[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 41 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7890-7939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4274]




[[Page 7889]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Coast Guard



_______________________________________________________________________



33 CFR Parts 150 and 154



Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 41 / Thursday, February 29, 1996 / 
Rules and Regulations  
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7890]]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 150 and 154

[CGD 91-036]
RIN 2115-AD82


Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities

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 marine transportation-related (MTR) facilities including 
deepwater ports, certain Coast Guard regulated onshore facilities, 
marinas, tank trucks, and railroad tank cars. This final rule also 
adopts with some changes, as final, the interim final rule which 
establishes additional response plan requirements for facilities 
located in Prince William Sound, Alaska, permitted under the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA). 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 
facility response plans is to enhance private sector planning and 
response capabilities to minimize the environmental impact of spilled 
oil.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 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) (CGD 91-036), 
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 Walter (Bud) Hunt, Response Division (G-MEP), (202) 267-0441. 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 LT 
Cliff Thomas, Project Manager, Standards Evaluation Branch (G-MES-2), 
and Jacqueline Sullivan, Project Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel (G-
LRA).

Regulatory History

    On March 11, 1992 the Coast Guard published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register (57 FR 8708) 
entitled ``Facility Response Plans.'' The ANPRM discussed the 
background, statutory requirements of section 311(j) of the FWPCA, and 
possible regulatory approaches. In addition, the ANPRM posed questions 
for public comment. The Coast Guard received 116 comments.
    On June 19, 1992, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) on the related rulemaking project Vessel Response 
Plans (VRP) (57 FR 27514). The Coast Guard also gathered public input 
on the proposed VRP rule through the Oil Spill Response Plan Negotiated 
Rulemaking Committee. Twenty-six organizations and the Coast Guard were 
members of the Committee. To maintain consistency between the two 
regulations, this rule uses certain concepts developed in the VRP NPRM 
and negotiated rulemaking committee.
    The Coast Guard released Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 
(NVIC) No. 7-92 on September 15, 1992. NVIC No. 7-92 provided immediate 
guidance to the marine industry for preparing facility response plans 
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 ``Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related 
Facilities'' in the Federal Register (58 FR 7330). The Coast Guard 
received 55 comments on the IFR. These comments were considered in 
developing this final rule.

Background and Purpose

    In response to several recent major oil spills, Congress passed the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380). OPA 90 amended 
section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 
U.S.C. 1321(j)). It established requirements, and an implementation 
schedule, for facility response plans and periodic inspections of 
discharge-removal equipment.
    As amended by OPA 90, section 311(j)(5) directs the President to 
issue regulations implementing the new FWPCA requirements for facility 
response plans. The President delegated this authority, in part, to the 
Secretary of Transportation (DOT) by Executive Order 12777 (3 CFR, 1991 
Comp.; 56 FR 54757). The Secretary of Transportation, in 49 CFR 1.46(m) 
(57 FR 8581; March 11, 1992), further delegated, to the Commandant of 
the Coast Guard, the authority to regulate marine transportation-
related (MTR) onshore facilities, and deepwater ports subject to the 
Deepwater Ports Act of 1974, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.). This 
rule addresses only MTR facilities that handle, store, or transport 
oil. Oil spill response plan regulations for vessels are the subject of 
a separate rulemaking project (CGD 91-034).
    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 animal fats (e.g., tallow, 
lard, etc.), vegetable oils (e.g., corn oil, sunflower seed oil, palm 
oil, etc.), and other non-petroleum oils, such as turpentine, are 
included within the ambit of this regulation when handled, stored or 
transported by an MTR facility.
    A major objective of the OPA 90 amendments to the FWPCA was to 
create a national planning and response system. OPA 90 requires the 
President to develop nationwide criteria for determining those 
facilities which could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm 
to the environment. The OPA 90 Conference Report (Report 101-653) 
states that the criteria should result in a broad requirement for 
facility owners or operators to prepare and submit response plans. 
Those facilities identified by the President are required to submit 
response plans.
    Section 311(j)(5) of the FWPCA requires the preparation and 
submission of response plans from all onshore facilities that could 
reasonably be expected to cause either ``substantial'' or ``significant 
and substantial'' harm to the environment by discharging oil into or on 
the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone 
of the United States. Response plans must also be consistent with the 
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 
(40 CFR part 300) and applicable Area Contingency Plans (ACPs).
    Section 311(j)(5) also requires that, in a facility response plan, 
an owner or operator identify and ensure by contract or other means 
approved by the President the availability of private personnel and 
equipment sufficient to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a 
worst case discharge and to mitigate or prevent substantial threat of 
such a discharge.
    Section 311(j)(5)(F) of the FWPCA allows the Coast Guard to 
authorize an MTR facility requiring plan approval to 

[[Page 7891]]
operate for up to 2 years after a plan is submitted for approval. This 
provides an interim period in which the facility may continue to 
operate while the plan approval process is completed.
    Section 5005 of OPA 90 establishes requirements for response plans 
for MTR facilities located in Prince William Sound, Alaska, which are 
permitted under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA) (43 
U.S.C. 1651, et seq.). This section requires a higher level of 
preparedness for facilities in Prince William Sound in order to provide 
an even greater margin of safety.
    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.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received 55 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 following sections have 
changes which are purely editorial: Secs. 154.1010, 154.1017, 154.1030, 
154.1047, 154.1050, 154.1070, 154.1075, 154.1125, and appendix C, 
sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The following sections were not changed: 
Secs. 154.1028, 154.1029, 154.1041, 154.1057, 154.1115, 154.1130, 
154.1135, 154.1140 and appendix C, sections 6 and 9 and Tables 1-5. For 
the convenience of the public, the Coast Guard has reprinted subparts F 
and G of part 154 in their entirety, including both changed and 
unchanged sections. Two new subparts H and I have also been added to 
part 154.

General Comments

    One comment argued that the regulations do not consider economic 
reasonableness, overstep the intent of Congress in their scope and 
essentially place the entire burden for cleanup on owners and operators 
of facilities. The Coast Guard disagrees. The primary intent of the 
response planning portions of OPA 90 was to require that facility 
owners or operators identify and ensure, by contract or other approved 
means, the availability of private personnel and equipment to remove a 
worst case discharge. The Coast Guard has considered the economic costs 
of this final rule and they are summarized in this preamble in the 
section entitled ``Assessment.''
    Regulatory consistency. The Coast Guard received 16 comments urging 
regulatory consistency in the development of these regulations. All of 
these comments stated that there should be consistency with the other 
regulations issued under OPA 90. One of these comments also recommended 
the establishment of an interagency working group to identify which 
sections of rules should be consistent and work toward achieving that 
consistency. Another of these comments also urged that response plan 
requirements should be amended to resemble EPA's requirements more 
closely but that the Coast guard's requirements should have a much 
closer focus on emergency response. The Coast Guard, EPA, and other 
Federal agencies met repeatedly throughout the development of each 
agency's rules. This coordination has produced significant similarities 
between agencies issuing response plan rules. For example, the Coast 
Guard and EPA have adopted the same requirements with respect to 
planning volumes, amounts of response equipment, and the use of 
dispersants, and other similar new or unconventional spill mitigation 
techniques including mechanical dispersal.
    Public Participation. Six comments addressed concerns of public 
participation in the process of this rulemaking. Four comments argued 
that the Coast Guard should have issued an NPRM instead of an IFR to 
facilitate public comment. The IFR was issued to meet OPA 90's deadline 
for implementing these oil pollution rules. Public comment to the IFR 
has been considered in the development of this final rule.
    One comment argued that the IFR did not meet the requirements of 
OPA 90 for public input regarding the adequacy of the plans because it 
does not provide for notification of plan receipt by the Coast Guard; 
supplying copies of the plans to interested people; making copies of 
the plans available in a central location for public review; or 
allowing the public to appeal Coast Guard decisions on deficiencies or 
classification.
    The Coast Guard concludes that there is no requirement contained in 
OPA 90 for the public to determine the adequacy of individual response 
plans from onshore or offshore facilities. Along with Federal, state, 
and local government representatives who are responsible for 
coordinating environmental issues and emergency response operations, 
the Coast Guard has encouraged Area Committees to include environmental 
groups, representatives from academia, and concerned citizens. The 
Coast Guard concludes that this is an appropriate method for private 
citizens to provide advice, guidance, and expertise to the Area 
Committee and will result in a coordinated community response to an oil 
discharge.
    This same comment requested a public hearing and the establishment 
of a negotiated rulemaking committee for this regulation. The Coast 
Guard established an Oil Spill Response Plan Negotiated Rulemaking 
Committee (56 FR 58202, November 18, 1991). The Coast Guard used 
information in the final report provided by the Committee in the 
drafting of the VRP Rule (CGD 91-036) and this rule. The Coast Guard 
finds it unnecessary to conduct a separate negotiated rulemaking for 
the Facility Response Plan (FRP) rule.
    Clarification. Two comments requested general clarification of the 
IFR. One comment stated that the regulations must be clarified in many 
respects to avoid differences of interpretation. The other comment was 
concerned with words in the regulations having different meanings from 
their accepted meanings. The Coast Guard recognizes these concerns and 
has strived for clarity in this final rule. For example, in this final 
rule, the Coast Guard has added definitions of the terms ``complex'', 
``tier'', and ``fish and wildlife and sensitive environment''. It has 
also issued guidance to response plan reviewers to assure uniform 
understanding and enforcement of response plan requirements.
    Agency jurisdiction. Two comments addressed the issue of 
jurisdictional conflicts between agencies. One comment asserted that 
there is an overlap in Coast Guard and Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA) authority over pipelines. This comment argued 
that pipelines used only for transporting fuel between tanks and 
vessels were previously subject only to Coast Guard jurisdiction. 
However, this comment argues, new RSPA regulations now apply to all 
pipelines. This comment contended that such regulation conflicts with 
the delegation of authority in E.O. 12777 giving RSPA authority over 
non-MTR pipelines only.
    Executive Order 12777 delegated to the Secretary of Transportation 
responsibility for the issuance of regulations requiring the owner or 
operator of a transportation-related onshore facility and deepwater 
ports to prepare and submit response plans. The Secretary delegated to 
the Commandant of the Coast Guard the responsibility for 

[[Page 7892]]
the issuance of regulations requiring the owner or operator of a marine 
transportation-related onshore facility and deepwater ports to prepare 
and submit response plans. The Secretary delegated to the Administrator 
of RSPA the same authority for non-marine transportation-related 
pipelines. The Coast Guard finds that there is no conflict over 
jurisdiction.

