chapter I, subchapter D.
Vessels carrying oil as a secondary cargo means vessels, other than
vessels carrying oil as a primary cargo, carrying oil in bulk as cargo
or cargo residue pursuant to a permit issued under 46 CFR 30.01-5,
70.05-30, or 90.05-35, an International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP)
or Noxious Liquid Substance (NLS) certificate required by 33 CFR
Secs. 151.33 or 151.35; or any uninspected vessel that carries oil in
bulk as cargo or cargo residue.
Worst case discharge means a discharge in adverse weather
conditions of a vessel's entire oil cargo.
Sec. 155.1025 Operating restrictions and interim operating
authorization.
(a) Vessels subject to this subpart may not perform the following
functions, unless operating in compliance with a plan approved under
Sec. 155.1065:
(1) Handling, storing, or transporting oil on the navigable waters
of the United States; or
(2) Transferring oil in any other port or place subject to U.S.
jurisdiction.
(b) Vessels subject to this subpart may not transfer oil in a port
or place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, where the
oil to be transferred was received from another vessel subject to this
subpart during a lightering operation referred to in Sec. 155.1015(b),
unless both vessels engaged in the lightering operation were operating
at the time in compliance with a plan approved under Sec. 155.1065.
(c)(1) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
[[Page 1084]]
section, a vessel may continue to handle, store, transport, transfer,
or lighter oil for 2 years after the date of submission of a response
plan pending approval of that plan, if the vessel owner or operator has
received written authorization for continued operations from the Coast
Guard.
(2) To receive this authorization, the vessel owner or operator
must certify in writing to the Coast Guard that the owner or operator
has identified and ensured the availability of, through contract or
other approved means, the necessary private response resources to
respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge
or substantial threat of such a discharge from their vessel as
described in Secs. 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, or 155.2230, as
appropriate.
(d) With respect to paragraph (b) of this section, a vessel may not
continue to handle, store, transport, transfer, or lighter oil if--
(1) The Coast Guard determines that the response resources
identified in the vessel's certification statement do not meet the
requirements of this subpart;
(2) The contracts or agreements cited in the vessel's certification
statement are no longer valid;
(3) The vessel is not operating in compliance with the submitted
plan; or
(4) The period of this authorization expires.
(e) An owner or operator of a vessel may be authorized by the
applicable COTP to have that vessel make one voyage to transport or
handle oil in a geographic specific area not covered by the vessel's
response plan. All requirements of this subpart must be met for any
subsequent voyages to that geographic specific area. To be authorized,
the vessel owner or operator shall certify to the COTP in writing,
prior to the vessel's entry into the COTP zone, that--
(1) A response plan meeting the requirements of this subpart
(except for the applicable geographic specific appendix) or a shipboard
oil pollution emergency plan approved by the flag state that meets the
requirements of Regulation 26 of Annex I to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified
by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, as amended (MARPOL 73/78)
which is available from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161;
(2) The approved response plan or the required plan section(s) is
aboard the vessel;
(3) The vessel owner or operator has identified and informed the
vessel master and the COTP of the designated qualified individual prior
to the vessel's entry into the COTP zone; and
(4) The vessel owner or operator has identified and ensured the
availability of, through contract or other approved means, the private
response resources necessary to respond, to the maximum extent
practicable under the criteria in Secs. 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230,
or 155.2230, as appropriate, to a worst case discharge or substantial
threat of discharge from the vessel in the applicable COTP zone.
Sec. 155.1026 Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual.
(a) The response plan must identify a qualified individual and at
least one alternate who meet the requirements of this section. The
qualified individual or alternate qualified individual must be
available on a 24-hour basis.
(b) The qualified individual and alternate must--
(1) Speak fluent English;
(2) Except as set out in paragraph (c) of this section, be located
in the United States;
(3) Be familiar with the implementation of the vessel response
plan; and
(4) Be trained in the responsibilities of the qualified individual
under the response plan.
(c) For Canadian flag vessels while operating on the Great Lakes or
the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, WA, the qualified
individual may be located in Canada if he or she meets all other
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) The owner operator shall provide each qualified individual and
alternate qualified individual identified in the plan with a document
designating them as a qualified individual and specifying their full
authority to--
(1) Activate and engage in contracting with oil spill removal
organization(s) and other response related resources identified in the
plan;
(2) Act as a liaison with the predesignated Federal On-Scene
Coordinator (OCS); and
(3) Obligate funds required to carry out response activities.
(e) The owner or operator of a vessel may designate an organization
to fulfill the role of the qualified individual and alternate qualified
individual. The organization must then identify a qualified individual
and at least one alternate qualified individual who meet the
requirements of this section. The vessel owner or operator is required
to list in the response plan the organization, the person identified as
the qualified individual, and the person or persons identified as the
alternate qualified individual(s).
(f) The qualified individual is not responsible for--
(1) The adequacy of response plans prepared by the owner or
operator; or
(2) Contracting or obligating funds for response resources beyond
the full authority contained in their designation from the owner or
operator of the vessel.
(g) The liability of a qualified individual is considered to be in
accordance with the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(4).
Sec. 155.1030 General response plan requirements.
(a) The plan must cover all geographic areas of the United States
in which the vessel intends to handle, store, or transport oil,
including port areas and offshore transit areas.
(b) The plan must be written in English and, if applicable, in a
language that is understood by the crew members with responsibilities
under the plan.
(c) A vessel response plan must be divided into the following
sections:
(1) General information and introduction.
(2) Notification procedures.
(3) Shipboard spill mitigation procedures.
(4) Shore-based response activities.
(5) List of contacts.
(6) Training procedures.
(7) Exercise procedures.
(8) Plan review and update procedures.
(9) On board notification checklist and emergency procedures
(unmanned tank barges only).
(10) Geographic-specific appendix for each COTP zone in which the
vessel or vessels operate.
(11) An appendix for vessel-specific information for the vessel or
vessels covered by the plan.
(d) A vessel owner or operator with multiple vessels may submit one
plan for each class of vessel (i.e., manned vessels carrying oil as
primary cargo, unmanned vessels carrying oil as primary cargo, and
vessels carrying oil as secondary cargo) with a separate vessel-
specific appendix for each vessel covered by the plan and a separate
geographic-specific appendix for each COTP zone in which the vessel(s)
will operate.
(e) The required contents for each section of the plan are
contained in Secs. 155.1035, 155.1040, and 155.1045, as applicable to
the type or service of the vessel.
(f) The response plan for a barge carrying nonhazardous oil field
waste may follow the same format as that for a vessel carrying oil as a
secondary cargo under Sec. 155.1045 in lieu of the plan required under
Sec. 155.1035 or Sec. 155.1040.
[[Page 1085]]
(g) A response plan must be divided into the sections described in
paragraph (c) of this section unless the plan is supplemented with a
cross-reference table to identify the location of the information
required by this subpart.
(h) The information contained in a response plan must be consistent
with the--
(1) National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) (40 CFR part 300) and the Area Contingency Plan(s) (ACP) in
effect on the date 6 months prior to the submission date of the
response plan; or
(2) More recent NCP and ACP(s).
(i) Copies of the submitted and approved response plan must be
available as follows:
(1) The owner or operator of all vessels, except for unmanned tank
barges, shall ensure that one English language copy of the plan
sections listed in paragraph (c) (1), (2), (3), (5), (10) and (11) of
this section and the Coast Guard approval letter or notarized copy of
the approval letter are maintained aboard the vessel. If applicable,
additional copies of the required plan sections must be in the language
understood by crew members with responsibilities under the plan and
maintained aboard the vessel.
(2) The owner or operator of all unmanned tank barges shall ensure
that one English language copy of the plan section listed in paragraph
(c)(9) of this section and the Coast Guard approval letter or notarized
copy of the approval letter are maintained aboard the barge.
(3) The vessel owner or operator shall maintain a current copy of
the entire plan, and ensure that each person identified as a qualified
individual and alternate qualified individual in the plan has a current
copy of the entire plan.
(j) If an owner or operator of a United States flag vessel informs
the Coast Guard in writing at the time of the plan submission according
to the procedures of Sec. 155.1065, the owner or operator may address
the provisions of Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78 if the owner or
operator--
(1) Develops a vessel response plan under Sec. 155.1030 and
Secs. 155.1035, 155.1040, or 155.1045, as applicable;
(2) Expands the plan to cover discharges of all oils defined under
MARPOL, including fuel oil (bunker) carried on board. The owner or
operator is not required to include these additional oils in
calculating the planning volumes that are used to determine the
quantity of response resources that the owner or operator must ensure
through contract or other approved means;
(3) Provides the information on authorities or persons to be
contacted in the event of an oil pollution incident as required by
Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78. This information must include--
(i) An appendix containing coastal State contacts for those coastal
States the exclusive economic zone of which the vessel regularly
transits. The appendix should list those agencies or officials of
administrations responsible for receiving and processing pollution
incident reports; and
(ii) An appendix of port contacts for those ports at which the
vessel regularly calls; and
(4) Expands the plan to include the procedures and point of contact
on the ship for coordinating shipboard activities with national and
local authorities in combating an oil spill incident. The plan should
address the need to contact the coastal State to advise them of
action(s) being implemented and determine what authorization(s), if
any, are needed.
(5) Provides a cross reference section to identify the location of
the information required by Sec. 155.1030(j).
(k) A vessel carrying oil as a secondary cargo may comply with the
requirements of Sec. 155.1045 by having a response plan approved under
Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78 with the addition of the following--
(1) Identification of the qualified individual and alternate that
meets the requirements of Sec. 155.1026;
(2) A geographic specific appendix meeting the requirements of
Sec. 155.1045(i), including the identification of a contracted oil
spill removal organization;
(3) Identification of a spill management team;
(4) An appendix containing the training procedures required by
155.1045(f); and
(5) An appendix containing the exercise procedures required by
155.1045(g).
(l) For plans submitted prior to the effective date of this final
rule, the owner or operator of each vessel may elect to comply with any
or all of the provisions of this final rule by amending or revising the
appropriate section of the previously submitted plan.
Sec. 155.1035 Response plan requirements for manned vessels carrying
oil as a primary cargo.
(a) General information and introduction. This section of the
response plan must include--
(1) The vessel's name, country of registry, call sign, official
number, and International Maritime Organization (IMO) international
number (if applicable). If the plan covers multiple vessels, this
information must be provided for each vessel;
(2) The name, address, and procedures for contacting the vessel's
owner or operator on a 24-hour basis;
(3) A list of the COTP zones in which the vessel intends to handle,
store, or transport oil;
(4) A table of contents or index of sufficient detail to permit
personnel with responsibilities under the response plan to locate the
specific sections of the plan; and
(5) A record of change(s) page to record information on plan
reviews, updates or revisions.
(b) Notification procedures. This section of the response plan must
include the following notification information:
(1) A checklist with all notifications, including telephone or
other contact numbers, in order of priority to be made by shipboard or
shore-based personnel and the information required for those
notifications. Notifications must include those required by--
(i) MARPOL 73/78 and 33 CFR part 153; and
(ii) Any applicable State.
(2) Identification of the person(s) to be notified of a discharge
or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. If the notifications vary
due to vessel location, the persons to be notified also must be
identified in a geographic-specific appendix. This section must
separately identify--
(i) The individual(s) or organization(s) to be notified by
shipboard personnel; and
(ii) The individual(s) or organization(s) to be notified by shore-
based personnel.
(3) The procedures for notifying the qualified individual(s)
designated by the vessel's owner or operator.
(4) Descriptions of the primary and, if available, secondary
communications methods by which the notifications will be made that
should be consistent with the regulations in Sec. 155.1035(b)(1).
(5) The information that is to be provided in the initial and any
follow up notifications required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(i) The initial notification may be submitted in accordance with
IMO Resolution A648(16) ``General Principles for Ship Reporting Systems
and Ship Reporting Requirements'' which is available through COMDT G-
MOS-4, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001. It must include at least the following
information:
(A) Vessel name, country of registry, call sign, and official
number (if any);
(B) Date and time of the incident;
[[Page 1086]]
(C) Location of the incident;
(D) Course, speed, and intended track of vessel;
(E) Radio station(s) and frequencies guarded;
(F) Date and time of next report;
(G) Type and quantity of oil on board;
(H) Nature and detail of defects, deficiencies, and damage (e.g.
grounding, collision, hull failure, etc.);
(I) Details of pollution, including estimate of oil discharged or
threat of discharge;
(J) Weather and sea conditions on scene;
(K) Ship size and type;
(L) Actions taken or planned by persons on scene;
(M) Current conditions of the vessel; and
(N) Number of crew and details of injuries, if any.
(ii) After the transmission of the initial notification, as much as
possible of the information essential for the protection of the marine
environment as is appropriate to the incident must be reported to the
appropriate on-scene coordinator in a follow-up report. This
information must include--
(A) Additional details on the type of cargo on board;
(B) Additional details on the condition of the vessel and ability
to transfer cargo, ballast, and fuel;
(C) Additional details on the quantity, extent and movement of the
pollution and whether the discharge is continuing;
(D) Any changes in the on-scene weather or sea conditions; and
(E) Actions being taken with regard to the discharge and the
movement of the ship.
(6) Identification of the person(s) to be notified of a vessel
casualty potentially affecting the seaworthiness of a vessel and the
information to be provided by the vessel's crew to shore-based
personnel to facilitate the assessment of damage stability and stress.
(c) Shipboard spill mitigation procedures. This section of the
response plan must include--
(1) Procedures for the crew to mitigate or prevent any discharge or
a substantial threat of such discharge of oil resulting from shipboard
operational activities associated with internal or external cargo
transfers. Responsibilities of vessel personnel should be identified by
job title. These procedures must address personnel actions in the event
of a--
(i) Transfer system leak;
(ii) Tank overflow; or
(iii) Suspected cargo tank or hull leak;
(2) Procedures in the order of priority for the crew to mitigate or
prevent any discharge or a substantial threat of such a discharge in
the event of the following casualties or emergencies:
(i) Grounding or stranding.
(ii) Collision.
(iii) Explosion or fire, or both.
(iv) Hull failure.
(v) Excessive list.
(vi) Equipment failure (e.g. main propulsion, steering gear, etc.);
(3) Procedures for the crew to deploy discharge removal equipment
as required under subpart B of this part;
(4) The procedures for internal transfers of cargo in an emergency;
(5) The procedures for ship-to-ship transfers of cargo in an
emergency:
(i) The format and content of the ship-to-ship transfer procedures
must be consistent with the Ship to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum)
published jointly by the International Chamber of Shipping and the Oil
Companies International marine Forum (OCIMF).
(ii) The procedures must identify the response resources necessary
to carry out the transfers, including--
(A) Fendering equipment (ship-to-ship only);
(B) Transfer hoses and connection equipment;
(C) Portable pumps and ancillary equipment;
(D) Lightering and mooring masters (ship-to-ship only); and
(E) Vessel and barge brokers (ship-to-ship only).
(iii) Reference can be made to a separate oil transfer procedure
and lightering plan carried aboard the vessel, provided that safety
considerations are summarized in the response plan.
(iv) The location of all equipment and fittings, if any, carried
aboard the vessel to perform such transfers must be identified;
(6) The procedures and arrangements for emergency towing, including
the rigging and operation of any emergency towing equipment, including
that required by subpart B of this part, aboard the vessel;
(7) The location, crew responsibilities, and procedures for use of
shipboard equipment which may be carried to mitigate an oil discharge;
(8) The crew responsibilities, if any, for recordkeeping and
sampling of spilled oil. Any requirements for sampling must address
safety procedures to be followed by the crew;
(9) The crew's responsibilities, if any, to initiate a response and
supervise shore-based response resources;
(10) Damage stability and hull stress considerations when
performing shipboard mitigation measures. This section must identify
and describe--
(i) Activities in which the crew is trained and qualified to
execute absent shore-based support or advice; and
(ii) The information to be collected by the vessel's crew to
facilitate shore-based assistance; and
(11)(i) Location of vessel plans necessary to perform salvage,
stability, and hull stress assessments. A copy of these plans must be
maintained ashore by either the vessel owner or operator or the
vessel's recognized classification society unless the vessel has
prearranged for a shore-based damage stability and residual strength
calculation program with the vessel's baseline strength and stability
characteristics pre-entered. The response plan must indicate the shore
location and 24-hour access procedures of the calculation program or
the following plans:
(A) General arrangement plan.
(B) Midship section plan.
(C) Lines plan or table of offsets.
(D) Tank tables.
(E) Load line assignment.
(F) Light ship characteristics.
(ii) The plan must identify the shore location and 24-hour access
procedures for the computerized, shore-based damage stability and
residual structural strength calculation programs required by
Sec. 155.240.
(d) Shore-based response activities. This section of the response
plan must include the following information:
(1) The qualified individual's responsibilities and authority,
including immediate communication with the Federal on-scene coordinator
and notification of the oil spill removal organization(s) identified in
the plan.
(2) If applicable, procedures for transferring responsibility for
direction of response activities from vessel personnel to the shore-
based spill management team.
(3) The procedures for coordinating the actions of the vessel owner
or operator or qualified individual with the predesignated Federal on-
scene coordinator responsible for overseeing or directing those
actions.
(4) The organizational structure that will be used to manage the
response actions. This structure must include the following functional
areas and must further include information for key components within
each functional area:
(i) Command and control;
(ii) Public information;
(iii) Safety;
(iv) Liaison with government agencies;
(v) Spill response operations;
(vi) Planning;
(vii) Logistics support; and
(viii) Finance.
(5) The responsibilities of, duties of, and functional job
descriptions for each oil spill management team position
[[Page 1087]]
within the organizational structure identified in paragraph (d)(4) of
this section.
(e) List of contacts. The name, location, and 24-hour contact
information for the following key individuals and organizations must be
included in this section of the response plan or, if more appropriate,
in a geographic-specific appendix and referenced in this section of the
response plan:
(1) Vessel owner or operator.
(2) Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual for the
vessel's area of operation.
(3) Applicable insurance representatives or surveyors for the
vessel's area of operation.
(4) The vessel's local agent(s) for the vessel's area of operation.
(5) Person(s) within the oil spill removal organization to notify
for activation of that oil spill removal organization for the three
spill scenarios identified in paragraph (i)(5) of this section for the
vessel's area of operation.
(6) Person(s) within the identified response organization to notify
for activating that organization to provide:
(i) The required emergency lightering required by Sec. 155.1050(l),
Sec. 155.1052(g), Sec. 155.1230(g), or Sec. 155.2230(g), as applicable
to the type of service of the vessel; and
(ii) The required salvage and firefighting required by
Sec. 155.1050(k), Sec. 155.1052(e), Sec. 155.1230(e), and
Sec. 155.2230(e), as applicable to the type of service of the vessel.
(7) Person(s) to notify for activation of the spill management team
for the spill response scenarios identified in paragraph (i)(5) of this
section for the vessel's area of operation.
(f) Training procedures. This section of the response plan must
address the training procedures and programs of the vessel owner or
operator to meet the requirements in Sec. 155.1055.
(g) Exercise procedures. This section of the response plan must
address the exercise program to be carried out by the vessel owner or
operator to meet the requirements in Sec. 155.1060.
(h) Plan review, update, revision, amendment, and appeal procedure.
This section of the response plan must address--
(1) The procedures to be followed by the vessel owner or operator
to meet the requirements of Sec. 155.1070; and
(2) The procedures to be followed for any post-discharge review of
the plan to evaluate and validate its effectiveness.
(i) Geographic-specific appendices for each COTP zone in which a
vessel operates. A geographic-specific appendix must be included for
each COTP zone identified. The appendices must include the following
information or identify the location of such information within the
plan:
(1) A list of the geographic areas (port areas, rivers and canals,
Great Lakes, inland, nearshore, offshore, and open ocean areas) in
which the vessel intends to handle, store, or transport oil within the
applicable COTP zone.
(2) The volume and group of oil on which the required level of
response resources are calculated.
(3) Required Federal or State notifications applicable to the
geographic areas in which a vessel operates.
(4) Identification of the qualified individuals.
(5) Identification of the oil spill removal organization(s) that
are identified and ensured available, through contract or other
approved means, and the spill management team to respond to the
following spill scenarios:
(i) Average most probable discharge.
(ii) Maximum most probable discharge.
(iii) Worst case discharge.
(6) The organization(s) identified to meet the requirements of
paragraph (i)(5) of this section must be capable of providing the
equipment and supplies necessary to meet the requirements of
Secs. 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, and 155.2230, as appropriate, and
sources of trained personnel to continue operation of the equipment and
staff the oil spill removal organization(s) and spill management team
identified for the first 7 days of the response.
(7) The appendix must list the response resources and related
information required under Secs. 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230,
155.2230, and Appendix B of this part, as appropriate.
(8) If an oil spill removal organization(s) has been evaluated by
the Coast Guard and their capability has been determined to equal or
exceed the response capability needed by the vessel, the appendix may
identify only the organization and their applicable classification and
not the information required in paragraph (i)(7) of this section.
(9) The appendix must also separately list the companies identified
to provide the salvage, vessel firefighting, lightering, and if
applicable, dispersant capabilities required in this subpart.
(j) Appendices for vessel-specific information. This section must
include for each vessel covered by the plan the following information:
(1) List of the vessel's principal characteristics.
(2) Capacities of all cargo, fuel, lube oil, ballast, and fresh
water tanks.
(3) The total volume and cargo groups of oil cargo that would be
involved in the--
(i) Maximum most probable discharge; and
(ii) Worst case discharge.
(4) Diagrams showing location of all tanks.
(5) General arrangement plan (can be maintained separately aboard
the vessel providing the response plan identifies the location).
(6) Midships section plan (can be maintained separately aboard the
vessel providing the response plan identifies the location).
(7) Cargo and fuel piping diagrams and pumping plan, as applicable
(can be maintained separately aboard the vessel providing the response
plan identifies the location).
(8) Damage stability data (can be maintained separately providing
the response plan identifies the location).
(9) Location of cargo and fuel stowage plan for vessel (normally
maintained separately aboard the vessel).
(10) Location of information on the name, description, physical and
chemical characteristics, health and safety hazards, and spill and
firefighting procedures for the oil cargo aboard the vessel. A material
safety data sheet meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200, cargo
information required by 33 CFR 154.310, or equivalent will meet this
requirement. This information can be maintained separately.
Sec. 155.1040 Response plan requirements for unmanned tank barges
carrying oil as a primary cargo.
(a) General information and introduction. This section of the
response plan must include--
(1) A list of tank barges covered by the plan, which must include
the country of registry, call sign, IMO international numbers (if
applicable), and official numbers of the listed tank barges;
(2) The name, address, and procedures for contacting the barge's
owner or operator on a 24-hour basis;
(3) A list of the COTP zones in which the tank barges covered by
the plan intend to handle, store, or transport oil;
(4) A table of contents or index of sufficient detail to permit
personnel with responsibilities under the response plan to locate the
specific sections of the plan; and
(5) A record of change(s) page used to record information on plan
reviews, updates or revisions.
(b) Notification procedures. This section of the response plan must
include the following notification information:
(1) A checklist with all notifications. The checklist must include
notifications
[[Page 1088]]
required by MARPOL 73/78, 33 CFR part 153, and any applicable State,
including telephone or other contact numbers, in the order of priority
and the information required for those notifications to be made by
the--
(i) Towing vessel;
(ii) Vessel owner or operator; or
(iii) Qualified individual.
(2) Identification of the person(s) to be notified of a discharge
or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. If the notifications vary
due to the location of the barge, the persons to be notified also must
be identified in a geographic-specific appendix. This section must
separately identify--
(i) The individual(s) or organization(s) to be notified by the
towing vessel; and
(ii) The individual(s) or organization(s) to be notified by shore-
based personnel.
(3) The procedures for notifying the qualified individuals
designated by the barge's owner or operator.
(4) Identification of the primary and, if available, secondary
communications methods by which the notifications will be made,
consistent with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(5) The information that is to be provided in the initial and any
follow-up notifications required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(i) The initial notification information must include at least the
following information:
(A) Towing vessel name (if applicable);
(B) Tank barge name, country of registry, and official number;
(C) Date and time of the incident;
(D) Location of the incident;
(E) Course, speed, and intended track of towing vessel (if
applicable);
(F) Radio station(s) frequencies guarded by towing vessel (if
applicable);
(G) Date and time of next report;
(H) Type and quantity of oil on board;
(I) Nature and details of defects, deficiencies, and damage (e.g.,
grounding, collision, hull failure, etc.);
(J) Details of pollution, including estimate of oil discharged or
threat of discharge;
(K) Weather and sea conditions on scene;
(L) Barge size and type;
(M) Actions taken or planned by persons on scene;
(N) Current condition of the barge; and
(O) Details of injuries, if any.
(ii) After the transmission of the initial notification, as much as
possible of the information essential for the protection of the marine
environment as is appropriate to the incident must be reported to the
appropriate on-scene coordinator in a follow-up report. This
information must include--
(A) Additional detail on the type of cargo on board;
(B) Additional details on the condition of the barge and ability to
transfer cargo, ballast, and fuel;
(C) Additional details on the quantity, extent and movement of the
pollution and whether the discharge is continuing;
(D) Any changes in the on-scene weather or sea conditions; and
(E) Actions being taken with regard to the discharge and the
movement of the vessel.
(6) Identification of the person(s) to be notified of a vessel
casualty potentially affecting the seaworthiness of a vessel and the
information to be provided by the towing vessel personnel or tankermen,
as applicable, to shore-based personnel to facilitate the assessment of
damage stability and stress.
(c) Shipboard spill mitigation procedures. This section of the
response plan must include--
(1) Procedures to be followed by the tankerman, as defined in 46
CFR 35.35-1, to mitigate or prevent any discharge or a substantial
threat of such a discharge of oil resulting from operational activities
and casualties. These procedures must address personnel actions in the
event of a--
(i) Transfer system leak;
(ii) Tank overflow; or
(iii) Suspected cargo tank or hull leak;
(2) Procedures in the order of priority for the towing vessel or
barge owner or operator to mitigate or prevent any discharge or a
substantial threat of such a discharge of oil in the event of the
following casualties or emergencies:
(i) Grounding or stranding;
(ii) Collision;
(iii) Explosion or fire, or both;
(iv) Hull failure;
(v) Excessive list; and
(3) Procedures for tankermen or towing vessel crew to employ
discharge removal equipment required by subpart B of this part;
(4) The procedures for the internal transfer of cargo in an
emergency;
(5) The procedures for ship-to-ship transfers of cargo in an
emergency:
(i) The procedures must identify the response resources necessary
to carry out the transfers, including--
(A) Fendering equipment (ship-to-ship only);
(B) Transfer hoses and connection equipment;
(C) Portable pumps and ancillary equipment; and
(D) Lightering vessels (ship-to-ship only).
(ii) Reference can be made to separate oil transfer procedures or a
lightering plan provided that safety considerations are summarized in
the response plan.
(iii) The location of all equipment and fittings, if any, to
perform such transfers must be identified;
(6) The procedures and arrangements for emergency towing, including
the rigging and operation of any emergency towing equipment, including
that required by subpart B of this part aboard the barge;
(7) The location and procedures for use of equipment stowed aboard
either the barge or towing vessel to mitigate an oil discharge;
(8) The responsibilities of the towing vessel crew and facility or
fleeting area personnel, if any, to initiate a response and supervise
shore-based response resources;
(9) Damage stability, if applicable, and hull stress considerations
when performing on board mitigation measures. This section must
identify and describe--
(i) Activities in which the towing vessel crew or tankerman is
trained and qualified to execute absent shore-based support or advice;
(ii) The individuals who shall be notified of a casualty
potentially affecting the seaworthiness of the barge; and
(iii) The information that must be provided by the towing vessel to
facilitate the assessment of damage stability and stress; and
(10)(i) Location of barge plans necessary to perform salvage,
stability, and hull stress assessments. A copy of these barge plans
must be maintained ashore by either the barge owner or operator or the
vessel's recognized classification society. The response plan must
indicate the shore location and 24-hour access procedures of the
following plans:
(A) General arrangement plan.
(B) Midship section plan.
(C) Lines plan or table of offsets, as available.
(D) Tank tables; and
(ii) Plans for offshore oil barges must identify the shore location
and 24-hour access procedures for the computerized shore-based damage
stability and residual structural strength calculation programs
required by Sec. 155.240.
(d) Shore-based response activities. This section of the response
plan must include the following information:
(1) The qualified individual's responsibilities and authority,
including immediate communication with the Federal on-scene coordinator
and notification of the oil spill removal organization(s) identified in
the plan.
(2) If applicable, procedures for transferring responsibility for
direction of response activities from towing vessel
[[Page 1089]]
personnel or tankermen to the shore-based spill management team.
(3) The procedures for coordinating the actions of the barge owner
or operator of qualified individual with the action of the
predesignated Federal on-scene coordinator responsible for overseeing
or directing those actions.
(4) The organizational structure that will manage the barge owner
or operator's response actions. This structure must include the
following functional areas and must further include information for key
components within each functional area:
(i) Command and control;
(ii) Public information;
(iii) Safety;
(iv) Liaison with government agencies;
(v) Spill response operations;
(vi) Planning;
(vii) Logistics support; and
(viii) Finance.
(5) The responsibilities of, duties of, and functional job
descriptions for each oil spill management team position within the
organizational structure identified in paragraph (d)(4) of this
section.
(e) List of contacts. The name, location, and 24-hour contact
information for the following key individuals and organizations must be
included in this section or, if more appropriate, in a geographic-
specific appendix and referenced in this section:
(1) Barge owner or operator.
(2) Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual for the
tank barge's area of operation.
(3) Applicable insurance representatives or surveyors for the
barge's area(s) of operation.
(4) Person(s) within the oil spill removal organization to notify
for activation of that oil spill removal organization for the spill
scenarios identified in paragraph (j)(5) of this section for the
barges's area(s) of operation.
(5) Person(s) within the identified response organization to notify
for activating that organization to provide:
(i) The required emergency lightering required by
Secs. 155.1050(l), 155.1052(g), 155.1230(g), and 155.2230(g), as
applicable to the type of service of the barge(s); and
(ii) The required salvage and fire fighting required by
Secs. 155.1050(k), 155.1052(e), 155.1230(e), and 155.2230(e), as
applicable to the type of service of the barge(s).
(6) Person(s) to notify for activation of the spill management team
for the spill response scenarios identified in paragraph (j)(5) of this
section for the vessel's area of operation.
(f) Training procedures. This section of the response plan must
address the training procedures and programs of the barge owner or
operator to meet the requirements in Sec. 155.1055.
(g) Exercise procedures. This section of the response plan must
address the exercise program carried out by the barge owner or operator
to meet the requirements in Sec. 155.1060.
(h) Plan review, update, revisions amendment, and appeal procedure.
This section of the response plan must address--
(1) The procedures to be followed by the barge owner or operator to
meet the requirements of Sec. 155.1070; and
(2) The procedures to be followed for any post-discharge review of
the plan to evaluate and validate its effectiveness.