Section 150.129  Response Plans

    The Coast Guard received one comment on this section. The comment 
requested that the Coast Guard clarify the submission requirements for 
deepwater ports. Under the IFR, the Coast Guard determined that 
deepwater ports are significant and substantial harm facilities under 
Sec. 154.1015 and, therefore, are required to submit a response plan 
for review and approval. The Coast Guard finds that the submission 
requirements are clear and, therefore, has made no changes to the final 
rule on the classification of deepwater ports.

Section 154.106  Incorporation by Reference

    The Coast Guard received one comment on this section. The comment 
stressed that the Coast Guard should review the standard test methods 
developed by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) that are 
incorporated by reference in this section as the standards are revised. 
The Coast Guard intends to review any revisions to these standards and 
will conduct appropriate rulemaking to revise this section if warranted 
by changes to these standards.

Section 154.1010  Purpose

    The Coast Guard received several comments requesting clarification 
of this section. In response to these comments, the Coast Guard has 
revised this section to clarify the purpose of response plans.

Section 154.1015  Applicability

    The Coast Guard received eight comments on this section of the IFR. 
Three comments argued that the classification of facilities should not 
be determined solely by the amount of oil that a facility is capable of 
transferring. The comments stated that other factors such as a 
facility's spill history, proximity to fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments, presence of containment structures, and potential worst 
case discharge should be considered in the classification of 
facilities.
    The IFR reflects the Coast Guard determination that all MTR 
facilities that transfer oil to or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 
barrels or more could reasonably be expected to cause at least 
substantial harm to the environment, and that large fixed facilities 
and deepwater ports could reasonably be expected to cause significant 
and substantial harm to the environment in the case of an oil 
discharge. If a facility owner or operator believes that his or her 
facility should be reclassified from significant and substantial harm 
to substantial harm or excluded from the substantial harm category 
based on factors other than the facility's capacity for transferring 
oil, then under Sec. 154.1075 the facility owner or operator is 
permitted to appeal the classification to the COTP and then to the 
District Commander, and then to the Commandant. There have been no 
changes in these provisions in the final rule.
    Although the Coast Guard has not changed the final rule to reflect 
the consideration of factors other than the facility's type and its 
capacity for transferring oil in the classification of the facility, 
the Coast Guard has modified the threshold for the initial 
classification of significant and substantial harm facilities in the 
final rule, thereby decreasing the number of facilities which will be 
classified as significant and substantial harm facilities. The Coast 
Guard has identified several fixed MTR facilities which are segments of 
non-MTR facilities that have a total storage capacity of less than 
42,000 gallons. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
determined that such non-transportation related facilities with a 
storage capacity of less than 42,000 gallons associated with a MTR 
facility are not considered as substantial harm facilities. However, 
these MTR facilities are capable of transferring oil to or from a 
vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more. The Coast Guard has 
determined that these facilities could reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial harm to the environment. These facilities must still submit 
response plans; however, they are no longer classified as ``significant 
and substantial harm'' facilities. Paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 154.1015 
has been amended to incorporate this change.
    One comment suggested that facilities that transfer only oily water 
mixtures should be classified as substantial harm facilities. The Coast 
Guard disagrees. Although a facility may transfer only oil that is 
mixed with water, the facility may transfer enough oil to reasonably be 
expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the environment 
if a discharge were to occur.
    Another comment stated that the Coast Guard should clarify that 
mobile facilities are the only facilities that are not classified as 
significant and substantial harm facilities. Under the IFR, mobile 
facilities are the only facilities which initially are classified only 
as substantial harm facilities; however, under Sec. 154.1016, the COTP 
may determine that other facilities may reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial harm to the environment and may upgrade mobile MTR 
facilities to significant and substantial harm facilities. 
Additionally, the amended paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 154.1015 of the 
final rule, which modifies the threshold for significant and 
substantial harm facilities, has increased the number of facilities 
that will initially be classified only as substantial harm facilities.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard provide guidance on how 
to determine whether a facility is part of a complex. A facility is 
part of a complex if the entire facility is regulated by more than one 
Federal agency under section 311(j) of the FWPCA. Most MTR facilities 
are part of a larger facility that has segments which are regulated by 
agencies such as EPA, RSPA or the Minerals Management Service (MMS). If 
a facility owner or operator is unable to determine whether his or her 
facility is part of a complex, he or she may request guidance from the 
COTP.
    Two comments contended that the regulation should not apply to non-
petroleum oils. One comment specifically stated that the regulation 
should not apply to facilities which handle animal and vegetable oils 
because these oils are not toxic to the environment. The Coast Guard 
disagrees. The response planning requirements of this regulation were 
developed to ensure that facility owners or operators are prepared to 
respond to an oil spill originating from their facility, regardless of 
the type of oil spilled. The Coast Guard recognizes that certain non-
petroleum oils, including certain animal fats and vegetable oils, are 
non-toxic in the marine environment; however, lethal acute aquatic 
toxicity is not the sole factor considered in determining harm to the 
environment. A discharge of animal fats or vegetable oils may cause 
chronic effects for waterfowl and aquatic organisms. Proper response 
planning for a discharge of non-petroleum oils will have a significant 
effect in limiting harm to the environment. Therefore, facility owners 
or operators handling non-petroleum oils at their facility are required 
to prepare response plans under this regulation.

[[Page 7893]]

    The Coast Guard has determined, based upon comments, that animal 
fats and vegetable oils, and other non-petroleum oils will be addressed 
separately from petroleum oils, and from one another, in the final 
rule. The final rule removes the response planning requirements for 
animal fats and vegetable oils, and other non-petroleum oils from 
Sec. 154.1049 in the IFR and establishes two new subparts H and I, 
containing requirements for these oils. Subpart H contains requirements 
for animal fats and vegetable oils, while subpart I contains 
requirements for other non-petroleum oils. Although new subparts have 
been established for animal fats and vegetable oils, and other non-
petroleum oils, the response planning requirements for these oils are 
not changed in the final rule.
    One comment stated that a facility that is capable of transferring 
oil to or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more, but 
that does not transfer to a vessel of this size should not be required 
to submit a response plan. Although the Coast Guard has not lowered the 
threshold for substantial harm facilities in the final rule, the 
revised final rule permits the COTP to downgrade a facility. The COTP 
is in the position to evaluate the individual situation of each 
facility under his or her jurisdiction with respect to operational 
history and other factors which would affect the facility's 
classification. The COTP may downgrade a facility's classification, 
acting either on his own or upon request of the facility's owner or 
operator, if he finds that such action is warranted.

Section 154.1016  Facility Classification by COTP

    The Coast Guard received four comments on this section. One comment 
stated that the COTP should not be permitted to upgrade a facility 
based on the facility's proximity to areas of economic importance and 
environmental sensitivity. The comment contended that OPA 90 does not 
permit such an action. Another comment stated that a facility's spill 
history does not indicate that the facility is at greater risk for 
future spills and, therefore, spill history should not be considered in 
determining a facility's classification. The Coast Guard disagrees. OPA 
90 permits the Coast Guard to require response plans for facilities 
that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm and 
significant and substantial harm to the environment. OPA 90 does not 
define these terms; therefore, the Coast Guard must determine the 
criteria used to distinguish these facilities. The Coast Guard has 
adopted EPA's term ``fish and wildlife and sensitive environments'' to 
refer to areas of environmental sensitivity. The Coast Guard has 
concluded that a facility's proximity to fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environments and its spill history are relevant factors in 
determining whether a facility could reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial harm or significant and substantial harm to the environment 
in the case of an oil discharge.
    Two comments stated that a facility owner or operator should be 
permitted to appeal the COTP's decision to upgrade a facility. Under 
Sec. 154.1075 of the IFR, a facility owner or operator is permitted to 
request the COTP to review the initial facility classification. The 
owner or operator may submit relevant data to the COTP to support his 
or her argument. If the owner or operator is dissatisfied with the 
COTP's decision, the owner or operator may appeal the decision to the 
District Commander. The decision of the District Commander may be 
appealed to the Commandant. This appeals provision is unchanged in the 
final rule.
    Under the IFR, the COTP was permitted only to upgrade a facility's 
initial classification. Under the final rule, the COTP is permitted to 
upgrade or downgrade the facility's classification. Upon written 
request from the facility owner or operator to review the facility's 
classification, the COTP may downgrade a facility from significant and 
substantial harm to substantial harm or from substantial harm to a 
status in which it is exempt from the regulation. This provides the 
COTP with greater latitude to appropriately regulate his or her port 
area. This change has prompted the renaming of this section to 
``Facility Classification by COTP'' in the final rule.

Section 154.1017  Response Plan Submission Requirement

    The Coast Guard received many comments on this section of the IFR. 
Four comments requested the Coast Guard to clarify whether the FRP 
regulations apply to inactive facilities. Under Sec. 154.100(a), the 
applicability section for part 154, facilities in caretaker status are 
exempt from the requirements of this part, with the exception of 
certain safety requirements set out in Sec. 154.735.
    Two comments stated that facility complexes should not be required 
to submit response plans to more than one Federal agency for approval. 
The comments further stated that all facilities that transfer oil over 
water should be regulated exclusively by the Coast Guard. The Coast 
Guard recognizes that submitting plans to several agencies for approval 
may have been burdensome for those facilities whose options 
necessitated submission of response plans to more than one Federal 
agency. The initial delegation under Executive Order 12777 to issue 
regulations and review and approve response plan to multiple Federal 
agencies reflected agency expertise in the regulated industries and the 
traditional jurisdiction of Federal agencies under section 311 of the 
FWPCA. This delegation provided each agency with the opportunity to 
review response plans and to ensure that the plans reflected industry 
practices and were in compliance with statutory requirements.
    Today, virtually every facility required to submit response plans 
has already done so in compliance with the rules promulgated by the 
appropriate agency. It has become apparent that some response plans 
unnecessarily duplicate information contained in other plans. Federal 
agencies are interested in streamlining the response plan preparation 
and submission procedures to reduce significantly the burden when plan 
revision and resubmission is required. The Coast Guard believes that 
the ``One Plan'' or Integrated Contingency Planning concept has merit 
and discussions are ongoing between industry, the appropriate Federal 
agencies, and members of the National Response Team (NRT). The NRT is 
developing guidance for preparation of integrated response plans that 
will satisfy the regulatory requirements of various Federal agencies 
while avoiding unnecessary and confusing duplication of standard 
response procedures and organizational details. With the completion of 
guidance on Integrated Contingency Planning, the Coast Guard will 
accept plans developed in accordance with that guidance. The NRT is 
also examining the feasibility of vesting response plan review in the 
On Scene Coordinator. The NRT is discussing minimizing the number of 
Federal agencies involved in reviewing a response plan for those 
facilities that, due to their diverse nature, may have to prepare and 
submit a response plan to more than one Federal agency. The Coast Guard 
is committed to working with the NRT on these issues and working to 
minimize the regulatory burden on facilities that have marine 
transportation-related mode and non-transportation-related components.

[[Page 7894]]


Section 154.1020  Definitions

    The Coast Guard received many comments on the definitions of the 
terms used in the IFR. Some comments suggested clarification of certain 
terms while others suggested the addition of terms. The following 
discussion addresses only those definitions or issues on which the 
Coast Guard received comment or made significant revisions.
    Adverse weather. The Coast Guard received one comment on ``adverse 
weather'' which suggested that wind, tides, and the number of daylight 
hours be included as three additional environmental factors that 
contribute to adverse weather conditions for a spill response. The 
Coast Guard did not intend the listed conditions to be exclusive. To 
address this comment's concern, the Coast Guard is adding language to 
the definition of ``adverse weather'' to indicate that other relevant 
factors including wind, tides, etc., should also be taken into account 
when identifying response systems and equipment.
    Availability (of response resources). The Coast Guard received one 
comment which requested that this term be defined. The comment stated 
that the definition should indicate that response organizations often 
have contracts with many facilities and, as a result, there may be 
instances where the contractor's obligations to one facility may limit 
its ability to arrive at the scene of an oil spill at another facility 
within the specified times. The Coast Guard recognizes that actual 
availability of response resources may be limited by unforeseeable 
events such as multiple, simultaneous oil spills. The Coast Guard 
stresses that the requirements are not performance standards. They are 
intended to be used to develop a plan for responding to a discharge of 
oil to the maximum extent practicable in the existing conditions. The 
Coast Guard recognizes that actual conditions may not permit the 
arrival of resources within the prescribed timelines. The Coast Guard 
concludes that there is no need to provide a definition.
    Complex. The Coast Guard received one comment suggesting that it 
clarify the meaning of ``complex'' and that the Coast Guard definition 
be consistent with the definition in EPA regulations. A ``complex'' is 
composed of facilities regulated by two or more Federal agencies, and 
that are used, or intended to be used, to transfer oil to or from a 
vessel. A ``complex'' may include marine transportation-related 
portions and other non-marine transportation-related portions. The 
Coast Guard has included a definition that is consistent with the FWPCA 
and applicable EPA regulations.
    Consistency with EPA regulations. Two comments stated that the 
definitions in the Coast Guard regulation should be consistent with 
those in the EPA regulation. Wherever relevant, the Coast Guard has 
consulted other agencies and their regulations to ensure that the Coast 
Guard's OPA 90 regulations do not conflict with those of other 
agencies. Occasionally, the Coast Guard's definitions diverge from 
similar definitions of other agencies. In those cases, the Coast Guard 
has examined the other agency regulations and decided upon a different 
approach for legal, policy, or technical reasons.
    Environmentally Sensitive Area. The Coast Guard received one 
comment suggesting that it add a definition of the term 
``environmentally sensitive area'' to be consistent with EPA 
regulations, the NCP, and OPA 90. The EPA has adopted the term ``fish 
and wildlife and sensitive environment.'' For consistency, the Coast 
Guard is adopting EPA's term and its definition. However, the Coast 
Guard is adding economically important areas to the EPA definition. OPA 
90 requires that response plans be consistent with the applicable Area 
Contingency Plan (ACP). The ACPs are prepared by Area Committees 
composed of qualified personnel from Federal, State and local agencies. 
The Coast Guard has provided guidance to the Area Committees on the 
preparation of ACPs. Coastal ACPs have been prepared and are available 
for preparation of facility response plans. The Area Committees 
identify, and prioritize for protection, specific locations that fall 
under the category ``fish and wildlife and sensitive environments.'' 
The ACPs will be revised annually and will identify areas of economic 
importance. The completed fish and wildlife and sensitive environments 
plans will likely be geographic-specific annexes to the ACPs. The 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a 
notice in the Federal Register on March 29, 1994 entitled ``Guidance 
for Facility and Vessel Response Plans Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive 
Environments.'' (59 FR 14714) NOAA's notice provides detailed guidance 
which facility and vessel owners may use to supplement the information 
contained in the applicable Coast Guard regulations. However, the ACP 
will still be used to make the final determination regarding fish and 
wildlife and sensitive environments.
    Full-scale. The Coast Guard received five comments suggesting the 
addition of the term ``full scale'' in order to clarify certain 
requirements for spill drills. The comments proposed that the term mean 
maximum participation by all levels of a facility's response 
organization to test major portions of the plan with a high degree of 
realism and extensive involvement. The Coast Guard extensively revised 
Sec. 154.1055 of subpart F to reflect concerns expressed by comments, 
as well as to bring the section into alignment with the vessel response 
plan final rule and the applicable EPA regulations. Section 154.1055 is 
now entitled ``Exercises'' and requires the owner or operator of a 
facility to conduct exercises that will test the entire response plan 
every 3 years. The requirements allow the owner or operator to exercise 
different elements of the plan (e.g. qualified individual notification, 
spill management team, equipment deployment) at different times. 
However, the exercises must still test every element of the plan every 
3 years and, in addition, an unannounced exercise must also be 
conducted every 3 years. The revised Sec. 154.1055 also allows owners 
or operators to fulfill the exercise requirements by complying with the 
National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP). In view of 
these changes, a definition of ``full scale'' is not necessary.
    Functional. The Coast Guard received five comments suggesting that 
the term ``functional'' be added to the definitions section in the 
final rule to clarify certain requirements for spill drills. The 
comments proposed that the term be defined as the limited exercising of 
specific functions, such as a command and control, internal 
coordination, external coordination, and tests of the functional 
planning and response capabilities of personnel and systems. In 
response to these, and other comments, the Coast Guard has extensively 
revised Sec. 154.1055 which was entitled ``Drills'' in the IFR and is 
now entitled ``Exercises.'' The Coast Guard concludes that the 
Exercises section now adequately addresses the meaning of the term 
functional. The functional areas are laid out in 
Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iii) of subpart F. Response plans must contain an 
organizational structure incorporating the listed functional areas. 
Section 154.1035(b)(3)(iv) requires response plans to also contain job 
descriptions for the spill management team members in each functional 
area identified in the organizational structure described in 
Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iii).
    Group IV oil. The Coast Guard received several comments indicating 
that the definition for Group IV oil included Group V oil. The Coast 
Guard has revised the definition of Group IV 