(i) On board notification checklist and emergency procedures. This
portion of the response plan must be maintained in the documentation
container aboard the unmanned barge. The owner or operator of an
unmanned tank barge subject to this section shall provide the personnel
of the towing vessel, fleeting area, or facility that the barge may be
moored at with the information required by this paragraph and the
responsibilities that the plan indicates will be carried out by these
personnel. The on board notification checklist and emergency procedures
must include--
(1) The toll-free number of the National Response Center;
(2) The name and procedures for contacting a primary qualified
individual and at least one alternate on a 24-hour basis;
(3) The name, address, and procedure for contacting the vessel's
owner or operator on a 24-hour basis;
(4) The list of information to be provided in the notification by
the reporting personnel;
(5) A statement of responsibilities of and actions to be taken by
reporting personnel after an oil discharge or substantial threat of
such discharge; and
(6) The information contained in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(j) Geographic-specific appendices for each COTP zone in which a
tank barge operates. A geographic-specific appendix must be included
for each COTP zone identified. The appendices must include the
following information or identify the location of such information
within the plan:
(1) A list of the geographic areas (port areas, rivers and canals,
Great Lakes, inland, nearshore, offshore, and open ocean areas) in
which the barge intends to handle, store, or transport oil within the
applicable COTP zone.
(2) The volume and group of oil on which the required level of
response resources are calculated.
(3) Required Federal or State notifications applicable to the
geographic areas in which the barge operates.
(4) Identification of the qualified individuals.
(5) Identification of the oil spill removal organization(s) that
are identified and ensured available, through contract or other
approved means and the spill management team to provide the response
resources necessary to respond to the following spill scenarios:
(i) An average most probable discharge.
(ii) A maximum most probable discharge.
(iii) A worst case discharge to the maximum extent practicable.
(6) The organization(s) identified to meet the provisions of
paragraph (j)(5) of this section must be capable of providing the
equipment and supplies necessary to meet the provisions of
Secs. 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, and 155.2230, as appropriate, and
sources of trained personnel to continue operation of the equipment and
staff the oil spill removal organization(s) and spill management team
identified for the first seven days of the response.
(7) The appendix must list the response resources and related
information required under Secs. 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230,
155.2230, and Appendix B of this part, as appropriate.
(8) If the oil spill removal organization(s) providing the
necessary response resources has been evaluated by the Coast Guard and
their capability has been determined to equal or exceed the response
capability needed by the vessel, the appendix may identify only the
organization and their applicable classification and not the
information required in paragraph (j)(7) of this section.
(9) The appendix must also separately list the companies identified
to provide the salvage, barge firefighting, lightering, and if
applicable, dispersant capabilities required in this subpart.
(k) Appendices for barge-specific information. Because many of the
tank barges covered by a response plan may be of the same design, this
information does not need to be repeated provided the plan identifies
the tank barges to which the same information would apply. The
information must be part of the response plan unless specifically
noted. This section must include for each barge covered by the plan the
following information:
(1) List of the principal characteristics of the vessel.
(2) Capacities of all cargo, fuel, lube oil, and ballast tanks.
(3) The total volumes and cargo group(s) of oil cargo that would be
involved in the--
[[Page 1090]]
(i) Maximum most probable discharge; and
(ii) Worst case discharge.
(4) Diagrams showing location of all tanks aboard the barge.
(5) General arrangement plan (can be maintained separately
providing that the location is identified).
(6) Midships section plan (can be maintained separately providing
that the location is identified).
(7) Cargo and fuel piping diagrams and pumping plan, as applicable
(can be maintained separately providing that the location is
identified).
(8) Damage stability data, if applicable.
(9) Location of cargo and fuel stowage plan for barge(s) (normally
maintained separately).
(10) Location of information on the name, description, physical and
chemical characteristics, health and safety hazards, and spill and
firefighting procedures for the oil cargo aboard the barge. A material
safety data sheet meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200, cargo
information required by 33 CFR 154.310, or equivalent will meet this
requirement. This information can be maintained separately.
Sec. 155.1045 Response plan requirements for vessels carrying oil as a
secondary cargo.
(a) General information and introduction. This section of the
response plan must include--
(1) The vessel's name, country of registry, call sign, official
number, and IMO international number (if applicable). If the plan
covers multiple vessels, this information must be provided for each
vessel;
(2) The name, address, and procedures for contacting the vessel's
owner or operator on a 24-hour basis;
(3) A list of COTP zones in which the vessel intends to handle,
store, or transport oil;
(4) A table of contents or index of sufficient detail to permit
personnel with responsibilities under the response plan to locate the
specific sections of the plan; and
(5) A record of change(s) page used to record information on plan
updates or revisions.
(6) As required in paragraph (c) of this section, the vessel owner
or operator must list in his or her plan the total volume of oil
carried in bulk as cargo.
(i) For vessels that transfer a portion of their fuel as cargo, 25
percent of the fuel capacity of the vessel plus the capacity of any oil
cargo tank(s) will be assumed to be the cargo volume for determining
applicable response plan requirements unless the vessel owner or
operator indicates otherwise.
(ii) A vessel owner or operator can use a volume less than 25
percent if he or she submits historical data with the plan that
substantiates the transfer of a lower percentage of its fuel capacity
between refuelings.
(b) Notification procedures. This section of the response plan must
include the following notification information:
(1) A checklist with all notifications, including telephone or
other contact numbers, in the order of priority to be made by shipboard
or shore-based personnel and the information required for those
notifications. Notifications must include those required by--
(i) MARPOL 73/78 and 33 CFR part 153; and
(ii) Any applicable State.
(2) Identification of the person(s) to be notified of a discharge
or substantial threat of discharge of oil. If notifications vary due to
vessel location, the person(s) to be notified also must be identified
in a geographic-specific appendix. This section must separately
identify--
(i) The individual(s) or organization(s) to be notified by
shipboard personnel; and
(ii) The individual(s) or organization(s) to be notified by shore-
based personnel.
(3) The procedures for notifying the qualified individual and
alternate qualified individual.
(4) Descriptions of the primary and, if available, secondary
communication methods by which the notifications will be made,
consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(5) The information that is to be provided in the initial and any
follow-up notifications required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(i) The initial notification may be submitted in accordance with
IMO Resolution A648(16) ``General Principles for Ship Reporting Systems
and Ship Reporting Requirements.'' It must include at least the
following information:
(A) Vessel name, country of registry, call sign, IMO international
number (if applicable), and official number (if any);
(B) Date and time of the incident;
(C) Location of the incident;
(D) Course, speed, and intended track of vessel;
(E) Radio station(s) and frequencies guarded;
(F) Date and time of next report;
(G) Type and quantity of oil on board;
(H) Nature and detail of defects, deficiencies, and damage (e.g.,
grounding, collision, hull failure, etc.);
(I) Details of pollution, including estimate of oil discharged or
threat of discharge;
(J) Weather and sea conditions on scene;
(K) Ship size and type;
(L) Actions taken or planned by persons on scene;
(M) Current conditions of the vessel; and
(N) Number of crew and details of injuries, if any.
(ii) After the transmission of the initial notification, as much as
possible of the information essential for the protection of the marine
environment as is appropriate to the incident must be reported to the
appropriate on-scene coordinator in a follow-up report. This
information must include--
(A) Additional details on the type of cargo on board;
(B) Additional details on the condition of the vessel and ability
to transfer cargo, ballast, and fuel;
(C) Additional details on the quantity, extent and movement of the
pollution and whether the discharge is continuing;
(D) Any changes in the on-scene weather or sea conditions; and
(E) Actions being taken with regard to the discharge and the
movement of the ship.
(c) Shipboard spill mitigation procedures. This section of the
response plan must identify the vessel's total volumes of oil carried
in bulk as cargo and meet the applicable requirements of this paragraph
as in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
(1) For vessels carrying 100 barrels or less of oil in bulk as
cargo, the plan must include a basic emergency action checklist for
vessel personnel including notification and actions to be taken to
prevent or mitigate any discharge or substantial threat of such a
discharge of oil from the vessel.
(2) For vessels carrying over 100 barrels of oil but not exceeding
5,000 barrels of oil in bulk as cargo, the plan must include--
(i) Detailed information on actions to be taken by vessel personnel
to prevent or mitigate any discharge or substantial threat of such a
discharge of oil from the vessel due to operational activities or
casualties;
(ii) Detailed information on damage control procedures to be
followed by vessel personnel;
(iii) Detailed procedures for internal or external transfer of oil
in bulk as cargo in an emergency; and
(iv) Procedures for use of any equipment carried aboard the vessel
for spill mitigation.
(3) For vessels carrying over 5,000 barrels of oil as a secondary
cargo, the plan must provide the information required by
Sec. 155.1035(c) for shipboard spill mitigation procedures.
[[Page 1091]]
(4) For all vessels, the plan must include responsibilities and
actions to be taken by vessel personnel, if any, to initiate a response
and supervise shore-based response resources.
(d) Shore-based response activities. This section of the response
plan must include the following information:
(1) The qualified individual's responsibilities and authority,
including immediate communication with the Federal on-scene coordinator
and notification of the oil spill removal organization(s) identified in
the plan.
(2) If applicable, procedures for transferring responsibility for
direction of response activities from vessel personnel to the shore-
based spill management team.
(3) The procedures for coordinating the actions of the vessel owner
or operator with the actions of the predesignated Federal on-scene
coordinator responsible for overseeing or directing those actions.
(4) The organizational structure that will be used to manage the
response actions. This structure must include the following functional
areas and must further include information for key components within
each functional area:
(i) Command and control;
(ii) Public information;
(iii) Safety;
(iv) Liaison with government agencies;
(v) Spill response operations;
(vi) Planning;
(vii) Logistics support; and
(viii) Finance.
(5) The responsibilities, duties, and functional job description
for each oil spill management team member within the organizational
structure identified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(e) List of contacts. The name, location, and 24-hour contact
information for the following key individuals or organizations must be
included in this section or, if more appropriate, in a geographic-
specific appendix and referenced in this section:
(1) Vessel owner or operator, and if applicable, charterer.
(2) Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual for the
vessel's area of operation.
(3) Vessel's local agent(s), if applicable, for the vessel's area
of operation.
(4) Applicable insurance representatives or surveyors for the
vessel's area of operation.
(5) Person(s) within the identified oil spill removal
organization(s) to notify for activation of the oil spill removal
organization(s) identified under paragraph (i)(3) of this section for
the vessel's area of operation.
(6) Person(s) to notify for activation of the spill management
team.
(f) Training procedures. (1) This section of the response plan must
address the training procedures and programs of the vessel owner or
operator. The vessel owner or operator shall ensure that--
(i) All personnel with responsibilities under the plan receive
training in their assignments and refresher training as necessary, and
participate in exercises required under paragraph (g) of this section.
Documented work experience can be used instead of training; and
(ii) Records of this training are maintained aboard the vessel, at
the U.S. location of the spill management team, or with the qualified
individual. The plan must specify where the records are located.
(2) Nothing in this section relieves the vessel owner or operator
from responsibility to ensure that all private shore-based response
personnel are trained to meet the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards for emergency response operations in 29
CFR 1910.120.
(g) Exercise procedures. This section of the response plan must
address the exercise program carried out by the vessel owner or
operator to evaluate the ability of vessel and shore-based personnel to
perform their identified functions in the plan. The required exercise
frequency for each category of vessel is as follows:
(1) For vessels carrying 100 barrels or less of oil as cargo--
(i) On board spill mitigation procedures and qualified individual
notification exercises must be conducted annually; and
(ii) Shore-based oil spill removal organization exercises must be
conducted biennially.
(2) For vessels carrying over 100 barrels and up to 5,000 barrels
of oil in bulk as cargo--
(i) On board emergency procedures and qualified individual
notification exercises must be conducted quarterly; and
(ii) Shore-based oil spill removal organization exercises must be
conducted annually.
(3) Vessels carrying over 5,000 barrels of oil in bulk as cargo
must meet the exercise requirement of Sec. 155.1060.
(h) Plan review, update, revision, amendment, and appeal
procedures. This section of the response plan must address--
(1) The procedures to be followed by the vessel owner or operator
to meet the requirement of Sec. 155.1070; and
(2) The procedures to be followed for any post-discharge review of
the plan to evaluate and validate its effectiveness
(i) Geographic-specific appendices for each COTP zone in which a
vessel operates. A geographic-specific appendix must be included for
each COTP zone identified. The appendix must include the following
information or identify the location of such information within the
plan:
(1) Required Federal or State notifications applicable to the
geographic areas in which a vessel operates.
(2) Identification of the qualified individuals.
(3) A list of the oil spill removal organization(s) and the spill
management team(s) available to respond to the vessel's worst case oil
discharge in each COTP zone in which a vessel operates. The oil spill
removal organization(s) identified must be capable of commencing oil
spill containment and on-water recovery within the response times
listed for Tier 1 in Sec. 155.1050(g); providing temporary storage of
recovered oil; and conducting shoreline protection and cleanup
operations. An oil spill removal organization may not be identified in
the plan unless the organization has provided written consent to being
identified in the plan as an available resource.
(j) Appendices for vessel-specific information. This section must
include for each vessel covered by the plan the following information:
(1) List of the vessel's principal characteristics (i.e., length,
beam, gross tonnage, etc.).
(2) Capacities of all cargo, fuel, lube oil, ballast, and fresh
water tanks.
(3) The total volume and cargo groups of oil cargo that would be
involved in the--
(i) Maximum most probable discharge; and
(ii) Worst case discharge.
(4) Diagrams showing location of all tanks.
(5) Cargo and fuel piping diagrams and pumping plan as applicable.
These diagrams and plans can be maintained separately aboard the vessel
providing the response plan identifies the location.
(6) Location of information on the name, description, physical and
chemical characteristics, health and safety hazards, and spill and
firefighting procedures for the oil cargo aboard the vessel. A material
safety data sheet meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200, cargo
information required by 33 CFR 154.310, or the equivalent, will meet
this requirement. This information can be maintained separately on
board the vessel, providing the response plan identifies the location.
[[Page 1092]]
Sec. 155.1050 Response plan development and evaluation criteria for
vessels carrying groups I through IV petroleum oil as a primary cargo.
(a) The following criteria must be used to evaluate the operability
of response resources identified in the response plan for the specified
operating environment:
(1) Table 1 of Appendix B of this part.
(i) The criteria in Table 1 of Appendix B of this part are to be
used solely for identification of appropriate equipment in a response
plan.
(ii) These criteria reflect conditions used for planning purposes
to select mechanical response equipment and are not conditions that
would limit response actions or affect normal vessel operations.
(2) Limitations that are identified in the Area Contingency Plans
for the COTP zones in which the vessel operates, including--
(i) Ice conditions;
(ii) Debris;
(iii) Temperature ranges; and
(iv) Weather-related visibility.
(b) The COTP may reclassify a specific body of water or location
within the COTP zone. Any reclassifications will be identified in the
applicable Area Contingency Plan. Reclassifications may be to--
(1) A more stringent operating environment if the prevailing wave
conditions exceed the significant wave height criteria during more than
35 percent of the year; or
(2) A less stringent operating environment if the prevailing wave
conditions do not exceed the significant wave height criteria for the
less stringent operating environment during more than 35 percent of the
year.
(c) Response equipment must--
(1) Meet or exceed the criteria listed in Table 1 of Appendix B of
this part;
(2) Be capable of functioning in the applicable operating
environment; and
(3) Be appropriate for the petroleum oil carried.
(d) The owner or operator of a vessel that carries groups I through
IV petroleum oil as a primary cargo shall identify in the response plan
and ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved
means, the response resources that will respond to a discharge up to
the vessel's average most probable discharge.