[[Page 7895]]
oil which is found in the definition of ``persistent oils'' to mean oil 
having a specific gravity equal to or greater than .95 and less than or 
equal to 1.0.
    Higher volume port areas. The Coast Guard received one comment 
which proposed to add Cook Inlet, Alaska to the list of higher volume 
port areas. The Coast Guard classified higher volume port areas based 
upon a study of the relative volumes of oil handled, stored or 
transported. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports on ``Waterborne 
Commerce of the United States'' provided the statistics for 34 port 
areas. The decision to classify some ports as higher volume was based 
upon the Coast Guard's analysis of the data from the reports. The data 
revealed a distinct break point. Cook Inlet, Alaska falls below the 
break point and, as such, does not meet the criteria for designation as 
a higher volume port area.
    Marine transportation-related facility. The Coast Guard received 
three comments on the definition of MTR facility. One comment requested 
that the Coast Guard clarify the definition by citing specific types of 
facilities to which it refers. The Coast Guard gave examples of MTR 
facilities in the preamble to the IFR (e.g., fixed onshore MTR 
facilities include marinas; and mobile MTR facilities include tank 
trucks and railroad tank cars). Two other comments requested 
clarification of Coast Guard and RSPA jurisdiction over pipelines at 
MTR facilities. As stated in the preamble to the IFR, the definition of 
transportation-related and non-transportation-related facilities 
appeared in a 1971 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation. 
The MOU appears in the appendix to 40 CFR part 112. The Coast Guard 
definition of MTR is drawn directly from the MOU. The division point 
between the transportation-related portion of a pipeline, and the non-
transportation-related portion of a pipeline is the first design 
discontinuance (valve) inside the secondary containment surrounding the 
tanks in the non-transportation-related portion of the facility. The 
Coast Guard finds that MTR is clearly defined in accordance with the 
appropriate legal authority. In a particular situation, if the location 
of the division between the MTR portion and the non-MTR portion is 
unclear, then the appropriate Federal officials, including the Coast 
Guard COTP, should be consulted. As set forth in the definition, these 
officials may agree to a specific location for the separation.
    Maximum extent practicable. One comment asserted that the 
definition of ``maximum extent practicable'' is too rigid and does not 
allow for the flexibility that Congress intended. According to the 
comment, location, size, configuration, and other similar factors, 
should be considered in developing response plans. The Coast Guard has 
used a number of factors in determining the need to prepare and submit 
a response plan. The planning process also considers other factors as 
provided in Secs. 154.1035 and 154.1045.
    Maximum most probable discharge. The Coast Guard received four 
comments on the definition of maximum most probable discharge 
suggesting that the Coast Guard revise the maximum most probable 
discharge volume of 1,200 barrels or 10 percent of the volume of the 
worst case discharge to be consistent with the EPA maximum most 
probable discharge volume of 36,000 gallons. As stated in the preamble 
to the IFR, the Coast Guard based its maximum most probable discharge 
definition upon historical spill data which indicated that 99 percent 
of oil spills from coastal zone facilities were approximately 1,200 
barrels or less. The Coast Guard concludes that the existing definition 
is appropriate because it protects the environment while not overly 
burdening small volume facilities.
    Nearshore area. The Coast Guard received two comments on the 
definition of nearshore area. One comment stated that the definition 
should exclude areas which also meet the definition of rivers and 
canals. Another comment requested clarification of the relationship 
between nearshore areas and other terms such as ``close-to-shore'' in 
Appendix C and ``close to shore response activities in shallow water'' 
in Sec. 154.1045(e). The definition of ``Nearshore area'' does not 
presently include areas which meet the definition of rivers and canals 
because ``Rivers and canals'' is a subset of the definition of ``Inland 
areas'' not ``Nearshore areas.'' The precise meaning of ``close-to-
shore'' is specified at the point where the term is used. Close-to-
shore refers to waters six feet or less in depth.
    Notification drill. The Coast Guard received five comments that 
suggested the addition of the term ``notification drill'' to the 
definition section of the final rule. The comments suggested defining 
the term to mean a test of the facility's system of notifying or 
activating, according to the facility's response plan, appropriate 
agencies, the facility spill management team, the oil spill removal 
organization, and the next higher level of the facility owner's or 
operator's organization. A notification drill tests the facility's 
ability to start activation of its plan. To be successful, a 
notification drill need not result in calls to the top of the 
facility's response organization. The Coast Guard has extensively 
revised Sec. 154.1055 which was previously entitled ``Drills'' and is 
now entitled ``Exercises.'' The revised section includes a ``Qualified 
Individual notification exercise'' and specifies that compliance with 
the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) fulfills 
all exercise requirements. The Coast Guard concludes that these changes 
adequately address the points raised by the comments.
    Oil. The Coast Guard received seven comments on this definition. 
One comment requested that the Coast Guard narrow the definition of oil 
to exclude substances which contain small percentages of oil such as 
ship bilge and ballast water. One comment indicated that the definition 
of oil in the regulations should be consistent with the definition in 
OPA 90, which excludes hazardous substances subject to CERCLA. Four 
comments stated that oil should be limited only to petroleum oils which 
are liquid under the range of ambient conditions which exist at a 
facility and which are not considered CERCLA substances. OPA 90 did not 
amend the definition of oil in section 311 of the FWPCA. The Coast 
Guard's definition of ``oil'' is the same definition used by the FWPCA. 
The statutory definition refers to oil in any form. That includes oily 
bilge and ballast water because they have been shown to be sources of 
oil pollution and discharges may result in substantial harm to the 
environment. The Coast Guard has determined that it is appropriate for 
response plans to include provisions covering oils which may not be 
liquid in all conditions. Such oils may sink to the bottom or remain 
suspended in the water column. In either case, they may cause 
substantial harm to the environment if not cleaned up as soon as 
possible. The Coast Guard concludes that the current definition of oil 
meets both the letter and the spirit of the FWPCA and therefore is not 
changing the definition of oil.
    Another comment stated that the response plan regulations should 
not apply to edible oils. The comment contended that if edible oils 
were excluded from the regulations, the owner or operator of a facility 
handling edible oils still would be required to report and cleanup a 
spill under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Coast Guard definition of 
``oil'' is the same definition that is used by the FWPCA. That 
definition includes edible oils. The 

[[Page 7896]]
Coast Guard has created new subparts in the final rule to distinguish 
non-petroleum oils, including edible oils such as animal fats and 
vegetable oils, from petroleum oils. The scientific data currently 
available to the Coast Guard strongly indicate that these oils may have 
an adverse impact upon the environment that is similar to the impact of 
petroleum oils. As a result, the Coast Guard is not exempting non-
petroleum oils from response planning in the final rule. The Coast 
Guard will continue to assess its position as further data become 
available on the subject.
    Oil spill removal organization. The Coast Guard received two 
comments on the definition of oil spill removal organization which 
suggested that the definition be revised to be more specific. The Coast 
Guard crafted the definition if oil spill removal organization to be 
flexible enough to apply to varying types of organizations which may be 
called upon to respond to a discharge of oil while complying with OPA 
90 requirements. A more specific definition, while useful to some in 
the industry, might exclude organizations which are able to provide 
useful and needed response capabilities. The Coast Guard is not 
changing the definition of oil spill removal organization and suggests 
that any questions regarding the suitability of a particular 
organization be directed to the COTP for the area in which the facility 
is located.
    Other non-petroleum oil. The Coast Guard has added a definition of 
``other non-petroleum oil.'' Other non-petroleum oil means a non-
petroleum oil of any kind that is not generally an animal fat or 
vegetable oil.
    Persistent oil. The Coast Guard received two comments on the 
definition of persistent oil. Both comments indicated that the 
definition proposed in the IFR does not account for oils that have a 
specific gravity greater than 1.0 that do not sink in salt water. The 
comments suggest that the definition be revised to include all products 
which could reasonably be expected to sink in the environment in which 
they are likely to be discharged. The definition of persistent oils is 
subdivided based upon specific gravity into Groups II, III, IV and V. 
The Coast Guard finds that further subdivision is unnecessary because 
the definition currently includes all oils with a specific gravity of 
greater than 1.0, regardless of whether or not they sink in salt water. 
Furthermore, the Coast Guard concludes that, in combination with other 
factors, even those oils referred to in the comments are very likely to 
sink in salt water.
    Private shore-based personnel. The Coast Guard received one comment 
suggesting the addition of this term to the regulation. The comment 
indicated that certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) standards are not enforced. The Coast Guard is not tasked with 
enforcement of OSHA standards except in very specific instances. In the 
context of pollution control regulations such as OPA 90, the Coast 
Guard is not responsible for enforcing OSHA standards. Therefore, it is 
unnecessary for the Coast Guard to add this term to the final rule.
    Rivers and canals. The Coast Guard received 8 comments on this 
definition. All eight comments questioned the use of the 12 foot 
project depth as a criterion for determining whether a waterway is a 
river or canal. One comment suggested that a project depth of 18 feet 
be applied as the standard. Four comments suggested that the COTP 
should be given the discretion to determine which waterways will be 
determined to be rivers or canals. The 4 comments also stated that the 
terms rivers and canals should be applied only to certain areas with 
definite geographical demarcations. Two comments requested 
clarification on whether the 12-foot project depth criterion applies 
only to artificially created waterways. Additionally, these 2 comments 
indicated that the definition of rivers and canals excludes certain 
rivers. The definition of rivers and canals applies to all waterways 
with a project depth of 12 feet or less including both naturally and 
artificially occurring ones. The Coast Guard finds that the 12-foot 
depth is appropriate to define the inland areas where shallow draft 
vessels may call at MTR facilities and has not changed it in the final 
rule. The COTP has the authority to redefine specific operating 
environments within his or her jurisdiction. This provisions is 
continued in the final rule.
    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 Projects by Hydrometer Method.''
    Spill management team. The Coast Guard received 5 comments on this 
definition. Four comments stated that the definition of spill 
management team should reflect the allowance for tiered spill 
management teams. Another comment indicated that the FRP regulation 
should be consistent with the VRP regulation which permits the spill 
management team function to be fulfilled by an organization outside the 
planning area of the spill. A ``tiered'' spill management team is not 
prohibited by the regulations as they appeared in the IFR and remain in 
the final rule. The definition is identical in both the VRP and FRP 
final rules to ensure consistency in spill management team 
requirements.
    The Coast Guard received 5 comments suggesting that it define the 
term ``corporate spill management team.'' One comment suggested that 
this term be defined to mean a national team of operational and 
functional experts and consultants responsible for moving quickly to a 
spill site to replace or support a facility response team in managing a 
response. The Coast Guard also received 5 comments requesting that it 
add the term ``facility spill management team'' to the regulation. The 
comments suggested that the term be defined to mean a team responsible 
for initiating and managing a response to a spill to its conclusion or 
until a team member from a higher tier in the overall response 
organization is activated and on-scene to support the facility team or 
manage the response until its conclusion.
    The Coast Guard concludes that the existing definition of ``spill 
management team'' already incorporates the elements that the comments 
suggest. The Coast Guard therefore finds that it is both unnecessary 
and undesirable to complicate the regulation by subdividing the 
definition of spill management team. Section 154.1035(b) contains 
detailed requirements regarding plan content including the spill 
management team. The spill management team may include all persons 
relevant to an effective spill response except Federal, State and local 
authorities. It may include local, as well as regional or national 
corporate officials, operational, as well as functional experts, and 
representatives of OSROs. The local or on-site spill response team 
members can, and should, be prepared to integrate other persons, such 
as regional and national corporate officials, into their spill response 
team structure.
    Table top. The Coast Guard received 5 comments requesting that it 
add the term ``table top'' to the final rule to clarify certain spill 
drill requirements. The comments suggested that the term be defined as 
a verbal walk-through to discuss action to be taken during simulated 
emergency situations, designed to elicit constructive discussion by the 
participants without time constraints. A table top drill does 

[[Page 7897]]
not involve the movement of equipment or people. The Coast Guard has 
extensively revised Sec. 154.1055 which was previously entitled 
``Drills'' and is now entitled ``Exercises.'' The revised section 
specifies that compliance with the National Preparedness for Response 
Exercise Program (PREP) fulfills all exercise requirements. The Coast 
Guard concludes that the changes adequately address the points raised 
by the comments.
    Tier. The Coast Guard received one comment which stated that the 
use of ``tier'' in the IFR was unclear, and suggested that the Coast 
Guard define the term in the final rule. The Coast Guard agrees and has 
defined ``tier'' in the final rule.
    The requirements for response to a worst case discharge to the 
maximum extent practicable are based on the tiering of response 
resources. The concept of ``tier'' has two primary components: The 
amount of equipment and personnel required for a response to a worst 
case discharge, and the amount of time in which these response 
resources are required to be on-scene from the time of discovery of an 
oil discharge. Tiering allows for the arrival of response resources at 
various stages of the response effort. Tiering the mobilization of 
response resources recognizes the need for a rapid initial response to 
an oil spill, yet allows for the identification of response resources 
from outside the area of the facility to meet the response resource 
planning requirements.
    Sections 154.1045(e) and 154.1047(a)(1) of subpart F of the final 
rule require a facility owner or operator to identify, by contract or 
other approved means, equipment and personnel to respond to the 
facility's worst case discharge for Group I-IV oils and Group V oils, 
respectively. Appendix C and especially Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide 
specific guidance on calculating the amount of response equipment 
required by these sections. Table 4 provides mobilization factors used 
to calculate the amount of response resources required for on-water 
recovery for each tier. Table 5 establishes caps to the amount of 
response resources for which a facility owner or operator must contract 
in advance. Caps have been established for response resources required 
for Tiers 1, 2, and 3. The caps recognize the current limits on 
technology and private removal capabilities. The caps are for planning 
purposes only; in no way do the caps limit the amount of resources 
which a facility owner or operator may be required to mobilize during 
an actual spill response.
    Section 154.1045(f) of subpart F establishes three time tiers for 
the on-scene arrival of response resources for the different operating 
environments for Group I-IV oils.