(1) For a vessel that carries groups I through IV petroleum oil as
its primary cargo, the response resources must include--
(i) Containment boom in a quantity equal to twice the length of the
largest vessel involved in the transfer and capable of being deployed
at the site of oil transfer operations--
(A) Within 1 hour of detection of a spill, when the transfer is
conducted between 0 and 12 miles from the nearest shoreline; or
(B) Within 1 hour plus travel time from the nearest shoreline,
based on an on-water speed of 5 knots, when the transfer is conducted
over 12 miles up to 200 miles from the nearest shoreline; and
(ii) Oil recovery devices and recovered oil storage capacity
capable of being at the transfer site--
(A) Within 2 hours of the detection of a spill during transfer
operations, when the transfer is conducted between 0 and 12 miles from
the nearest shoreline; or
(B) Within 1 hour plus travel time from the nearest shoreline,
based on an on-water speed of 5 knots, when the transfer is conducted
over 12 miles up to 200 miles from the nearest shoreline.
(2) For locations of multiple vessel transfer operations, a vessel
may identify the same equipment as identified by other vessels,
provided that each vessel has ensured access to the equipment through
contract or other approved means. Under these circumstances, prior
approval by the Coast Guard is not required for temporary changes in
the contracted oil spill removal organization under
Sec. 155.1070(c)(5).
(3) The owner or operator of a vessel conducting transfer
operations at a facility required to submit a response plan under 33
CFR 154.1017 is required to plan for and identify the response
resources required in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. However, the
owner or operator is not required to ensure by contract or other means
the availability of such resources.
(e) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying groups I through IV
petroleum oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan and
ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved means,
the response resources necessary to respond to a discharge up to the
vessel's maximum most probable discharge volume.
(1) These resources must be positioned such that they can arrive at
the scene of a discharge within--
(i) 12 hours of the discovery of a discharge in higher volume port
areas and the Great Lakes;
(ii) 24 hours of the discovery of a discharge in all rivers and
canals, inland, nearshore and offshore areas; and
(iii) 24 hours of the discovery of a discharge plus travel time
from shore for open ocean areas.
(2) The necessary response resources include sufficient containment
boom, oil recovery devices, and storage capacity for any recovery of up
to the maximum most probable discharge planning volume.
(3) The response plan must identify the storage location, make,
model, and effective daily recovery capacity of each oil recovery
device that is identified for plan credit.
(4) The response resources identified for responding to a maximum
most probable discharge must be positioned to be capable of meeting the
planned arrival times in this paragraph. The COTP with jurisdiction
over the area in which the vessel is operating must be notified
whenever the identified response resources are not capable of meeting
the planned arrival times.
(f) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying groups I through IV
petroleum oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan and
ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved means,
the response resources necessary to respond to discharges up to the
worst case discharge volume of the oil cargo to the maximum extent
practicable.
(1) The location of these resources must be suitable to meet the
response times identified for the applicable geographic area(s) of
operation and response tier.
(2) The response resources must be appropriate for--
(i) The capacity of the vessel;
(ii) Group(s) of petroleum oil carried as cargo; and
(iii) The geographic area(s) of vessel operation.
(3) The resources must include sufficient boom, oil recovery
devices, and storage capacity to recover the planning volumes.
(4) The response plan must identify the storage location, make,
model, and effective daily recovery capacity of each oil recovery
device that is identified for plan credit.
(5) The guidelines in Appendix B of this part must be used for
calculating the quantity of response resources required to respond at
each tier to the worst case discharge to the maximum extent
practicable.
(6) When determining response resources necessary to meet the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(6), a portion of those resources
must be capable of use in close-to-shore response activities in shallow
water. The following percentages of the response equipment identified
for the applicable geographic area must be capable of operating in
waters of 6 feet or less depth:
(i) Open ocean--none.
(ii) Offshore--10 percent.
(iii) Nearshore, inland, Great Lakes, and rivers and canals--20
percent.
(7) Response resources identified to meet the requirements of
paragraph
[[Page 1093]]
(f)(6) of this section are exempt from the significant wave height
planning requirements of Table 1 of Appendix B of this part.
(g) Response equipment identified to respond to a worst case
discharge must be capable of arriving on scene within the times
specified in this paragraph for the applicable response tier in a
higher volume port area, Great Lakes, and in other areas. Response
times for these tiers from the time of discovery of a discharge are--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port area 12 hrs...... 36 hrs...... 60 hrs
(except tankers in Prince
William Sound covered by Sec.
155.1135).
Great Lakes................... 18 hrs...... 42 hrs...... 66 hrs
All other rivers & canals, 24 hrs...... 48 hrs...... 72 hrs
inland, nearshore, and
offshore areas.
Open ocean (plus travel time 24 hrs+..... 48 hrs+..... 72 hrs+
from shore).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) For the purposes of arranging for response resources through
contract or other approved means, response equipment identified for
Tier 1 plan credit must be capable of being mobilized and enroute to
the scene of a discharge within 2 hours of notification. The
notification procedures identified in the plan must provide for
notification and authorization for mobilization of identified Tier 1
response resources--
(1) Either directly or through the qualified individual; and
(2) Within 30 minutes of a discovery of a discharge or substantial
threat of discharge.
(i) Response resources identified for Tier 2 and Tier 3 plan credit
must be capable of arriving on scene within the time listed for the
applicable tier.
(j) The response plan for a vessel carrying group II or III
persistent petroleum oils as a primary cargo that operates in areas
with year-round pre-approval for dispersant use may request a credit
against up to 25% of the on-water oil recovery capability for each
worst case discharge tier necessary to meet the requirements of this
subpart. To receive this credit, the vessel owner or operator shall
identify in the response plan and ensure, through contract or other
approved means, the availability of the dispersants and the necessary
resources to apply those agents appropriate for the type of oil carried
and to monitor the effectiveness of the dispersants. The extent of the
credit will be based on the volumes of dispersant available to sustain
operations at manufacturers' recommended dosage rates. Dispersant
resources identified for plan credit must be capable of being on scene
within 12 hours of discovery of a discharge.
Note: Identification of these resources does not imply that they
will be authorized for use. Actual authorization for use during a
spill response will be governed by the provisions of the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR part
300) and the applicable Area Contingency Plan.
(k)(1) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying groups I through
IV petroleum oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan
and ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved
means, the following resources:
(i) A salvage company with expertise and equipment.
(ii) A company with vessel firefighting capability that will
respond to casualties in the area(s) in which the vessel will operate.
(2) Vessel owners or operators must identify intended sources of
the resources required under paragraph (k)(1) of this section capable
of being deployed to the areas in which the vessel will operate.
Provider(s) of these services may not be listed in the plan unless they
have provided written consent to be listed in the plan as an available
resource.
(3) To meet this requirement in a response plan submitted for
reapproval on or after February 18, 1998, the identified resources must
be capable of being deployed to the port nearest to the area in which
the vessel operates within 24 hours of notification.
(l) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying groups I through IV
petroleum oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan and
ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved means,
certain response resources required by Sec. 155.1035(c)(5)(ii) or
Sec. 155.1040(c)(5)(i), as appropriate.
(1) These resources must include--
(i) Fendering equipment;
(ii) Transfer hoses and connection equipment; and
(iii) Portable pumps and ancillary equipment necessary to offload
the vessel's largest cargo tank in 24 hours of continuous operation.
(2) These resources must be capable of reaching the locations in
which the vessel operates within the stated times following
notification:
(i) Inland (except tankers in Prince William Sound covered by
Sec. 155.1130), nearshore, and Great Lakes waters--12 hours.
(ii) Offshore waters and rivers and canals--18 hours.
(iii) Open ocean waters--36 hours.
(3) For barges operating on rivers and canals as defined in this
subpart, the requirements of this paragraph (l)(3) may be met by
listing resources capable of meeting the response times in paragraph
(l)(2) of this section. Such resources may not be identified in a plan
unless the response organization has provided written consent to be
listed in a plan as an available resource.
(m) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying groups I through IV
petroleum oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan and
ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved means,
response resources necessary to perform shoreline protection
operations.
(1) The response resources must include the quantities of boom
listed in Table 2 of Appendix B of this part, based on the areas in
which the vessel operates.
(2) Vessels that intend to offload their cargo at the Louisiana
Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) marine terminal are not required to comply
with the requirements of this paragraph when they are within the
offshore area and under one of the following conditions:
(i) Approaching or departing the LOOP marine terminal within the
LOOP Shipping Safety Fairway, as defined in 33 CFR 166.200.
(ii) Moored at the LOOP marine terminal for the purposes of cargo
transfer operations or anchored in the designated anchorage area
awaiting discharge.
(n) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying groups I through IV
petroleum oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan and
ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved means,
an oil spill removal organization capable of effecting a shoreline
cleanup operation commensurate with the quantity of emulsified
petroleum oil to be planned for in shoreline cleanup operations.
(1) The shoreline cleanup resources required must be determined as
described in Appendix B of this part.
(2) Vessels that intend to offload their cargo at the Louisiana
Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) marine terminal are not required to comply
with the requirements of this paragraph when they are within the
offshore area and under one of the following conditions:
(i) Approaching or departing the LOOP marine terminal within the
LOOP
[[Page 1094]]
Shipping Safety Fairway as defined in 33 CFR 166.200.
(ii) Moored at the LOOP marine terminal for the purposes of cargo
transfer operations or anchored in the designated anchorage area
awaiting discharge.
(o) Appendix B of this part sets out caps that recognize the
practical and technical limits of response capabilities for which an
individual vessel owner or operator can contract in advance. Table 6 in
Appendix B lists the contracting caps that are applicable, as of
February 18, 1993, and that are slated to apply on February 18, 1998.
The owner or operator of a vessel carrying groups I through IV
petroleum oil as a primary cargo, whose required daily recovery
capacity exceeds the applicable contracting caps in Table 6, shall
identify commercial sources of additional equipment equal to twice the
cap listed for each tier or the amount necessary to reach the
calculated planning volume, whichever is lower, to the extent that this
equipment is available. The equipment so identified must be capable of
arriving on scene no later than the applicable tier response times
contained in Sec. 155.1050(g) or as quickly as the nearest available
resource permits. A response plan must identify the specific sources,
locations, and quantities of this additional equipment. No contract is
required.
(p) The Coast Guard will initiate a review of cap increases and
other requirements contained within this subpart that are scheduled to
be phased-in over time. Any changes in the requirements of this section
will occur through a public notice and comment process.
(1) During this review, the Coast Guard will determine if the
scheduled increase remains practicable, and will also establish a
specific cap for 2003. The review will include--
(i) Increases in skimming efficiencies and design technology;
(ii) Oil tracking technology;
(iii) High rate response techniques;
(iv) Other applicable response technologies; and
(v) Increases in the availability of private response resources.
(2) All scheduled future requirements will take effect unless the
Coast Guard determines that they are not practicable. Scheduled changes
will be effective on February 18, 1998 and 2003 unless the review of
the additional requirements have not been completed by the Coast Guard.
If this occurs, the changes will not be effective until 90 days after
publication of a Federal Register notice with the results of the
review.
Sec. 155.1052 Response plan development and evaluation criteria for
vessels carrying group V petroleum oil as a primary cargo.
(a) Owners and operators of vessels that carry group V petroleum
oil as a primary cargo must provide information in their plan that
identifies--
(1) Procedures and strategies for responding to discharges up to a
worst case discharge of group V petroleum oils to the maximum extent
practicable; and
(2) Sources of the equipment and supplies necessary to locate,
recover, and mitigate such a discharge.
(b) Using the criteria in Table 1 of Appendix B of this part, an
owner or operator of a vessel carrying group V petroleum oil as a
primary cargo must ensure that any equipment identified in a response
plan is capable of operating in the conditions expected in the
geographic area(s) in which the vessel operates. When evaluating the
operability of equipment, the vessel owner or operator must consider
limitations that are identified in the Area Contingency Plans for the
COTP zones in which the vessel operates, including--
(1) Ice conditions;
(2) Debris;
(3) Temperature ranges; and
(4) Weather-related visibility.
(c) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying group V petroleum
oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan and ensure,
through contract or other approved means, the availability of required
equipment, including--
(1) Sonar, sampling equipment, or other methods for locating the
oil on the bottom or suspended in the water column;
(2) Containment boom, sorbent boom, silt curtains, or other methods
for containing oil that may remain floating on the surface or to reduce
spreading on the bottom;
(3) Dredges, pumps, or other equipment necessary to recover oil
from the bottom and shoreline; and
(4) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a discharge
involving the type of oil carried.
(d) Response resources identified in a response plan under
paragraph (c) of this section must be capable of being deployed within
24 hours of discovery of a discharge to the port nearest the area where
the vessel is operating. An oil spill removal organization may not be
listed in the plan unless the oil spill removal organization has
provided written consent to be listed in the plan as an available
resource.
(e) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying group V petroleum
oil as a primary cargo shall identify in the response plan and ensure
the availability of the following resources through contract or other
approved means--
(1) A salvage company with appropriate expertise and equipment; and
(2) A company with vessel firefighting capability that will respond
to casualties in the area(s) in which the vessel is operating.
(f) Vessel owners or operators must identify intended sources of
the resources required under paragraph (e) of this section capable of
being deployed to the areas in which the vessel will operate. A company
may not be listed in the plan unless the company has provided written
consent to be listed in the plan as an available resource. To meet this
requirement in a response plan submitted for approval or reapproval on
or after February 18, 1998, the vessel owner or operator must identify
both the intended sources of this capability and demonstrate that the
resources are capable of being deployed to the port nearest to the area
where the vessel operates within 24 hours of discovery of a discharge.
(g) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying group V petroleum
oil as a primary cargo shall identify in the response plan and ensure
the availability of certain resources required by
Secs. 155.1035(c)(5)(ii) and 155.1040(c)(5)(i), as applicable, through
contract or other approved means.
(1) Resources must include--
(i) Fendering equipment;
(ii) Transfer hoses and connection equipment; and
(iii) Portable pumps and ancillary equipment necessary to offload
the vessel's largest cargo tank in 24 hours of continuous operation.
(2) Resources must be capable of reaching the locations in which
the vessel operates within the stated times following notification:
(i) Inland, nearshore, and Great Lakes waters--12 hours.
(ii) Offshore waters and rivers and canals--18 hours.
(iii) Open ocean waters--36 hours.
(3) For barges operating in rivers and canals as defined in this
subpart, the requirements of this paragraph (g)(3) may be met by
listing resources capable of being deployed in an area within the
response times in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. A vessel owner or
operator may not identify such resources in a plan unless the response
organization has provided written consent to be identified in a plan as
an available resource.
Sec. 155.1055 Training.
(a) A response plan submitted to meet the requirements of
Sec. 155.1035 must
[[Page 1095]]
identify the training to be provided to persons having responsibilities
under the plan, including members of the vessel crew, the qualified
individual, and the spill management team. A response plan submitted to
meet the requirements of Sec. 155.1040 must identify the training to be
provided to the spill management team, the qualified individual, and
other personnel in Sec. 155.1040 with specific responsibilities under
the plan including tankermen and members of the towing vessel crew. The
training program must differentiate between that training provided to
vessel personnel and that training provided to shore-based personnel.
Appendix C of this part provides additional guidance regarding
training.
(b) A vessel owner or operator shall ensure the maintenance of
records sufficient to document this training and make them available
for inspection upon request by the Coast Guard. Records must be
maintained for 3 years following completion of training. The response
plan must identify the location of training records, which must be--
(1) On board the vessel;
(2) With the qualified individual; or
(3) At a U.S. location of the spill management team.
(c) A vessel owner or operator may identify equivalent work
experience which fulfills specific training requirements.
(d) The vessel owner or operator shall ensure that any oil spill
removal organization identified in a response plan to meet the
requirements of this part maintains records sufficient to document
training for the organization's personnel. These records must be
available for inspection upon request by the Coast Guard. Records must
be maintained for 3 years following completion of training.
(e) Nothing in this section relieves the vessel owner or operator
from the responsibility to ensure that all private shore-based response
personnel are trained to meet the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards for emergency response operations in 29
CFR 1910.120.
(f) A training plan may be prepared in accordance with Training
Elements for Oil Spill Response to satisfy the requirements of this
section.
Sec. 155.1060 Exercises.
(a) A vessel owner or operator required by Secs. 155.1035 and
155.1040 to have a response plan shall conduct exercise as necessary to
ensure that the plan will function in an emergency. Both announced and
unannounced exercises must be included. The following are the minimum
exercise requirements for vessels covered by this subpart:
(1) Qualified individual notification exercises, which must be
conducted quarterly;
(2) Emergency procedures exercises, which must be conducted
quarterly;
(3) Shore-based spill management team tabletop exercises, which
must be conducted annually. In a triennial period, at least one of
these exercises must include a worst case discharge scenario;
(4) Oil spill removal organization equipment deployment exercises,
which must be conducted annually; and
(5) An exercise of the entire response plan, which must be
conducted every 3 years. The vessel owner or operator shall design the
exercise program so that all components of the response plan are
exercised at least once every 3 years. All of the components do not
have to be exercised at one time; they may be exercised over the 3-year
period through the required exercises or through an area exercise.
(b) Annually, at least one of the exercises listed in
Sec. 155.1060(a) (2) and (4) must be unannounced. An unannounced
exercise is one in which the personnel participating in the exercise
have not been advised in advance of the exact date, time, and scenario
of the exercise.
(c) A vessel owner or operator shall participate in unannounced
exercises, as directed by the Coast Guard COTP. The objectives of the
unannounced exercises will be to evaluate notifications and equipment
deployment for responses to average most probable discharge spill
scenarios outlined in vessel response plans. The unannounced exercises
will be limited to four per area per year, an area being that
geographic area for which a separate and distinct Area Contingency Plan
has been prepared, as described in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. After
participating in an unannounced exercise directed by a COTP, the owner
or operator will not be required to participate in another unannounced
exercise for at least 3 years from the date of the exercise.
(d) A vessel owner or operator shall participate in area exercises
as directed by the applicable on-scene coordinator. The area exercises
will involve equipment deployment to respond to the spill scenario
developed by the exercise design team, of which the vessel owner or
operator will be a member. After participating in an area exercise, a
vessel owner or operator will not be required to participate in another
area exercise for at least 6 years.
(e) The vessel owner or operator shall ensure that adequate
exercise records are maintained. The following records are required:
(1) On board the vessel, records of the qualified individual
notification exercises and the emergency procedures exercises. These
exercises may be documented in the ship's log or may be kept in a
separate exercise log.
(2) At the United States' location of either the qualified
individual, spill management team, the vessel owner or operator, or the
oil spill removal organization, records of exercises conducted off the
vessel. Response plans must indicate the location of these records.
(f) Records described in paragraph (e) of this section must be
maintained and available to the Coast Guard for 3 years following
completion of the exercises.
(g) The response plan submitted to meet the requirements of this
subpart must specify the planned exercise program. The plan shall
detail the exercise program, including the types of exercises,
frequencies, scopes, objectives, and the scheme for exercising the
entire response plan every 3 years.
(h) Compliance with the National Preparedness for Response Exercise
Program (PREP) Guidelines will satisfy the vessel response plan
exercise requirements. These guidelines are available from the United
States Government Printing Office, North Capitol and H Sts., NW.,
Washington, DC 20402.
Sec. 155.1062 Inspection and maintenance of response resources.
(a) The owner or operator of a vessel required to submit a response
plan under this part must ensure that--
(1) Containment booms, skimmers, vessels, and other major equipment
listed or referenced in the plan are periodically inspected and
maintained in good operating condition, in accordance with
manufacturer's recommendations and best commercial practices; and
(2) All inspections and maintenance are documented and that these
records are maintained for 3 years.
(b) For equipment which must be inspected and maintained under this
section the Coast Guard may--
(1) Verify that the equipment inventories exist as represented;
(2) Verify the existence of records required under this section;
(3) Verify that the records of inspection and maintenance reflect
the actual condition of any equipment listed or referenced; and
(4) Inspect and require operational tests of equipment.
(c) This section does not apply to containment booms, skimmers,
vessels,
[[Page 1096]]
and other major equipment listed or referenced in the plan and ensured
available through the written consent of an oil spill removal
organization, as described in the definition of ``contract or other
approved means'' at Sec. 155.1020.
Sec. 155.1065 Procedures for plan submission, approval, requests for
acceptance of alternative planning criteria, and appeal.
(a) An owner or operator of a vessel to which this subpart applies
shall submit one complete English language copy of a vessel response
plan to Commandant (G-MRO), Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001. The plan must be submitted at least 60 days
before the vessel intends to handle, store, transport, transfer, or
lighter oil in areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(b) The owner or operator shall include a statement certifying that
the plan meets the applicable requirements of subparts D, E, F, and G
of this part and shall include a statement indicating whether the
vessel(s) covered by the plan are manned vessels carrying oil as a
primary cargo, unmanned vessels carrying oil as a primary cargo, or
vessels carrying oil as a secondary cargo.
(c) If the Coast Guard determines that the plan meets all
requirements of this subpart, the Coast Guard will notify the vessel
owner or operator with an approval letter. The plan will be valid for a
period of up to 5 years from the date of approval.
(d) If the Coast Guard reviews the plan and determines that it does
not meet all of the requirements, the Coast Guard will notify the
vessel owner or operator of the response plan's deficiencies. The
vessel owner or operator must then resubmit the revised plan, or
corrected portions of the plan, within the time period specified in the
written notice provided by the Coast Guard.
(e) For those vessels temporarily authorized under Sec. 155.1025 to
operate without an approved plan pending formal Coast Guard approval,
the deficiency provisions of Sec. 155.1070(c), (d), and (e) will also
apply.
(f) When the owner or operator of a vessel believes that national
planning criteria contained elsewhere in this part are inappropriate to
the vessel for the areas in which it is intended to operate, the owner
or operator may request acceptance of alternative planning criteria by
the Coast Guard. Submission of a request must be made 90 days before
the vessel intends to operate under the proposed alternative and must
be forwarded to the COTP for the geographic area(s) affected.
(g) An owner or operator of a United States flag vessel may meet
the response plan requirements of Regulation 26 of MARPOL 73/78 and
subparts D, E, F, and G of this part by stating in writing, according
to the provisions of Sec. 155.1030(j), that the plan submitted is
intended to address the requirements of both Regulation 26 of MARPOL
73/78 and the requirements of subparts D, E, F, and G of this part.
(h) Within 21 days of notification that a plan is not approved, the
vessel owner or operator may appeal that determination to the Chief,
Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection. This
appeal must be submitted in writing to Commandant (G-M), Coast Guard,
2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
Sec. 155.1070 Procedures for plan review, revision, amendment, and
appeal.
(a) A vessel response plan must be reviewed annually by the owner
or operator.
(1) This review must occur within 1 month of the anniversary date
of Coast Guard approval of the plan.
(2) The owner or operator shall submit any plan amendments to the
Coast Guard for information or approval. Revisions to a plan must
include a cover page that provides a summary of the changes being made
and the pages being affected. Revised pages must further include the
number of the revision and date of that revision.
(3) Any required changes must be entered in the plan and noted on
the record of changes page. The completion of the annual review must
also be noted on the record of changes page.
(b) The owner or operator of a vessel covered by subparts D, E, F,
and G of this part shall resubmit the entire plan to the Coast Guard
for approval--
(1) Six months before the end of the Coast Guard approval period
identified in Sec. 155.1065(c); and
(2) Whenever there is a change in the owner or operator of the
vessel, if that owner or operator provided the certifying statement
required by Sec. 155.1065(b). If this change occurs, a new statement
certifying that the plan continues to meet the applicable requirements
of subparts D, E, F, and G of this part must be submitted.
(c) Revisions or amendments to an approved response plan must be
submitted for approval by the vessel's owner or operator whenever there
is--
(1) A change in the owner or operator of the vessel, if that owner
or operator is not the one who provided the certifying statement
required by Sec. 155.1065(b);
(2) A change in the vessel's operating area that includes ports or
geographic area(s) not covered by the previously approved plan. A
vessel may operate in an area not covered in a previously approved plan
upon receipt of written acknowledgment by the Coast Guard that a new
geographic-specific appendix has been submitted for approval by the
vessel's owner or operator and the certification required in
Sec. 155.1025(c) has been provided;
(3) A significant change in the vessel's configuration that affects
the information included in the response plan;
(4) A change in the type of oil cargo carried aboard (oil group)
that affects the required response resources, except as authorized by
the COTP for purposes of assisting in an oil spill response activity;
(5) A change in the identification of the oil spill removal
organization(s) or other response related resource required by
Secs. 155.1050, 155.1052, 155.1230, or 155.2230, as appropriate, except
an oil spill removal organization required by Sec. 155.1050(d) which
may be changed on a case by case basis for an oil spill removal
organization previously classified by the Coast Guard which has been
ensured available by contract or other approved means;
(6) A significant change in the vessel's emergency response
procedures;
(7) A change in the qualified individual;
(8) The addition of a vessel to the plan. This change must include
the vessel-specific appendix required by this subpart and the owner or
operator's certification required in Sec. 155.1025(c); or
(9) Any other significant changes that affect the implementation of
the plan.
(d) Thirty days in advance of operation, the owner or operator
shall submit any revision or amendments identified in paragraph (c) of
this section. The certification required in Sec. 155.1065(b) must be
submitted along with the revisions or amendments.
(e) The Coast Guard may require a vessel owner or operator to
revise a response plan at any time if it is determined that the
response plan does not meet the requirements of this subpart. The Coast
Guard will notify the vessel owner or operator in writing of any
deficiencies and any operating restrictions. Deficiencies must be
corrected and submitted for acceptance within the time period specified
in the written notice provided by the Coast Guard or the plan will be
declared invalid and any further storage, transfer, handling,
transporting or lightering of
[[Page 1097]]
oil in areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States will be
in violation of section 311(j)(5)(E) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(E)).
(f) A vessel owner or operator who disagrees with a deficiency
determination may submit a petition for reconsideration to Chief,
Office of Marine Safety and Environmental Protection, Commandant (G-M),
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001 within the time period required for compliance or within 7
days from the date of receipt of the Coast Guard notice of a deficiency
determination, whichever is less. After considering all relevant
material presented, the Coast Guard will notify the vessel owner or
operator of the final decision.
(1) Unless the vessel owner or operator petitions for
reconsideration of the Coast Guard's decision, the vessel's owner or
operator must correct the response plan deficiencies within the period
specified in the Coast Guard's initial determination.
(2) If the vessel owner or operator petitions the Coast Guard for
reconsideration, the effective date of the Coast Guard notice of
deficiency determination may be delayed pending a decision by the Coast
Guard. Petitions to the Coast Guard must be submitted in writing, via
the Coast Guard official who issued the requirement to amend the
response plan, within 5 days of receipt of the notice.
(g) Except as required in paragraph (c) of this section, amendments
to personnel and telephone number lists included in the response plan
do not require prior Coast Guard approval.
(h) The Coast Guard and all other holders of the response plan
shall be advised of any revisions to personnel and telephone numbers
and provided a copy of these revisions as they occur.
3. Subpart E, consisting of Secs. 155.1110 through 155.1150, is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart E--Additional Response Plan Requirements for Tankers Loading
Cargo at a Facility Permitted Under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act
Sec.
155.1110 Purpose and applicability
155.1115 Definitions
155.1120 Operating restrictions and interim operating
authorization.
155.1125 Additional response plan requirements.
155.1130 Requirements for pre-positioned response equipment.
155.1135 Response plan development and evaluation criteria.
155.1145 Submission and approval procedures.
155.1150 Plan revision and amendment procedures.
Subpart E--Additional Response Plan Requirements for Tankers
Loading Cargo at a Facility Permitted Under the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Authorization Act
Sec. 155.1110 Purpose and applicability.
(a) This subpart establishes oil spill response planning
requirements for an owner or operator of a tanker loading cargo at a
facility permitted under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act
(TAPAA) (43 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in
addition to the requirements of subpart D of this part. The
requirements of this subpart are intended for use in developing
response plans and identifying response resources during the planning
process, they are not performance standards.
(b) The information required in this subpart must be included in a
Prince William Sound geographic-specific appendix to the vessel
response plan required by subpart D of this part.
Sec. 155.1115 Definitions.
Except as provided in this section, the definitions in
Sec. 155.1020 apply to this subpart.
Prince William Sound means all State and Federal waters within
Prince William Sound, Alaska, including the approach to Hinchinbrook
Entrance out to and encompassing Seal Rock.
Sec. 155.1120 Operating restrictions and interim operating
authorization.
The owner or operator of a tanker to which this subpart applies may
not load cargo at a facility permitted under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act unless the requirements of this subpart and
Sec. 155.1025 have been met. The owner or operator of such a tanker
shall certify to the Coast Guard that they have provided, through an
oil spill removal organization required by Sec. 155.1125, the necessary
response resources to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a
worst case discharge or a discharge of 200,000 barrels of oil,
whichever is greater, in Prince William Sound, AK.
Sec. 155.1125 Additional response plan requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of a tanker subject to this subpart shall
include the requirements of this section in the Prince William Sound
geographic-specific appendix required by subpart D of this part.
(1) The response plan must include identification of an oil spill
removal organization that shall--
(i) Perform response activities;
(ii) Provide oil spill removal and containment training, including
training in the operation of prepositioned equipment, for personnel,
including local residents and fishermen, from the following locations
in Prince William Sound--
(A) Valdez;
(B) Tatitlek;
(C) Cordova;
(D) Whittier;
(E) Chenega; and
(F) Fish hatcheries located at Port San Juan, Main Bay, Esther
Island, Cannery Creek, and Solomon Gulch.
(iii) Consist of sufficient numbers of trained personnel with the
necessary technical skills to remove, to the maximum extent
practicable, a worst case discharge or a discharge of 200,000 barrels
of oil, whichever is greater;
(iv) Provide a plan for training sufficient numbers of additional
personnel to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case
discharge or a discharge of 200,000 barrels of oil, whichever is
greater; and
(v) Address the responsibilities required in Sec. 155.1035(d)(4).
(2) The response plan must include exercise procedures that must--
(i) Provide two exercises of the oil spill removal organization
each year to ensure prepositioned equipment and trained personnel
required under this subpart perform effectively;
(ii) Provide for both announced and unannounced exercises; and
(iii) Provide for exercises that test either the entire appendix or
individual components.
(3) The response plan must identify a testing, inspection, and
certification program for the prepositioned response equipment required
in Sec. 155.1130 that must provide for--
(i) Annual testing and equipment inspection in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommended procedures, to include--
(A) Start-up and running under load of all electrical motors,
pumps, power packs, air compressors, internal combustion engines, and
oil recovery devices; and
(B) Removal of no less than one-third of required boom from storage
annually, such that all boom will have been removed and examined within
a period of 3 years;
(ii) Records of equipment tests and inspection; and
(iii) Use of an independent entity to certify that the equipment is
on-site and in good operating condition and that required tests and
inspections have been performed. The independent entity must have
appropriate training and expertise to provide this certification.
(4) The response plan must identify and give the location of the
prepositioned response equipment required in Sec. 155.1130 including
the
[[Page 1098]]
make, model, and effective daily recovery rate of each oil recovery
resource.