Section 154.1025  Operating Restrictions and Interim Operating 
Authorization

    The Coast Guard received 10 comments on this section of the 
regulation. One comment requested that the Coast Guard clarify the 
requirement for facilities to submit response plans meeting the 
requirements of Sec. 154.1030 for review and approval to the Coast 
Guard COTP and the requirement to operate in full compliance with the 
approved plans.
    Section 154.1017 requires all facilities which could reasonably be 
expected to cause at least substantial harm to the environment to 
prepare and submit response plans to the Coast Guard. Only facilities 
which could reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial 
harm to the environment are required to submit response plans for 
review and approval by the Coast Guard. Section 154.1025(b) requires 
all facilities that are required to prepare response plans to operate 
in compliance with their plans.
    The Coast Guard has added to the final rule a provision that 
requires facility owners or operators making initial response plan 
submissions after May 29, 1996, to comply with the requirements of the 
final rule. The Coast Guard is not requiring facility 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 facility 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. 154.1065. 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. 154.1060.
    One comment suggested that Sec. 154.1025(d) be revised to give the 
Coast Guard authority to prohibit a facility from operating if the COTP 
determines that a previously approved plan has not been properly 
revised or updated. The Coast Guard finds that Sec. 154.1065 provides 
the COTP with adequate authority to enforce the requirements for 
response plan amendments and revisions. Under Sec. 154.1065(c), the 
COTP may require a facility owner or operator to revise a response plan 
at any time if the COTP determines that the plan does not meet the 
requirements of this regulation.
    Section 154.1025(d) provides four specific circumstances under 
which a facility may not handle, store, or transport oil including a 
COTP determination that owner-certified response resources or a 
submitted response plan do not meet the requirements of the subpart.
    One comment indicated that the Coast Guard should limit its review 
and approval of response plans to 30 days for those plans submitted by 
February 18, 1993, the deadline for plan submission under the IFR. 
Limited resources prevented the Coast Guard from guaranteeing a review 
of every submitted response plan within 30 days. However, to facilitate 
the operations of facilities requiring Coast Guard review and approval 
under Sec. 154.1025(c), the Coast Guard permitted these facilities to 
continue operations for up to 2 years from the date of plan submission. 
This procedure is in accordance with Sec. 311(j)(5)(F) of the FWPCA.
    The same comment suggested that a facility owner or operator should 
have no more than 30 days to make corrections to a plan if the plan is 
not approved by the COTP. Because of the varying degrees of plan 
deficiencies, the Coast Guard has determined that the COTP must have 
the flexibility to specify the period in which the facility owner or 
operator could reasonably be expected to correct the deficiencies.
    One comment stated that, to be consistent with EPA and RSPA 
regulations, the Coast Guard should not formally review the letter from 
a facility owner or operator certifying the availability of response 
resources. Conversely, another comment indicated that a facility owner 
or operator should be required to certify in writing not only that he 
or she has ensured the availability of the necessary response 
resources, but also that the response resources are capable of being 
on-scene within the specified response times. The Coast Guard has 
determined that, until it is able to complete the review of the 
submitted response plans, its review and acceptance of the 
certification letters is its primary means of ensuring that facilities 
are in compliance with the statutory provisions of OPA 90 requiring the 
identification of response resources. The Coast Guard requires facility 
owners or operators to indicate in the certification letter that the 
response resources identified are in compliance with subpart F, G, or H 
as appropriate. 

[[Page 7898]]
Section 154.1028(a) requires response resources to be capable of being 
on-scene within specified times.
    One comment indicated that response contractors probably would not 
have all of the spill response equipment in stock that is necessary to 
meet the August 18, 1993 deadline in the IFR, particularly the 
equipment used for recovering oil in shallow waters. The comment 
requested that the Coast Guard exempt this type of equipment from the 
response plan requirements. The Coast Guard found that at the time of 
the comment there was no evidence to indicate that facility owners or 
operators were unable to identify adequate response resources for 
recovering oil in shallow water.
    Another comment suggested that the Coast Guard clarify the language 
in Sec. 154.1025(c) permitting interim operating requirements prior to 
Coast Guard approval of a response plan. The Coast Guard has updated 
and clarified Sec. 154.1025(c). Additionally, the comment indicated 
that this paragraph should apply also to substantial harm facilities. 
Section 154.1025(c) applies only to the owners or operators of 
facilities for which the Coast Guard must review and approve response 
plans. Under section 311(j) of the FWPCA and 33 CFR 154.1017(b), only 
significant and substantial harm facilities are required to submit 
response plans for Coast Guard review and approval.

Section 154.1026  Qualified Individual and Alternate Qualified 
Individual

    The Coast Guard received 9 comments on this section of the IFR. 
Four of the comments contended that the Coast Guard should permit the 
qualified individual to be identified in the plan by his or her title, 
rather than his or her name. Two comments suggested that the Coast 
Guard establish a mechanism by which the qualified individual can be 
chosen from a group of individuals among whom the responsibility of the 
qualified individual rotates. Another comment stated that the facility 
owner or operator should not be required to provide documentation to 
the qualified individual in order to activate his or her authority as 
the qualified individual. The Coast Guard finds that the amount of 
authority vested in the qualified individual warrants that the response 
plan identify the specific individual(s) assuming this position. For 
this reason, the Coast Guard also requires the qualified individual to 
have documentation which clearly indicates his or her role in the 
facility's response activities.
    Five comments requested clarification on the responder immunity 
provisions in Sec. 154.1026 (e) and (f). Three of the comments 
specifically requested that the Coast Guard clarify who is immune from 
liability under the provisions. Two comments suggested that the Coast 
Guard address the immunity of the qualified individual in the 
regulatory text. One comment suggested that the potential liability for 
the qualified individual is too significant to attract many capable and 
qualified persons for the position.
    As discussed in the preamble to the IFR, section 311(c)(4) of the 
FWPCA provides that only a responsible party is liable for the removal 
costs or damages which result from actions taken or omitted in the 
course of rendering care, assistance, or advice consistent with the 
National Response Plan or as otherwise directed by the President. A 
person does not become a responsible party under section 311(c) of the 
FWPCA by being designated as a qualified individual for response plan 
purposes. However, a person whose acts or omissions are grossly 
negligent, or who engages in willful misconduct may, as a result, 
become liable for the resulting damages. The Coast Guard does not have 
the authority to grant immunity to the qualified individual and, 
therefore, cannot establish immunity provisions in the final rule. 
However, the Coast Guard does recognize that the qualified individual 
is not responsible for the adequacy of response plans, nor is he or she 
responsible for contracting response resources beyond the authority 
delegated from the facility owner or operator. These points are 
reflected in the regulatory text.
    Seven comments addressed the facility owner's or operator's ability 
to substitute a person from a higher level of management for the 
designated qualified individual. Four comments requested that the Coast 
Guard state this option in the regulatory text. Additionally, three 
comments questioned whether the person from a higher level of 
management who is assuming the responsibilities of the qualified 
individual is considered to be the qualified individual during an 
actual spill response. The Coast Guard does not intend to limit the 
discretion of the facility owner or operator to select any qualified 
person to assume the full range of responsibilities of the qualified 
individual. A facility owner or operator may, at any time, substitute 
the designated qualified individual or alternate qualified individual 
with a person from a higher organizational level who meets the 
requirements of Sec. 154.1026. In order for that person to be 
recognized as the qualified individual, the facility owner or operator 
must provide the individual with a document designating them as the 
qualified individual as required by Sec. 154.1026(c). The Coast Guard 
has changed the language in Sec. 154.1026 to clarify that the Qualified 
Individual or an Alternate Qualified Individual must be available on a 
24-hour basis and must be able to arrive at the facility within a 
reasonable time.
    One comment requested a more stringent English language requirement 
for the qualified individual and suggested that the qualified 
individual be required not only to speak fluent English, but also be 
required to read, comprehend, and write in English at a level of high 
school equivalency. Although the regulation states only that the 
qualified individual must speak fluent English, the Coast Guard 
concludes that this requirement will restrict the designation of the 
qualified individuals to persons who can communicate effectively with 
the On-Scene Coordinator during a response effort.
    One comment objected to the requirement that both the qualified 
individual and the alternate qualified individual be available on a 24-
hour basis. The preamble to the IFR stated that the Coast Guard's 
intent is to ensure that either the qualified individual or the 
alternate qualified individual be available to respond to an oil spill 
on a 24-hour basis. In response to this comment, the Coast Guard has 
reworded Sec. 154.1026(a) to make it clear that either the qualified 
individual or the alternate, but not both, must be available on a 24-
hour basis. This conforms with both the intent stated in the IFR 
preamble and the related section of the VRP rule.
    One comment stressed that the qualified individual should be 
knowledgeable about not only the financial aspect of an oil spill 
response, but also the technical issues pertaining to an oil spill 
response. The Coast Guard agrees that familiarity with response methods 
is an asset to a Qualified Individual and encourages facility owners or 
operators to designate such persons as qualified individuals; however 
the ability to commit response resources is the primary requirement.
    Under the regulations, the facility owner or operator is required 
to identify a qualified individual who is capable of arriving at the 
facility in a reasonable time. To ensure this, the Coast Guard has 
amended this section to require the qualified individual to be located 
in the United States. This issue was previously discussed in the 
preamble to the IFR.