(b) The owner or operator shall submit to the COTP for approval, no
later than September 30th of each calendar year, a schedule for the
training and exercises required by the geographic-specific appendix for
Prince William Sound for the following calendar year.
(c) All records required by this section must be available for
inspection by the Coast Guard and must be maintained for a period of 3
years.
Sec. 155.1130 Requirements for prepositioned response equipment.
The owner or operator of a tanker subject to this subpart shall
provide the following prepositioned response equipment, located within
Prince William Sound, in addition to that required by Sec. 155.1035:
(a) On-water recovery equipment with a minimum effective daily
recovery capacity of 30,000 barrels, capable of being on scene within 6
hours of notification of a discharge.
(b) On-water storage capacity of 100,000 barrels, capable of being
on scene within 6 hours of notification of a discharge.
(c) Additional on-water recovery equipment with a minimum effective
daily recovery capacity of 40,000 barrels capable of being on scene
within 18 hours of notification of a discharge.
(d) On-water storage capacity of 300,000 barrels for recovered oily
material, capable of being on scene within 24 hours of notification of
a discharge.
(e) On-water oil recovery devices and storage equipment located in
communities and at strategic locations.
(f) For sufficient protection of the environment in the locations
identified in Sec. 155.1125(a)(1)(ii)--
(1) Boom appropriate for the specific locations;
(2) Sufficient boats to deploy boom and sorbents;
(3) Sorbents including booms, sweeps, pads, blankets, drums and
plastic bags;
(4) Personnel protective clothing and equipment;
(5) Survival equipment;
(6) First aid supplies;
(7) Buckets, shovels, and various other tools;
(8) Decontamination equipment;
(9) Shoreline cleanup equipment;
(10) Mooring equipment;
(11) Anchored buoys at appropriate locations to facilitate the
positioning of defensive boom; and
(12) Other appropriate removal equipment for the protection of the
environment as identified by the COTP.
(g) For each oil-laden tanker, an escorting response vessel which
is fitted with skimming and on board storage capabilities practicable
for the initial oil recovery planned for a cleanup operation, as
identified by the oil spill removal organization.
(h) Lightering resources required in Sec. 155.1050(l) capable of
arriving on scene within 6 hours of notification of a discharge.
Sec. 155.1135 Response plan development and evaluation criteria.
For tankers subject to this subpart, the following response times
must be used in determining the on-scene arrival time in Prince William
Sound, for the response resources required by Sec. 155.1050:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prince William Sound.......... 12 hrs...... 24 hrs...... 36 hrs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 155.1145 Submission and approval procedures.
An appendix prepared under this subpart must be submitted and
approved in accordance with Sec. 155.1065.
Sec. 155.1150 Plan revision and amendment procedures.
An appendix prepared and submitted under this subpart must be
revised and amended, as necessary, in accordance with Sec. 155.1070.
4. Subpart F, consisting of Secs. 155.1210 through 155.1230, is
added to read as follows:
Subpart F--Response plan requirements for vessels carrying animal fats
and vegetable oils as a primary cargo
Sec.
155.1210 Purpose and applicability.
155.1225 Response plan submission requirements.
155.1230 Response plan development and evaluation criteria.
Subpart F--Response plan requirements for vessels carrying animal
fats and vegetable oils as a primary cargo
Sec. 155.1210 Purpose and applicability.
This subpart establishes oil spill response planning requirements
for an owner or operator of a vessel carrying animal fats and vegetable
oils as a primary cargo. The requirements of this subpart are intended
for use in developing response plans and identifying response resources
during the planning process. They are not performance standards.
Sec. 155.1225 Response plan submission requirements.
An owner or operator of a vessel carrying animal fats and vegetable
oils as a primary cargo shall submit a response plan in accordance with
the requirements of this subpart, and with all sections of subpart D of
this part, except Secs. 155.1050 and 155.1052.
Sec. 155.1230 Response plan development and evaluation criteria.
(a) Owners and operators of vessels that carry animal fats or
vegetable oils as a primary cargo must provide information in their
plan that identifies--
(1) Procedures and strategies for responding to a worst case
discharge of animal fats or vegetable oils to the maximum extent
practicable; and
(2) Sources of the equipment and supplies necessary to contain,
recover, and mitigate such a discharge.
(b) An owner or operator of a vessel carrying animal fats or
vegetable oils as a primary cargo must ensure that any equipment
identified in a response plan is capable of operating in the conditions
expected in the geographic area(s) in which the vessel operates using
the criteria in Table 1 of Appendix B of this part. When evaluating the
operability of equipment, the vessel owner or operator must consider
limitations that are identified in the Area Contingency Plans for the
COTP zones in which the vessel operates, including--
(1) Ice conditions;
(2) Debris;
(3) Temperature ranges; and
(4) Weather-related visibility.
(c) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying animal fats or
vegetable oils as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan
and ensure, through contract or other approved means, the availability
of required equipment including--
(1) Containment boom, sorbent boom, or other methods for containing
oil floating on the surface or to protect shorelines from impact;
(2) Oil recovery devices appropriate for the type of animal fats or
vegetable oils carried; and
(3) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a discharge
involving the type of animal fats or vegetable oils carried.
(d) Response resources identified in a response plan under
paragraph (c) of this section must be capable of arriving on-scene
within the applicable Tier 1 response times specified in this
paragraph. An oil spill removal organization may not be listed in the
plan unless the organization has provided written consent to be listed
in the plan as an available resource.
[[Page 1099]]
Response times from the time of discovery of a discharge are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port area....... 12 hrs...... N/A......... N/A
Great Lakes................... 18 hrs...... N/A......... N/A
All other rivers and canals, 24 hrs...... N/A......... N/A
inland, nearshore, and
offshore areaas.
Open ocean (plus travel time 24 hrs+..... N/A......... N/A
from shore).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying animal fats or
vegetable oils as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan
and ensure the availability of the following resources through contract
or other approved means:
(1) A salvage company with appropriate expertise and equipment.
(2) A company with vessel firefighting capability that will respond
to casualties in the area(s) in which the vessel is operating.
(f) Vessel owners or operators must identify intended sources of
the resources required under paragraph (e) of this section capable of
being deployed to the areas in which the vessel will operate. A company
may not be listed in the plan unless the company has provided written
consent to be listed in the plan as an available resource. To meet this
requirement in a response plan submitted for approval or reapproval on
or after February 18, 1998, the vessel owner or operator must identify
both the intended sources of this capability and demonstrate that the
resources are capable of being deployed to the port nearest to the area
where the vessel operates within 24 hours of discovery of a discharge.
(g) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying animal fats or
vegetable oils as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan,
and ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved
means, certain resources required by subpart D, Sec. 155.1035(c)(5)(ii)
and Sec. 155.1040(c)(5)(i), as applicable.
(1) Resources must include--
(i) Fendering equipment;
(ii) Transfer hoses and connection equipment; and
(iii) Portable pumps and ancillary equipment necessary to offload
the vessel's largest cargo tank in 24 hours of continuous operation.
(2) Resources must be capable of reaching the locations in which
the vessel operates within the stated times following notification:
(i) Inland, nearshore, and Great Lakes waters--12 hours.
(ii) Offshore waters and rivers and canals--18 hours.
(iii) Open ocean waters--36 hours.
(3) For barges operating in rivers and canals as defined in this
subpart, the requirements of this paragraph (g)(3) may be met by
listing resources capable of being deployed in an area within the
response times in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. A vessel owner or
operator may not identify such resources in a plan unless the response
organization has provided written consent to be identified in a plan as
an available resource.
(h) The response plan for a vessel that is located in any
environment with year-round preapproval for use of dispersants suitable
for animal fats and vegetable oils and that handles, stores, or
transports animal fats or vegetable oils may request a credit for up to
25 percent of the worst case planning volume set forth by subpart D of
this part. To receive this credit, the vessel owner or operator must
identify in the plan and ensure, by contract or other approved means,
the availability of specified resources to apply the dispersants and to
monitor their effectiveness. To extent of the credit will be based on
the volumes of the dispersant available to sustain operations at the
manufacturers' recommended dosage rates. Other spill mitigation
techniques, including mechanical dispersal, may be identified in the
response plan, provided they are in accordance with the NCP and the
applicable ACP. Resources identified for plan credit should be capable
of being on scene within 12 hours of a discovery of a discharge.
Identification of these resources does not imply that they will be
authorized for use. Actual authorization for use during the spill
response will be governed by the provisions of the NCP and the
applicable ACP.
5. Subpart G, consisting of Secs. 155.2210 through 155.2230, is
added to read as follows:
Subpart G--Response Plan Requirements for Vessels Carrying Other Non-
Petroleum Oils as a Primary Cargo
Sec.
155.2210 Purpose and applicability.
155.2225 Response plan submission requirements.
155.2230 Response plan development and evaluation criteria.
Subpart G--Response Plan Requirements for Vessels Carrying Other
Non-Petroleum Oils as a Primary Cargo
Sec. 155.2210 Purpose and applicability.
This subpart establishes oil spill response planning requirements
for an owner or operator of a vessel carrying other non-petroleum oils
as a primary cargo. The requirements of this subpart are intended for
use in developing response plans and identifying response resources
during the planning process. They are not performance standards.
Sec. 155.2225 Response plan submission requirements.
An owner or operator of a vessel carrying other non-petroleum oils
as a primary cargo shall submit a response plan in accordance with the
requirements of this subpart, and with all sections of subpart D of
this part, except Secs. 155.1050 and 155.1052.
Sec. 155.2230 Response plan development and evaluation criteria.
(a) Owners and operators of vessels that carry other non-petroleum
oil as a primary cargo must provide information in their plan that
identifies--
(1) Procedures and strategies for responding to a worst case
discharge of other non-petroleum oils to the maximum extent
practicable; and
(2) Sources of the equipment and supplies necessary to contain,
recover, and mitigate such a discharge.
(b) An owner or operator of a vessel carrying other non-petroleum
oil as a primary cargo must ensure that any equipment identified in a
response plan is capable of operating in the conditions expected in the
geographic area(s) in which the vessel operates using the criteria in
Table 1 of Appendix B of this part. When evaluating the operability of
equipment, the vessel owner or operator must consider limitations that
are identified in the Area Contingency Plans for the COTP zones in
which the vessel operates, including--
(1) Ice conditions;
(2) Debris;
(3) Temperature ranges; and
(4) Weather-related visibility.
(c) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying other non-petroleum
oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan and ensure,
through contract or other approved means, the availability of required
equipment including--
(1) Containment boom, sorbent boom, or other methods for containing
oil floating on the surface or to protect shorelines from impact;
(2) Oil recovery devices appropriate for the type of other non-
petroleum oil carried; and
[[Page 1100]]
(3) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a discharge
involving the type of other non-petroleum oil carried.
(d) Response resources identified in a response plan under
paragraph (c) of this section must be capable of arriving on-scene
within the applicable Tier 1 response times specified in this
paragraph. An oil spill removal organization may not be listed in the
plan unless the organization has provided written consent to be listed
in the plan as an available resource. Response times from the time of
discovery of a discharge are as follow:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port area....... 12 hrs...... N/A......... N/A
Great Lakes................... 18 hrs...... N/A......... N/A
All other rivers and canals, 24 hrs...... N/A......... N/A
inland, nearshore, and
offshore areas.
Open ocean (plus travel time 24 hrs+..... N/A......... N/A
from shore).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying other non-petroleum
oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan and ensure
the availability of the following resources through contract or other
approved means:
(1) A salvage company with appropriate expertise and equipment.
(2) A company with vessel firefighting capability that will respond
to casualties in the area(s) in which the vessel is operating.
(f) Vessel owners or operators must identify intended sources of
the resources required under paragraph (e) of this section capable of
being deployed to the areas in which the vessel will operate. A company
may not be listed in the plan unless the company has provided written
consent to be listed in the plan as an available resource. To meet this
requirement in a response plan submitted for approval or reapproval on
or after February 18, 1998, the vessel owner or operator must identify
both the intended sources of this capability and demonstrate that the
resources are capable of being deployed to the port nearest to the area
where the vessel operates within 24 hours of discovery of a discharge.
(g) The owner or operator of a vessel carrying other non-petroleum
oil as a primary cargo must identify in the response plan, and ensure
the availability of, through contract or other approved means, certain
resources required by subpart D of this part, Sec. 155.1035(c)(5)(ii)
and Sec. 155.1040(c)(5)(i) of this part, as applicable.
(1) Resources must include--
(i) Fendering equipment;
(ii) Transfer hoses and connection equipment; and
(iii) Portable pumps and ancillary equipment necessary to offload
the vessel's largest cargo tank in 24 hours of continuous operation.
(2) Resources must be capable of reaching the locations in which
the vessel operates within the stated times following notification:
(i) Inland, nearshore, and Great Lakes waters--12 hours.
(ii) Offshore waters and rivers and canals--18 hours.
(iii) Open ocean waters--36 hours.
(3) For barges operating in rivers and canals as defined in this
subpart, the requirements of this paragraph (g)(3) may be met by
listing resources capable of being deployed in an area within the
response times in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. A vessel owner or
operator may not identify such resources in a plan unless the response
organization has provided written consent to be identified in a plan as
an available resource.
(h) The response plan for a vessel that is located in any
environment with year-round preapproval for use of dispersants and that
handles, stores, or transports other non-petroleum oils may request a
credit for up to 25 percent of the worst case planning volume set forth
by subpart D of this part. To receive this credit, the vessel owner or
operator must identify in the plan and ensure, by contract or other
approved means, the availability of specified resources to apply the
dispersants and to monitor their effectiveness. The extent of the
credit will be based on the volumes of the dispersant available to
sustain operations at the manufacturers' recommended dosage rates.
Identification of these resources does not imply that they will be
authorized for use. Actual authorization for use during a spill
response will be governed by the provisions of the NCP and the
applicable ACP.
6. Appendix B is revised to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 155--Determining and Evaluating Required Response
Resources for Vessel Response Plans
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this appendix is to describe the procedures
for identifying response resources to meet the requirements of
subparts D, E, F, and G of this part. These guidelines will be used
by the vessel owner or operator in preparing the response plan and
by the Coast Guard to review vessel response plans. Response plans
submitted under subparts F and G of this part will be evaluated
under the guidelines in section 2 and Table 1 of this appendix.
2. Equipment Operability and Readiness
2.1 All equipment identified in a response plan must be capable
of operating in the conditions expected in the geographic area in
which a vessel operates. These conditions vary widely based on the
location and season. Therefore, it is difficult to identify a single
stockpile of response equipment that will function effectively in
every geographic location.
2.2 Vessels storing, handling, or transporting oil in more than
one operating environment as indicated in Table 1 must identify
equipment capable of successfully functioning in each operating
environment. For example, vessels moving from the ocean to a river
port must identify appropriate equipment designed to meet the
criteria for transiting oceans, inland waterways, rivers, and
canals. This equipment may be designed to operate in all of these
environments or, more likely, different equipment may be designed
for use in each area.
2.3 When identifying equipment for response plan credit, a
vessel owner or operator must consider the inherent limitations in
the operability of equipment components and response systems. The
criteria in Table 1 of this appendix must be used for evaluating the
operability in a given environment. These criteria reflect the
general conditions in certain operating areas.