[[Page 7899]]


Section 154.1028  Methods for Ensuring the Availability of Response 
Resources by Contract or Other Approved Means

    The Coast Guard received 11 comments on this section of the IFR. 
Four comments suggested that Sec. 154.1028(a)(1), the first means of 
identifying response resources by contract or other approved means, be 
revised to indicate that an oil spill removal organization is unable to 
guarantee the availability of identified response resources to respond 
to a spill at a facility. The regulations require the owner or operator 
of a facility to ``ensure'' the availability of response resources 
because this is the terminology used in the statute. The Coast Guard 
has emphasized that response plans are planning documents, not 
performance criteria, and that neither the owner or operator nor the 
spill removal organization can guarantee the availability of resources 
at all times. Acts of God, extremes of weather, labor disputes, the 
prior commitment of resources, and other events may preclude 
performance as planned. The Coast Guard also expects certain caveats to 
be placed in a contract indicating that the response resources 
identified are not guaranteed to perform response activities at a 
facility. The Coast Guard expects that the contract will provide for 
prompt notification of impaired ability to perform and that, when 
appropriate, facility owners and operators will seek alternate response 
resources. Notification of changes in response resources may be 
required under Sec. 154.1065(b)(3).
    Another comment stated the Coast Guard should require a facility 
owner or operator who ensures the availability of response resources by 
certifying his or her active membership in an oil spill removal 
organization under Sec. 154.1028(a)(3) also to certify that the oil 
spill removal organization has committed to respond to an oil spill 
from the facility. The Coast Guard finds that a facility's active 
membership in a spill removal organization that has identified 
specified personnel and equipment required by the regulation to arrive 
at the specified times is adequate assurance that the spill removal 
organization will respond to an oil spill at the facility.
    Four comments questioned whether an oil spill removal organization 
that has identified specific response resources to respond to an oil 
spill at one facility can list the same resources to respond to a spill 
at another facility. The Coast Guard recognizes that there are current 
limits on the amount of available response resources in the U.S.
    Facilities would be unable to operate due to their inability to 
identify available response resources which were not contracted for by 
other facilities. In addition, prohibiting oil spill removal 
organizations from contracting response resources for more than one 
facility is economically prohibitive for oil spill removal 
organizations.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard remove the fourth method 
of ensuring by contract or other approved means in Sec. 154.1028(a)(4). 
Section 154.1028(a)(4) permits the facility owner or operator to ensure 
the availability of response resources by providing a document that: 
(1) Identifies response resources to be provided by an oil spill 
removal organization in the stipulated response times in specific 
geographic areas; (2) sets out the parties' acknowledgment that the oil 
spill removal organization intends to commit the resources in the case 
of a spill; (3) permits the Coast Guard to verify the availability of 
the response resources through tests, inspections, and drills; and (4) 
is referenced in the response plan. The comment indicated that this 
provision is not necessary. The Coast Guard disagrees. Section 
154.1028(a)(4) provides the owner or operator of a facility with an 
alternate means of identifying and ensuring the availability of 
response resources. This flexibility may prove to be economically 
essential for certain facilities.
    Four comments stated that an oil spill removal organization should 
not be required to list the names of the response personnel who are 
identified to be available to respond to an oil spill. The comments 
contend that OSROs are responsible for maintaining sufficient numbers 
of trained personnel to respond to any potential spills to which it has 
committed to respond. The Coast Guard agrees. An OSRO is not required 
to list the names of persons who are identified to be available to 
respond to an oil spill; however, an oil spill removal organization 
must specify the response personnel available to respond to an oil 
spill.
    One comment indicated that a signed service agreement should be 
sufficient to meet the requirements of Sec. 154.1028(a)(5). As long as 
the ``signed service agreement'' meets the requirements of 
Sec. 154.1028 it is acceptable to the Coast Guard. Such an agreement, 
to be valid under Sec. 154.1028(a)(5), would need to identify specified 
equipment and personnel available within the applicable stipulated 
response times; and, the OSRO would need to consent to being identified 
in the plan.
    Another comment stated that the Coast Guard should require a 
facility owner or operator to ensure that identified response resources 
not only are available to arrive at stipulated times, but also are 
capable of sustaining a response effort. The comment indicated that the 
Coast Guard should analyze the adequacy of response resources on a 
systems basis to ensure that all identified resources are capable of 
functioning together. The Coast Guard finds that the response resource 
requirements are sufficient as set forth in this final rule. The 
requirements are for planning purposes only and are not intended to be 
performance standards. Where the Coast Guard has determined that it is 
both appropriate and necessary it has included times for sustained 
response effort (see Appendix C).
    One comment indicated that a facility that operates only on a 
seasonal basis should not be required to ensure the availability of 
response resources when it is not operating. Under the provisions of 
Sec. 154.100(a), a facility which is in caretaker status is exempt from 
the requirements of this regulation and, therefore, is not required to 
ensure the availability of response resources when it is in caretaker 
status.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard provide a mechanism for 
contractors to exercise some control over where they are named as 
response resources. This comment expanded upon its suggestion by 
stating that the Coast Guard should require some documentation which 
validates the relationship between the contractor and the owner or 
operator. Section 154.1028 provides for five methods of ensuring the 
availability of response resources, including OSROs, by contract or 
other approved means. At a minimum, the OSRO must provide written 
consent to being identified in a response plan. Under some conditions, 
a written contractual agreement must be executed between the OSRO and 
the owner or operator of the facility. These contracts must be made 
available for review upon request by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard 
contends that this provides adequate documentation that the proper 
relationship exists between the OSRO and the owner or operator of the 
facility.
    One comment argued that contracts should be required as an 
outgrowth of comprehensive risk analyses at each potential spill site 
rather than the result of an intuitive need to have resources 
available. The Coast Guard disagrees. OPA 90 requires the preparation 
and submission of a response plan for an onshore facility that, because 
of its 

[[Page 7900]]
location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the 
environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters or adjoining 
shorelines. The OPA 90 Conference Report (Report 101-653) states that 
even small onshore facilities could result in substantial harm under 
some circumstances. Therefore, the requirements to prepare and submit a 
response plan should be broadly applied. Along with other Federal 
agencies, the Coast Guard has established criteria to be considered in 
designating a facility as substantial harm. These factors include, but 
are not limited to: type and quantity of oils handled in bulk, facility 
spill history, proximity to public and commercial water supply intakes; 
proximity to navigable water and proximity to areas of economic 
importance.

Section 154.1029  Worst Case Discharge

    The Coast Guard received a total of 16 comments on this section of 
the IFR. Ten comments addressed the relationship between the Coast 
Guard's definition of worst case discharge and the term as it is 
defined by other Federal agencies. Four comments indicated that the 
Coast Guard's definition of worst case discharge should be the same as 
the definition found in EPA's response plan regulations. Five comments 
indicated the need for consistency among Coast Guard, EPA, and RSPA 
definitions of worst case discharge, and suggested that the Coast Guard 
adopt RSPA's definition. The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. 
Because the Coast Guard, EPA, and RSPA regulate different portions of 
an oil complex, the amount of oil in a worst case discharge volume from 
each of these portions of the complex will vary depending on the nature 
of the facility's operations. Coast Guard regulations address only the 
MTR portion of the complex.
    Three comments indicated that the Coast Guard should adopt the EPA 
and RSPA policy of giving credit to the facility for the use of 
secondary containment and other preventive measures. Seven comments 
reiterated the point that Coast Guard regulations should encourage the 
use of preventive measures. The Coast Guard strongly encourages 
facilities to employ pollution prevention measures including secondary 
containment. However, the nature of MTR facilities makes secondary 
containment impractical in most cases and therefore very uncommon. For 
this reason, the Coast Guard does not require MTR facilities to have 
secondary containment. The Coast Guard does not give credit for such 
measures because, while these measures will reduce the risk to the 
environment from an oil spill, they will not eliminate it altogether. 
Subparts A and B of 33 CFR part 154 already contain pollution 
prevention regulations. The Coast Guard considers additional pollution 
prevention regulations to be outside the scope of this regulation.
    The Coast Guard received several comments on the amount of the 
worst case discharge volume. All comments indicated that the worst case 
discharge volume, as calculated using the formula in 
Sec. 154.1029(a)(2), should be reduced. Many of the comments stated 
that the Coast Guard's definition of worst case discharge should not 
include a total loss of a facility's oil storage capacity and suggested 
that it be based on factors such as spill history, the capacity of the 
largest single pipeline, or the capacity of pipelines to the single 
largest docking pier. Additionally, four comments indicated that the 
definition exceeded the congressional intent of this term--the largest 
foreseeable discharge from a facility. The Coast Guard disagrees. 
Section 4201(b) of OPA 90 defines a worst case discharge as the largest 
foreseeable discharge (from a facility) in adverse weather conditions. 
The Coast Guard has interpreted this to mean the largest probable 
discharge that could occur from a facility and has determined that the 
worst case discharge includes the volumes of oil from all pipelines 
between the dock and the storage tanks. Additionally, the formula for 
calculating the worst case discharge in Sec. 154.1029(a)(2) accounts 
for the time to detect a spill from the piping and the time to secure 
the operation.
    One comment contended that the Coast Guard should not deny the 
validity of a response time calculation without substantial evidence 
that it cannot be accomplished in the time stated. The Coast Guard 
disagrees. Section 154.1045 and appendix C of the final rule provide 
requirements on which to base on-water and on-land response times. A 
facility owner or operator proposing to use more rapid response times 
bears the burden of proving the validity of the alternate calculation.
    One comment suggested that both human and mechanical systems should 
be considered for detecting spills during transfer operations. The 
comment notes that, in the preamble to the IFR for this section, the 
Coast Guard referred only to ``fail-safe features designed into the 
operation such as leak detection and mechanical methods of isolating 
segments of the pipeline.''
    The Coast Guard is concerned that undue reliance on fail-safe 
features may lead to an underestimation of necessary response resources 
in the event of a discharge from the facility. The Coast Guard 
concludes that it is reasonable to base the worst case discharge 
planning volume on the failure of such fail-safe features since it has 
been the Coast Guard's experience that these features do not always 
work as expected.
    One comment argued that worst case discharge calculation methods 
should be maintained separate from the facility response plan to keep 
the document from becoming too bulky. The Coast Guard agrees. It is not 
required that the response plan contain the method or numbers used in 
calculating the worst case discharge. Only the volume of the average 
most probable, maximum most probable, and worst case discharges need be 
provided. However, providing the numbers used to arrive at the worst 
case discharge will facilitate review of the response plan.

Section 154.1030  General Response Plan Contents

    The Coast Guard received 10 comments on the requirements for 
general response plan contents. Two comments expressed approval of the 
plan format requirements established in the IFR and indicated that 
other Federal agencies should adopt these requirements. Another 
comment, however, expressed that the order of the sections required in 
the plan is inappropriate and should be changed. The Coast Guard has 
reviewed the response plan formatting requirements and has determined 
that the current response plan format facilitates easy use of the 
response plan; therefore, the Coast Guard has made no changes to the 
formatting requirements in the final rule. Section 154.1030(e), 
however, does permit a facility owner or operator to submit a response 
plan that does not follow the format specified in the regulation as 
long as the plan is supplemented with a detailed cross-reference 
section identifying the location of the applicable sections required by 
the regulation.
    One comment stated that a facility owner or operator should be 
permitted to reference previously established procedures in the plan's 
appendices rather than restating them in the plan. The Coast Guard 
disagrees. The Coast Guard intends for the response plan to serve as 
the primary document referenced by facility personnel during a spill 
response. In the event of an oil discharge, facility personnel should 
be required to refer to only one comprehensive manual for instruction 

[[Page 7901]]
on spill response activities and procedures. The regulation, however, 
does not preclude a facility owner or operator from referencing 
previously established material in the plan as long as the information 
required by the regulation is contained in the appropriate section on 
the response plan.
    Many comments addressed the requirements for response plan 
contents. One comment suggested that response plans be expanded to 
include measures for prevention, control, containment, and restoration 
as well as methods for cleanup and disposal. The regulation currently 
addresses these issues, with the exception of prevention and 
restoration methods. Section 4202 of OPA 90, the authorizing provision 
for response plan requirements, grants the Coast Guard authority to 
issue regulations addressing only spill response activities. It does 
not address spill prevention or restoration and, therefore, these 
issues are not addressed by this regulation.
    Four comments suggested that the plans address company or site-
specific information. Section 154.1035(g) requires facility specific 
information to be included as an appendix to the plan. A facility owner 
or operator may also include company specific information as a separate 
appendix to the plan.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard reduce the amount of 
information required in the plan and indicated that the Coast Guard 
should require only vital emergency response information in the plan to 
streamline the initial notification process. The regulations establish 
minimum content requirements for response plans and require information 
that the Coast Guard has determined to be essential for the plan to be 
of significant use by facility personnel. The Coast Guard, however, 
encourages facility owners or operators to develop response plans which 
incorporate flowcharts and checklists to facilitate the use of the plan 
in an emergency.
    Several comments addressed the requirement for response plans to be 
consistent with the NCP and the ACPs, particularly as it applies to the 
identification of sensitive areas under Sec. 154.1035(b)(4). Some 
comments pointed out the difficulties of developing response plans that 
are consistent with the ACPs when many of the ACPs are not yet 
published. In the preamble to the IFR, the Coast Guard recognized that 
many of the ACPs were not complete when the IFR was published. The 
Coast Guard indicated that, in these cases, the facility owner or 
operator would be required to identify the fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environments described in the applicable local contingency 
plans. Additionally, Appendix D of part 154 was developed to assist 
facility owners or operators in identifying fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environments which could be impacted by a worst case 
discharge from the facility. Because the coastal ACPs are now complete, 
in this final rule the Coast Guard has replaced appendix D of part 154 
which provided guidance in identifying fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments with a new appendix D which covers training. On March 29, 
1994, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the 
Department of Commerce published a notice establishing guidelines for 
the identification of fish and wildlife and sensitive environments to 
further assist facility owners or operators in identifying areas 
requiring additional protection from discharged oil (59 FR 14714). This 
interim guidance was to be used by a facility owner or operator until 
the applicable ACPs were completed.
    Since the publication of the NOAA guidance, all of the ACPs have 
been completed. Facility owners or operators must ensure that their 
response plans are in accordance with the ACP in effect 6 months prior 
to initial plan submission or the annual plan review required under 
Sec. 154.1065(a). The facility owner or operator who submits plan is 
not required to, but may, at the owner or operator's option, conform to 
an ACP which is less than 6 months old at the time of plan submission.
    One comment expressed that the ACPs should be open for public 
comment because of their impact on the response plans. Any member of 
the public may attend meetings held on the development of the ACP.
    One comment urged the Coast Guard to provide guidance as to how an 
owner or operator could cover more than one facility in a response 
plan. Facility response plans must be developed for a specific facility 
and it is not practical for a plan to cover more than one facility. 
Portions of a corporate response plan may be appropriate for inclusion 
in several facility response plans.
    Two comments urged that the facility response plan be part of a 
more comprehensive plan and not necessarily a stand-alone document. The 
Coast Guard disagrees. The facility response plan must be 
comprehensive. While it may reference other documents, it must 
demonstrate adequate response planning and outline facility response to 
a discharge from the facility.

Section 154.1035  Specific Requirements for Facilities That Could 
Reasonably be Expected to Cause Significant and Substantial Harm to the 
Environment

    The Coast Guard received 19 comments on the response plan 
requirements for significant and substantial harm facilities. The 
following discussion is divided to address the specific sections of the 
response plan on which comments were received.
    General. The Coast Guard received 2 comments addressing 
Sec. 154.1035(a), the response plan requirements for significant and 
substantial harm facilities, in general. One comment stated that the 
regulations require too much detail to be continued in the response 
plans. Another comment suggested that the response plans be required to 
address planning and prevention programs for spills that occur most 
frequently. The Coast Guard disagrees. As explained in the discussions 
on the requirements of Sec. 154.1030, the regulations require 
information that the Coast Guard has determined to be essential for a 
response plan to be of significant use to facility personnel for all 
reasonably foreseeable discharges. The plans address only spill 
response activities; they do not address spill prevention. Although the 
Coast Guard encourages facility owners or operators to establish spill 
prevention measures, they are beyond the scope of this regulation. The 
Coast Guard has issued pollution prevention regulations in 33 CFR part 
154.
    Notification procedures. Six comments addressed 
Sec. 154.1035(b)(1), requirements for notification procedures in the 
response plan. One comment suggested that the Coast Guard require the 
facility owner or operator to report to the initial notification if 
there was an early arrival of response equipment and whether response 
equipment was on-site during the transfer. The comment indicated that 
this would assist the Coast Guard On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) in 
assessing the need for additional response resources and in determining 
an appropriate response strategy for the spill.
    Under this section, the facility owner or operator is required to 
develop a notification sheet, which contains the information identified 
in Figure 1, to be transmitted to Federal, State, or local agencies in 
the initial and follow-up notifications of an oil discharges. The Coast 
Guard limited the required information to the minimum necessary. The 
facility owner or operator is not 