2.4 Table 1 of this appendix lists criteria for oil recovery
devices and boom. All other equipment necessary to sustain or
support response operations in a geographic area must be designed to
function in the same conditions. For example, boats which deploy or
support skimmers or boom must be capable of being safely operated in
the significant wave heights listed for the applicable operating
environment. The Coast Guard may require documentation that the boom
identified in a response plan meets the criteria in Table 1 of this
appendix. Absent acceptable documentation, the Coast Guard may
require that the boom be tested to demonstrate that it meets the
criteria in Table 1 of this appendix. Testing must be in accordance
with certain American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards
[ASTM F 715-81 (Reapproved 1986), Standard Methods of Testing Spill
Control Barrier Membrane Materials, and ASTM F 989-86, Standard Test
Methods for Spill Control Barrier Tension Members], or other tests
approved by the Coast Guard.
2.5 A vessel owner or operator must refer to the applicable
Area Contingency Plan to determine if ice, debris, and weather-
related visibility are significant factors in evaluating the
operability of equipment. The Area Contingency Plan will also
identify the average temperature ranges expected in a geographic
area in which a vessel operates. All equipment identified in a
response plan must be designed to operate within those conditions or
ranges.
2.6 The requirements of subparts D, E, F, and G of this part
establish response resource
[[Page 1101]]
mobilization and response times. The location that the vessel operates
farthest from the storage location of the response resources must be
used to determine whether the resources are capable of arriving on
scene within the time required. A vessel owner or operator shall
include the time for notification, mobilization, and travel time of
resources identified to meet the maximum most probable discharge and
Tier 1 worst case discharge requirements. For subparts D and E of
this part, tier 2 and 3 resources must be notified and mobilized as
necessary to meet the requirements for arrival on scene. An on-water
speed of 5 knots and a land speed of 35 miles per hour is assumed,
unless the vessel owner or operator can demonstrate otherwise.
2.7 For subparts D and E of this part, in identifying
equipment, the vessel owner or operator shall list the storage
location, quantity, and manufacturer's make and model, unless the
oil spill removal organization(s) providing the necessary response
resources have been evaluated by the Coast Guard, and their
capability has been determined to equal or exceed the response
capability needed by the vessel. For oil recovery devices, the
effective daily recovery capacity, as determined using section 6 of
this appendix, must be included. For boom, the overall boom height
(draft plus freeboard) must be included. A vessel owner or operator
is responsible for ensuring that identified boom has compatible
connectors.
2.8 For subparts F and G of this part, in identifying
equipment, the vessel owner or operator shall list the storage
location, quantity, and manufacturer's make and model, unless the
oil spill removal organization(s) providing the necessary response
resources have been evaluated by the Coast Guard, and their
capability has been determined to equal or exceed the response
capability needed by the vessel. For boom, the overall boom height
(draft plus freeboard) must be included. A vessel owner of operator
is responsible for ensuring that identified boom has compatible
connectors.
3. Determining Response Resources Required for the Average Most
Probable Discharge
3.1 A vessel owner or operator shall identify and ensure, by
contract or other approved means, that sufficient response resources
are available to respond to the 50-barrel average most probable
discharge at the point of an oil transfer involving a vessel that
carries oil as a primary cargo. The equipment must be designed to
function in the operating environment at the point of oil transfer.
These resources must include--
3.1.1 Containment boom in a quantity equal to twice the length
of the largest vessel involved in the transfer capable of being
deployed within 1 hour of the detection of a spill at the site of
oil transfer operations. If the transfer operation is more than 12
miles from shore, the containment boom must be deployed within 1
hour plus the travel time from the nearest shoreline at a speed of 5
knots.
3.1.2 Oil recovery devices with an effective daily recovery
capacity of 50 barrels or greater available at the transfer site
within 2 hours of the detection of an oil discharge.
3.1.3 Oil storage capacity for recovered oily material
indicated in section 9.2 of this appendix.
4. Determining Response Resources Required for the Maximum Most
Probable Discharge
4.1 A vessel owner or operator shall identify and ensure, by
contract or other approved means, that sufficient response resources
are available to respond to discharges up to the maximum most
probable discharge volume for that vessel. The resources should be
capable of containing and collecting up to 2,500 barrels of oil. All
equipment identified must be designed to operate in the applicable
operating environment specified in table 1 of this appendix.
4.2 To determine the maximum most probable discharge volume to
be used for planning, use the lesser of--
4.2.1 2500 barrels; or
4.2.2 10 percent of the total oil cargo capacity.
4.3 Oil recovery devices necessary to meet the applicable
maximum most probable discharge volume planning criteria must be
located such that they arrive on scene within 12 hours of the
discovery of a discharge in higher volume port areas and the Great
Lakes, 24 hours in all other rivers and canals, inland, nearshore,
and offshore areas, and 24 hours plus travel time from shore in all
open ocean areas.
4.3.1 Because rapid control, containment, and removal of oil is
critical to reduce spill impact, the effective daily recovery
capacity for oil recovery devices must equal 50% of the planning
volume applicable for the vessel as determined in section 4.2 of
this appendix. The effective daily recovery capacity for oil
recovery devices identified in the plan must be determined using the
criteria in section 6 of this appendix.
4.4 In addition to oil recovery capacity, the vessel owner or
operator must identify in the response plan and ensure the
availability of, through contract or other approved means,
sufficient boom available within the required response times for oil
connection and containment, and for protection of shoreline areas.
While the regulation does not set required quantities of boom for
oil collection and containment, the owner or operator of a vessel
must still identify in a response plan and ensure, through contract
or other approved means, the availability of the boom identified in
the plan for this purpose.
4.5 The plan must indicate the availability of temporary
storage capacity to meet the requirements of section 9.2 of this
appendix. If available storage capacity is insufficient to meet this
requirement, the effective daily recovery capacity must be
downgraded to the limits of the available storage capacity.
4.6 The following is an example of a maximum most probable
discharge volume planning calculation for equipment identification
in a higher volume port area:
The vessel's cargo capacity is 10,000 barrels, thus the planning
volume is 10 percent or 1,000 barrels. The effective daily recovery
capacity must be 50 percent of the planning volume, for 500 barrels
per day. The ability of oil recovery devices to meet this capacity
will be calculated using the procedures in section 6 of this
appendix. Temporary storage capacity available on scene must equal
twice the daily recovery capacity as indicated in section 9 of this
appendix, or 1000 barrels per day. This figure would represent the
information the vessel owner or operator would use to identify and
ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved
means, the required response resources. The vessel owner would also
need to identify how much boom was available for use.
5. Determining Response Resources Required for the Worst Case
Discharge to the Maximum Extent Practicable
5.1 A vessel owner or operator shall identify and ensure, by
contract or other approved means, that sufficient response resources
are available to respond to the worst case discharge of oil cargo to
the maximum extent practicable. Section 7 of this appendix describes
the method to determine the required response resources.
5.2 Oil spill recovery devices identified to meet the
applicable worst case discharge planning volume must be located such
that they can arrive at the scene of a discharge within the time
specified for the applicable response tier listed in
Sec. 155.1050(g).
5.3 The effective daily recovery capacity for oil recovery
devices identified in a response plan must be determined using the
criteria in section 6 of this appendix. A vessel owner or operator
shall identify the storage locations of all equipment that must be
used to fulfill the requirements for each tier.
5.4 A vessel owner or operator shall identify the availability
of temporary storage capacity to meet the requirements of section
9.2 of this appendix. If available storage capacity is insufficient
to meet this requirement, then the effective daily recovery capacity
must be downgraded to the limits of the available storage capacity.
5.5 When selecting response resources necessary to meet the
response plan requirements, the vessel owner or operator must ensure
that a portion of those resources are capable of being used in
close-to-shore response activities in shallow water. The following
percentages of the on-water response equipment identified for the
applicable geographic area must be capable of operating in waters of
6 feet or less depth:
(i) Open ocean--none.
(ii) Offshore--10 percent.
(iii) Nearshore, inland, Great Lakes, and rivers and canals--20
percent.
5.6 In addition to oil spill recovery devices and temporary
storage capacity, a vessel owner or operator shall identify in the
response plan and ensure the availability of, through contract or
other approved means, sufficient boom that can arrive on scene
within the required response times for oil containment and
collection. The specific quantity of boom required for collection
and containment will depend on the specific recovery equipment and
strategies employed. Table 2 of this appendix lists the minimum
quantities of additional boom required for shoreline protection that
a vessel owner or operator shall identify in the response plan and
ensure the availability of, through contract or other approved
means.
[[Page 1102]]
5.7 A vessel owner or operator shall also identify in the
response plan and ensure, by contract or other approved means, the
availability of an oil spill removal organization capable of
responding to a shoreline cleanup operation involving the calculated
volume of emulsified oil that might impact the affected shoreline.
The volume of oil for which a vessel owner or operator should plan
should be calculated through the application of factors contained in
Tables 3 and 4 of this appendix. The volume calculated from these
tables is intended to assist the vessel owner or operator in
identifying a contractor with sufficient resources. This planning
volume is not used explicitly to determine a required amount of
equipment and personnel.
6. Determining Effective Daily Recovery Capacity for Oil Recovery
Devices
6.1 Oil recovery devices identified by a vessel owner or
operator must be identified by manufacturer, model, and effective
daily recovery capacity. These capacities must be to meet the
applicable planning criteria for the average most probable
discharge; maximum most probable discharge; and worst case discharge
to the maximum extent practicable.
6.2 For the purposes of determining the effective daily
recovery capacity of oil recovery devices, the following method will
be used. This method considers potential limitations due to
available daylight, weather, sea state, and percentage of emulsified
oil in the recovered material. The Coast Guard may assign a lower
efficiency factor to equipment listed in a response plan if it
determines that such a reduction is warranted.
6.2.1 The following formula must be used to calculate the
effective daily recovery capacity:
R=T x 24 x E
R--Effective daily recovery capacity
T--Throughput rate in barrels per hour (nameplate capacity)
E--20% efficiency factor (or lower factor as determined by the Coast
Guard)
6.2.2 For those devices in which the pump limits the throughput
of liquid, throughput rate will be calculated using the pump
capacity.
6.2.3 For belt or mop type devices, the throughput rate will be
calculated using data provided by the manufacturer on the nameplate
rated capacity for the device.
6.2.4 Vessel owners or operators including in the response plan
oil recovery devices whose throughput is not measurable using a pump
capacity or belt or mop capacity may provide information to support
an alternative method of calculation. This information must be
submitted following the procedures in section 6.5 of this appendix.
6.3 As an alternative to section 6.2 of this appendix, a vessel
owner or operator may submit adequate evidence that a different
effective daily recovery capacity should be applied for a specific
oil recovery device. Adequate evidence is actual verified
performance data in spill conditions or test using certain ASTM
standards [ASTM F 631-80, Reapproved 1985) Standard Method for
Testing Full Scale Advancing Spill Removal Devices, and ASTM F 808-
83 (1988), Standard Guide for Collecting Skimmer Performance Data in
Uncontrolled Environments], or an equivalent test approved by the
Coast Guard.
6.3.1 The following formula must be used to calculate the
effective daily recovery capacity under this alternative:
R=D x U
R--Effective daily recovery capacity
D--Average Oil Recovery Rate in barrels per hour (Item 26 in ASTM F
808; Item 13.1.15 in ASTM F 631; or actual performance data)
U--Hours per day that a vessel owner or operator can document
capability to operate equipment under spill conditions. Ten hours
per day must be used unless a vessel owner or operator can
demonstrate that the recovery operation can be sustained for longer
periods.
6.4 A vessel owner or operator submitting a response plan shall
provide data that supports the effective daily recovery capacities
for the oil recovery devices listed. The following is an example of
these calculations:
A weir skimmer identified in a response plan has a
manufacturer's rated throughput at the pump of 267 gallons per
minute (gpm).
267 gpm=381 barrels per hour
R=381 x 24 x .2=1,829 barrels per day
After testing using ASTM procedures, the skimmer's oil recovery
rate is determined to be 220 gpm. The vessel owner or operator
identifies sufficient resources available to support operations 12
hours per day.
220 gpm=314 barrels per hour
R=314 x 12=3,768 barrels per day
A vessel owner or operator will be able to use the higher
capacity if sufficient temporary oil storage capacity is available.
6.5 Determinations of alternative efficiency factors under
section 6.2 or alternative effective daily recovery capacities under
section 6.3 of this appendix will be made by Commandant (G-MRO),
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC
20593. Oil spill removal organizations or equipment manufacturers
may submit required information on behalf of multiple vessel owners
or operators.
7. Calculating the Worst Case Discharge Planning Volumes
7.1 A vessel owner or operator shall plan for a response to a
vessel's worst case discharge volume of oil cargo. The planning for
on-water recovery must take into account a loss of some oil to the
environment due to evaporations and natural dissipation, potential
increases in volume due to emulsification, and the potential for
deposit of some oil on the shoreline.
7.2 The following procedures must be used to calculate the
planning volume used by a vessel owner or operator for determining
required on-water recovery capacity:
7.2.1 The following must be determined: the total volume of oil
cargo carried; the appropriate cargo group for the type of petroleum
oil carried [persistent (groups II, III, and IV) or non-persistent
(group I)]; and the geographic area(s) in which the vessel operates.
For vessels carrying mixed cargoes from different petroleum oil
groups, each group must be calculated separately. This information
is to be used with Table 3 of this appendix to determine the
percentages of the total cargo volume to be used for removal
capacity planning. This table divides the cargo volume into three
categories: oil lost to the environment; oil deposited on the
shoreline; and oil available for on-water recovery.
7.2.2 The on-water oil recovery volume must be adjusted using
the appropriate emulsification factor found in Table 4 of this
appendix.
7.2.3 The adjusted volume is multiplied by the on-water oil
recovery resource mobilization factor found in Table 5 of this
appendix from the appropriate operating area and response tier to
determine the total on-water oil recovery capacity in barrels per
day that must be identified or contracted for to arrive on scene
within the applicable time for each response tier. Three tiers are
specified. For higher volume port areas, the contracted tiers of
resources must be located such that they can arrive on scene within
12, 36, and 60 hours of the discovery of an oil discharge. For the
Great Lakes, these tiers are 18, 42, and 66 hours. For rivers and
canals, inland, nearshore, and offshore, these tiers are 24, 48, and
72 hours. For the open ocean area, these tiers are 24, 48, and 72
hours with an additional travel time allowance of 1 hour for every
additional 5 nautical miles from shore.
7.2.4 The resulting on-water recovery capacity in barrels per
day for each tier is used to identify response resources necessary
to sustain operations in the applicable geographic area. The
equipment must be capable of sustaining operations for the time
period specified in Table 3 of this appendix. A vessel owner or
operator shall identify and ensure the availability of, through
contract or other approved means, sufficient oil spill recovery
devices to provide the effective daily oil recovery capacity
required. If the required capacity exceeds the applicable cap
described in Table 6 of this appendix, then a vessel owner or
operator must contract only for the quantity of resources required
to meet the cap, but shall identify sources of additional resources
as indicated in Sec. 155.1050(o). The owner or operator of a vessel
whose planning volume exceeded the cap in 1993 should plan for
additional capacity to be under contract by 1998 or 2003, as
appropriate. For a vessel that carries multiple groups of oil, the
required effective daily recovery capacity for each group is
calculated and summed before applying the cap.
7.3 The following procedures must be used to calculate the
planning volume for identifying shoreline cleanup capacity:
7.3.1 The following must be determined: the total volume of oil
cargo carried; the appropriate cargo group for the type of petroleum
oil carried [persistent (groups II, III, and IV) or non-persistent
(group I)]; and the geographic area(s) in which the vessel operates.
For a vessel carrying cargoes from different oil groups, each group
must be calculated separately. Using this information, Table 3 of
this appendix must be used to determine the percentages of the total
cargo volume to be used for shoreline cleanup resource planning.
[[Page 1103]]
7.3.2 The shoreline cleanup planning volume must be adjusted to
reflect an emulsification factor using the same procedure as
described in section 7.2.2 of this appendix.
7.3.3 The resulting volume will be used to identify an oil
spill removal organization with the appropriate shoreline cleanup
capability.
7.4 The following is an example of the procedure described
above:
A vessel with a 100,000 barrel capacity for #6 oil (specific
gravity .96) will move from a higher volume port area to another
area. The vessel's route will be 70 miles from shore.
Cargo carried: 100,000 bbls. Group IV oil Emulsification factor
(from Table 4 of this appendix): 1.4 Areas transited: Inland,
Nearshore, Offshore, Open ocean
Planned % on-water recovery (from Table 3 of this appendix):
Inland 50%
Nearshore 50%
Offshore 40%
Open ocean 20%
Planned % oil onshore recovery (from Table 3 of this appendix):
Inland 70%
Nearshore 70%
Offshore 30%
Open ocean 30%
General formula to determine planning volume:
(planning volume)=(capacity) x (% from Table 3 of this
appendix) x (emulsification factor from Table 4 of this appendix)
Planning volumes for on-water recovery:
Inland 100,000 x .5 x 1.4=70,000 bbls
Nearshore 100,000 x .5 x 1.4=70,000 bbls
Offshore 100,000 x .4 x 1.4=56,000 bbls
Open ocean 100,000 x .2 x 1.4=28,000 bbls
Planning volumes for on shore recovery:
Inland 100,000 x .7 x 1.4=98,000 bbls
Nearshore 100,000 x .7 x 1.4=98,000 bbls
Offshore 100,000 x .3 x 1.4=42,000 bbls
The vessel owner or operator must contract with a response
resource capable of managing a 98,000-barrel shoreline cleanup in
those areas where the vessel comes closer than 50 miles to shore.
Determining required resources for on-water recovery for each
tier using mobilization factors: (barrel per day on-water recovery
requirements)=(on-water planning volume as calculated
above) x (mobilization factor from Table 5 of this appendix).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inland/Nearshore 70,000........ x .15 .25 .40
Offshore 56,000................ x .10 .165 .21
Open ocean 28,000.............. x .06 .10 .12
equals (barrels per day)
Inland/Nearshore............... 10,500 17,500 28,000
Offshore....................... 5,600 9,240 11,760
Open ocean..................... 1,680 2,800 3,360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the requirements for Tier 1 for inland and nearshore
exceed the caps, the vessel owner would only need to contract for
10,000 barrels per day for Tier 1. No additional equipment would be
required to be identified because the required Tier 3 resources are
below the Tier 3 caps.
10% of the on-water recovery capability for offshore, and 20% of
the capability for inland/nearshore, for all tiers, must be capable
of operating in water with a depth of 6 feet or less.
The vessel owner or operator would also be required to identify
or contract for quantities of boom identified in Table 2 of this
appendix for the areas in which the vessel operates.
8. Determining the Availability of High-Rate Response Methods
8.1 Response plans for a vessel carrying group II or III
persistent oil as a primary cargo that operates in an area with
year-round pre-approval for dispersant use may receive credit for up
to 25 percent of their required on-water recovery capacity in that
area for 1993 if the availability of these resources are ensured by
contract or other approved means. For response plan credit, these
resources must be capable of being on scene within 12 hours of the
discovery of a discharge.
8.2 To receive credit against any required on-water recovery
capacity, a response plan must identify the locations of dispersant
stockpiles, methods of transporting to a shoreside staging area, and
appropriate aircraft or vessels to apply the dispersant and monitor
its effectiveness at the scene of an oil discharge.
8.2.1 Sufficient volumes of dispersants must be available to
treat the oil at the dosage rate recommended by the dispersant
manufacturer. Dispersants identified in a response plan must be on
the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule maintained by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Some States have a list of
approved dispersants and within State waters only they can be used.)
8.2.2 Dispersant application equipment identified in a response
plan for credit must be located such that it can be mobilized to
shoreside staging areas to meet the time requirements in section 8.1
of this appendix. Sufficient equipment capacity and sources of
appropriate dispersants must be identified to sustain dispersant
operations for at least 3 days.
8.2.3 Credit against on-water recovery capacity in pre-approved
areas will be based on the ability to treat oil at a rate equivalent
to this credit. For example, a 2,500 barrels per day credit against
the 10,000 barrels per day on-water Tier 1 cap would require the
vessel owner or operator to demonstrate the ability to treat 2,500
barrels per day of oil at the manufacturer's recommended dosage
rate. Assuming a dosage rate of 10:1, the plan would need to show
stockpiles and sources of 750 barrels of dispersants that would be
available on scene at a rate of 250 barrels per day and the ability
to apply the dispersant at the daily rate for 3 days in the area in
which the vessel operates. Similar data would need to be provided
for any additional credit against Tier 2 and 3 resources.
8.3 In addition to the equipment and supplies required, a
vessel owner or operator shall identify a source of support to
conduct the monitoring and post-use effectiveness evaluation
required by applicable Local and Area Contingency Plans.
8.4 Identification of the resources for dispersant application
does not imply that the use of this technique will be authorized.
Actual authorization for use during a spill response will be
governed by the provisions of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan (40 CFR part 300) and the applicable
Local or Area Contingency Plan.
8.5 In addition to the credit identified above, a vessel owners
or operators that operates in areas pre-approved for dispersant use
may reduce their required on-water recovery cap increases for 1998
and 2003 by up to 50% by identifying non-mechanical methods.
8.6 The use of in-situ burning as a non-mechanical response
method is still being studied. Because limitations and uncertainties
remain for the use of this method, it may not be used to reduce
required oil recovery capacity in 1993. Use of this or other
alternative high-rate methods for a portion of the required cap
increase in 1998 will be determined during the cap increase review
in 1996.
9. Additional Equipment Necessary to Sustain Response Operations
9.1 A vessel owner or operator is responsible for ensuring that
sufficient numbers of trained personnel, boats, aerial spotting
aircraft, sorbent materials, boom anchoring materials, and other
resources are a available to sustain response operations to
completion. All such equipment must be suitable for use with the
primary equipment identified in the response plan. A vessel owner or
operator is not required to list these resources in the response
plan, but shall certify their availability.
[[Page 1104]]
9.2 A vessel owner or operator shall evaluate the availability
of adequate temporary storage capacity to sustain the effective
daily recovery capacities from equipment identified in the plan.
Because of the inefficiencies of oil spill recovery devices,
response plans must identify daily storage capacity equivalent to
twice the effective daily recovery capacity required on scene. This
temporary storage capacity may be reduced if a vessel owner or
operator can demonstrate by waste stream analysis that the
efficiencies of the oil recovery devices, ability to decant water,
or the availability of alternative temporary storage or disposal
locations in the area(s) the vessel will operate will reduce the
overall volume of oily material storage requirements.
9.3 A vessel owner or operator shall ensure that their planning
includes the capability to arrange for disposal of recovered oil
products. Specific disposal procedures will be addressed in the
applicable Area Contingency Plan.
Table 1.--Response Resource Operating Criteria
[Oil Recovery Devices]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Wave
Height \1\
Operating Environment ------------------ Sea State
(feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rivers & Canals............................ 1 1
Inland..................................... 3 2
Great Lakes................................ 4 2-3
Ocean...................................... 6 3-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Boom]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use
------------------------------------------------------------
Boom Property Rivers &
Canals Inland Great Lakes Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Wave 1, 2 Height (feet)................
1 3 4 6
Sea State.......................................... 1 2 2-3 3-4
Boom height--in.................................... 6-18 18-42 18-42 42
(draft plus freeboard)
Reserve Buoyancy to Weight Ratio................... 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 to 4:1
Total Tensile Strength--lbs........................ 4,500 15-20,000 15-20,000 >20,000
Skirt Fabric Tensile Strength--lbs................. 200 300 300 500
Skirt Fabric Tear Strength--lbs.................... 100 100 100 125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oil recovery devices and boom must be at least capable of operating in wave heights up to and including the
values listed in Table 1 for each operating environment.
\2\ Equipment identified as capable of operating in waters of 6 feet or less depth are exempt from the
significant wave height planning requirement.
Table 2.--Shoreline Protection Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boom Availability hours
-----------------------------------------------
Ensured by
Location contract or Higher volume
other approved port area Other areas
means (ft.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persistent Oils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Ocean...................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Offshore........................................................ 15,000 24 48
Nearshore/Inland/Great Lakes.................................... 30,000 12 24
Rivers & Canals................................................. 25,000 12 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Persistent Oils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Ocean...................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Offshore........................................................ .............. .............. ..............
Nearshore/Inland/Great Lakes.................................... 10,000 12 24
Rivers & Canals................................................. 15,000 12 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
[[Page 1105]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR12JA96.000
[[Page 1106]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR12JA96.001
BILLING CODE 4910-14-C
[[Page 1107]]
Table 4.--Emulsification Factors for Petroleum Oil Cargo Groups
Non-persistent oil 72 G:
Group I................................................ 1.0
Persistent oil:
Group II............................................... 1.8
Group III.............................................. 2.0
Group IV............................................... 1.4
Table 5.--On-Water Oil Recovery Resource Mobilization Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rivers and Canals....................................................... .30 .40 .60
Inland/Nearshore/Great Lakes............................................ .15 .25 .40
Offshore................................................................ .10 .165 .21
Ocean................................................................... .06 .10 .12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These mobilization factors are for total resources mobilized, not incremental resources.
Table 6.--Response Capability Caps by Geographic Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of February 18, 1993:
All except rivers & canals & Great 10K bbls/day......................... 20K bbls/day........................ 40K bbls/day.
Lakes.
Great Lakes.......................... 5K bbls/day.......................... 10K bbls/day........................ 20K bbls/day.
Rivers & canals...................... 1,500 bbls/day....................... 3,000 bbls/day...................... 6,000 bbls/day.
February 18, 1998:
All except rivers & canals & Great 12.5K bbls/day....................... 25K bbls/day........................ 50K bbls/day.
Lakes.
Great Lakes.......................... 6.35K bbls/day....................... 12.3K bbls/day...................... 25K bbls/day.
Rivers & canals...................... 1,875 bbls/day....................... 3,750 bbls/day...................... 7,500 bbls/day.
February 18, 2003
All except rivers & canals & Great TBD.................................. TBD................................. TBD
Lakes.
Great Lakes.......................... TBD.................................. TBD................................. TBD
Rivers & canals...................... TBD.................................. TBD................................. TBD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The caps show cumulative overall effective daily recovery capacity, not incremental increases.
K = Thousand
bbls = Barrels
TBD = To be determined
7. Appendix C is added to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 155--Training Elements for Oil Spill Response
Plans
1. General
1.1 The portion of the plan dealing with training is one of the
key elements of a response plan. This concept is clearly expressed
by the fact that Congress, in writing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
specifically included training as one of the sections required in a
vessel or facility response plan. In reviewing submitted response
plans, it has been noted that the plans often do not provide
sufficient information in the training section of the plan for
either the user or the reviewer of the plan. In some cases, plans
simply state that the crew and others will be training in their
duties and responsibilities, with no other information being
provided. In other plans, information is simply given that required
parties will receive the necessary worker safety training
(HAZWOPER).
1.2 The training section of the plan need not be a detailed
course syllabus, but it must contain sufficient information to allow
the user and reviewer (or evaluator) to have an understanding of
those areas that are believed to be critical. Plans should identify
key skill areas and the training that is required to ensure that the
individual identified will be capable of performing the duties
prescribed to them. It should also describe how the training will be
delivered to the various personnel. Further, this section of the
plan must work in harmony with those sections of the plan dealing
with exercises, the spill management team, and the qualified
individual.
1.3 The material in this appendix C is not all-inclusive and is
provided for guidance only.
2. Elements to be Addressed
2.1 To assist in the preparation of the training section of a
vessel response plan, some of the key elements that should be
addressed are indicated in the following sections. Again, while it
is not necessary that the comprehensive training program for the
company be included in the response plan, it is necessary for the
plan to convey the elements that define the program as appropriate.
2.2 An effective spill response training program should
consider and address the following:
2.2.1 Notification requirements and procedures.
2.2.2 Communication system(s) used for the notifications.
2.2.3 Procedures to mitigate or prevent any discharge or a
substantial threat of a discharge of oil resulting from--
2.2.3.1 Operational activities associated with internal or
external cargo transfers;
2.2.3.2 Grounding or stranding;
2.2.3.3 Collision;
2.2.3.4 Explosion or fire;
2.2.3.5 Hull failure;
2.2.3.6 Excessive list; or
2.2.3.7 Equipment failure.
2.2.4 Procedures and arrangements for emergency towing.
2.2.5 When performing shipboard mitigation measures--
2.2.5.1 Ship salvage procedures;
2.2.5.2 Damage stability; and
2.2.5.3 Hull stress considerations.
2.2.6 Procedures for transferring responsibility for direction
of response activities from vessel and facility personnel to the
spill management team.
2.2.7 Familiarity with the operational capabilities of the
contracted oil spill removal organizations and the procedures to
notify and activate such organizations.
2.2.8 Familiarity with the contracting and ordering procedures
to acquire oil spill removal organization resources.
2.2.9 Familiarity with the Area Contingency Plans.
2.2.10 Familiarity with the organizational structures that will
be used to manage the response actions.
2.2.11 Responsibilities and duties of the spill management team
members in
[[Page 1108]]
accordance with designated job responsibilities.
2.2.12 Responsibilities and authority of the qualified
individual as described in the vessel response plan and company
response organization.
2.2.13 Responsibilities of designated individuals to initiate a
response and supervise shore-based response resources.
2.2.14 Actions to take, in accordance with designated job
responsibilities, in the event of a transfer system leak, tank
overflow, or suspected cargo tank or hull leak.
2.2.15 Information on the cargoes handled by the vessel or
facility, including familiarity with--
2.2.15.1 Cargo material safety data sheets;
2.2.15.2 Chemical characteristics of the cargo;
2.2.15.3 Special handling procedures for the cargo;
2.2.15.4 Health and safety hazards associated with the cargo;
and
2.2.15.5 Spill and firefighting procedures for the cargo.
2.2.16 Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements for worker health and safety (29 CFR 1910.120).
3. Further Considerations
In drafting the training section of the response plan, some
further considerations are noted below (these points are raised
simply as a reminder):
3.1 The training program should focus on training provided to
vessel personnel.
3.2 An organization is comprised of individuals, and a training
program should be structured to recognize this fact by ensuring that
training is tailored to the needs of the individuals involved in the
program.
3.3 An owner or operator may identify equivalent work
experience which fulfills specific training requirements.
3.4 The training program should include participation in
periodic announced and unannounced exercises. This participation
should approximate the actual roles and responsibilities of
individuals as specified in the response plan.
3.5 Training should be conducted periodically to reinforce the
required knowledge and to ensure an adequate degree of preparedness
by individuals with responsibilities under the vessel response plan.
3.6 Training may be delivered via a number of different means;
including classroom sessions, group discussions, video tapes, self
study workbooks, resident training courses, on-the-job training, or
other means as deemed appropriate to ensure proper instruction.
3.7 New employees should complete the training program prior to
being assigned job responsibilities which require participation in
emergency response situations.
4. Conclusion
The information in this appendix is only intended to assist
response plan preparers in reviewing the content of and in modifying
the training section of their response plans. It may be more
comprehensive than is needed for some vessels and not comprehensive
enough for others. The Coast Guard expects that plan preparers have
determined the training needs of their organizations created by the
development of the response plans and the actions identified as
necessary to increase the preparedness of the company and its
personnel to respond to actual or threatened discharges of oil from
their vessels.
Dated: December 28, 1995.
A.E. Henn,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 96-118 Filed 1-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M