[[Page 7902]]
required to use the same format as Figure 1, but must develop a 
notification sheet that includes space for the information contained in 
Figure 1. The notification sheet may include any additional information 
that the facility owner or operator determines could be helpful to 
responding agencies. For this reason, the Coast Guard will not require 
additional information to be included on the notification sheet. The 
Coast Guard, however, urges the facility owner or operator to provide 
agency officials with any information that will assist them in 
developing appropriate spill response strategies.
    Five comments question whether the facility owner or operator is 
required to notify each individual in the spill management team and oil 
spill removal organization. This is not required. However, the facility 
owner or operator must notify someone in the management team and a 
representative of the oil spill removal organization. The Coast Guard 
encourage facility owners or operators to coordinate with the spill 
management team and oil spill removal organization to designate a 
primary, and an alternate, point-of-contact for notifications in each 
organization.
    Facility spill mitigation procedures. The Coast Guard received two 
comments on Sec. 154.1035(b)(2), facility spill mitigation procedures 
which addressed spill prevention measures, secondary containment, and 
requirements for complexes. These issues have been addressed in 
discussions on Secs. 154.1030, 154.1029, and 154.1017 respectively.
    Facility response activities. The Coast Guard received two comments 
on Sec. 154.1035(b)(3) which suggested that the Coast Guard require an 
OSRO to provide trained personnel necessary to continue operation not 
only for the first 7 days of the response, but for the total time 
needed to complete the spill response or until the OSRO is released 
from its response obligations by the COTP. The comments indicated that 
7 days is too short to complete response activities for a large oil 
spill. The Coast Guard agrees that 7 days is not long enough to 
complete a response to a large spill; however, the requirements of this 
section are for planning purposes only. The facility owner or operator 
is required only to identify resources for the first 7 days of the 
spill response; however, he or she is required to ensure that adequate 
response resources are available until all spill response activities 
are concluded and the resources are dismissed by the OSC.
    One of the comments also suggested that the Coast Guard require the 
use of the National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS) 
Incident Command System (ICS) to standardize incident command in the 
United States. Facility owners or operators should refer to the ACPs 
for guidance on the use of NIIMS ICS.
    The Coast Guard has revised Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iii) and (iv) of 
the final rule to be consistent with the language found in comparable 
sections of the VRP regulation. These revisions do not change the 
substantive requirements of this section.
    Sensitive environments. The Coast Guard received 14 comments 
addressing Sec. 154.1035(b)(4), requirements to protect sensitive 
environments.
    Two comments stated that the definition of sensitive environments 
should be the same in both the Coast Guard and EPA response plan 
regulations. As previously stated in the discussion on Sec. 154.1020, 
the Coast Guard has added the term ``fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments'' to the definitions in the final rule. This term also has 
been adopted by EPA. Accordingly, this subsection has been renamed 
``Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments'' in the final rule.
    Several comments addressed the identification of fish and wildlife 
and sensitive environments, particularly the requirement that these 
areas be consistent with those identified in the ACPs. These comments 
have been addressed in the preamble discussion on Sec. 154.1030.
    Many comments indicated that the requirement in the IFR to identify 
areas of economic importance results in the identification of certain 
areas that have no significant environmental sensitivity. As an 
example, one comment indicated that certain areas such as 
transportation routes are economically important, but not 
environmentally sensitive. As this comment illustrates, this 
requirement is not intended to result in the identification of every 
area of economic importance. It is, however, intended to protect those 
areas that are not otherwise identified as environmentally sensitive, 
such as recreational beaches, parks, and aquaculture sites, industrial 
water intakes and other areas important to the economic well-being of 
the surrounding community. These areas of economic importance will be 
identified by the ACPs.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard include water intakes 
within fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. The Coast Guard 
defers to the ACPs for such identifications.
    Two comments indicated that this section of the regulation does not 
provide enough guidance on determining the adequacy of the planning 
distances and the response equipment identified for the protection of 
fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. The comments recognized 
the utility of spill trajectory models, but indicated that they all are 
not equally reliable. Under the regulation, facility owners or 
operators are not limited to using spill trajectory models to determine 
the location of fish and wildlife and sensitive environments that may 
be affected by a discharge of oil from their facility.
    Section 154.1035(b)(4)(iii)(B)(1) of the final rule provides 
facility owners or operators with a basic formula for calculating the 
distances that discharged oil will flow from the facility under certain 
conditions at specified times. The Coast Guard recognizes that this 
formula may not take into account certain geographic and weather-
related conditions that normally exist in some ports which may affect 
the distances that discharged oil may travel from the facility; 
therefore, the COTP will determine whether the appropriate factors have 
been accounted for in the identification of fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environments. The adequacy of the identified resources also 
will be assessed by the COTP.
    The final rule also provides facility owners or operators with a 
third means of complying with the requirements of this section. In 
addition to using the formula in Sec. 154.1035(b)(4)(iii)(B)(1) or 
developing a spill trajectory model, facility owners or operators are 
permitted to use the formula in appendix C of Attachment C-III of EPA's 
FRP final rule that is most appropriate for the facility (59 FR 34070; 
July 1, 1994).
    Three comments addressed the planning distances required under the 
IFR. Two comments suggested that the Coast Guard expand the provision 
in Sec. 154.1035(b)(4)(iii)(B)(1) of the IFR, which requires the 
identification of response resources for areas that will be impacted in 
48 hours in non-tidal waters, to non-persistent oils. Because of the 
rapid rate at which non-persistent oils evaporate, the Coast Guard is 
only requiring facility owners or operators to plan to respond to areas 
reached by non-persistent oil in 24 hours in non-tidal waters at 
maximum current.
    Conversely, one comment stated that the planning distances required 
by this section are significantly greater than is warranted by the 
potential impact of the facility's worst case discharge. The Coast 
Guard disagrees and contends that the effects of tides and currents on 
discharged oil warrant these planning distances.

[[Page 7903]]

    Two comments addressed response activities for wildlife protection. 
One comment suggested that response plans be required to address issues 
such as wildlife dispersal, collection, cleaning, rehabilitation, and 
recovery. Another comment suggested that response personnel be required 
to undergo special training for wildlife response. Although the Coast 
Guard encourages facility owners or operators to identify resources for 
wildlife response, it will not require these resources to be identified 
by contract or other approved means. The applicable ACP identifies 
these private and public sector resources.
    One comment states that the facility owner or operator should be 
permitted to estimate the amount of shoreline requiring protection and 
suggested that the estimate be reviewed and approved by the COTP. The 
regulation requires the owner or operator to identify required 
quantities of boom for the protection of fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environments. Facility owners or operators will be expected 
to identify enough boom to adequately protect each of the fish and 
wildlife and sensitive environments identified in their plan.
    Another comment indicated that 1 day should be reduced from the 
planning requirement if the response equipment is determined to be 
capable of arriving in less than half of the maximum required arrival 
time. The Coast Guard encourages the early arrival of response 
resources; however, it does not plan to reduce the requirements of this 
section.
    Hazard Evaluation and Spill Scenarios. The Coast Guard received a 
total of four comments on these two topics. The comments indicated that 
the final rule should include information on hazard evaluations and 
spill scenarios. Sections 154.1035(c) and (d) has been reserved for 
these topics to ensure consistent formatting of Coast Guard and EPA 
response plan regulations and to prevent plans which contained 
information required by the EPA regulations from being rejected by the 
Coast Guard. However, because the Coast Guard does not intend to 
provide guidance on hazard evaluation or spill scenarios at this time, 
it has removed these reserved paragraphs from the final rule and has 
redesignated the remaining paragraphs of this section accordingly. It 
will continue to accept plans prepared to comply with both EPA and 
Coast Guard response plan regulations.
    Training and Exercises. The Coast Guard received one comment on 
Sec. 154.1035(c) of the regulation. It is addressed in the preamble 
discussion on Sec. 154.1055.
    Appendices. The Coast Guard received one comment on 
Sec. 154.1035(e) which contended that the information in the appendices 
is redundant with information found elsewhere in the plan and suggested 
that the appendices should not be required. The Coast Guard disagrees. 
However, it recognizes that some of the information in the appendices 
may be found in other sections of the plan; telephone numbers need not 
be listed elsewhere in the response plan if provided in the appendices.
    Facility specific information. The Coast Guard received three 
comments on Sec. 154.1035(e)(1). Two comments suggested that the Coast 
Guard should not require material safety data sheets for materials 
which are not handled by the MTR portion of the facility. The Coast 
Guard agrees and does not require this information for substances that 
are not handled by the MTR portion of the facility. The third comment 
addressed firefighting capabilities and is discussed in the appropriate 
section of Sec. 154.1045.
    Equipment lists and records. The Coast Guard received one comment 
on the Sec. 154.1035(e)(3) requirement to include equipment lists and 
records in the response plan. The comment stated that the Coast Guard 
should require the identification of equipment that would be used to 
respond to the maximum most probable discharge in addition to the 
equipment used to respond to the average most probable discharge, as 
currently required by the regulation. The Coast Guard agrees and, under 
the final rule, requires facility owners or operators to list all the 
major equipment belonging to the oil spill removal organization for 
response to a maximum most probable discharge.
    Four comments were received addressing the issue of contractor 
classification and one of these comments also addressed classification 
as outlined in NVIC 12-92. One comment urged the Coast Guard not to 
require plans to list specific quantities of equipment when listing a 
Coast Guard classified oil spill response organization (OSRO) for 
recovering volumes above the caps. This same comment urged that the 
Coast Guard and the EPA extend the classification program to include 
both coastal and inland contractors, arguing that this extension would 
enhance uniformity and improve response capabilities for large oil 
spills.
    Section 154.1035(g)(3)(iii) of the final rule states that it is not 
necessary to list response equipment from an OSRO when the OSRO has 
been classified by the Coast Guard and its capacity has been determined 
to equal or exceed the response capability needed by the facility. The 
Coast Guard will accept the listing of an appropriate OSRO for response 
resources up to and beyond the listed caps. The EPA has determined that 
it will utilize the OSRO classification system established by the Coast 
Guard. An OSRO may be classified for certain size discharges and 
operations in certain specified geographic areas. Both coastal and 
inland contractors may apply for classification by the Coast Guard.
    One comment argued that industry rather than the Coast Guard should 
certify contractors. The Coast Guard finds that this is impractical. 
The Coast Guard is concerned that inconsistencies may occur in the 
classification of OSROs unless it is conducted by one organization. At 
the present time, the Coast Guard is the appropriate agency to conduct 
on OSRO classification program. The Coast Guard plans to explore using 
third parties to inspect or approve OSROs.

Section 154.1040  Specific Requirements for Facilities That Could 
Reasonably be Expected to Cause Substantial Harm to the Environment

    The Coast Guard received 2 comments on this section of the IFR. One 
comment indicated that the requirement for significant and substantial 
harm facilities to identify a corporate organizational structure that 
would be used to manage the oil spill response under 
Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iii) should be applied to substantial harm 
facilities. Additionally, the comment suggested that the Coast Guard 
require contacts for wildlife response resources; however, another 
comment stated that these facilities should be required to use legally 
binding contracts for the identification of all responses resources. 
The Coast Guard disagrees. The requirements of this section were 
developed to lessen the regulatory burden and economic impact on 
substantial harm facilities. The Coast Guard has determined that the 
costs of identifying a corporate organizational structure and 
contracting for response resources outweigh the benefits for 
substantial harm facilities.
    The IFR required the owners or operators of substantial harm 
facilities to have at least 200 feet of containment boom immediately 
available to respond to the average most probable discharge. The IFR 
was unintentionally more stringent for substantial harm facilities than 
for significant and substantial harm facilities. However, under the 
final rule, the requirement has been reduced to permit facility owner 
or operators to identify 200 feet of boom and the means 

[[Page 7904]]
of deploying it that is capable of arriving at the spill site within 1 
hour of the detection of the spill.

Section 155.1041  Specific Response Information to be Maintained on 
Mobile MTR Facilities

    The Coast Guard received one comment on this section of the IFR 
which addresses contracts or training permits for wildlife response. 
This issue is addressed in the discussion of fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environment requirements in Sec. 154.1035.

Section 154.1045  Response Plan Development and Evaluation Criteria for 
Facilities That Handle, Store, or Transport Group I Through Group IV 
Petroleum Oils

    The Coast Guard received several comments addressing this section 
which concerns the inclusion of certain information in the response 
plans for facilities handling, storing, or transporting Group I through 
Group IV petroleum oils. Two of these comments addressed this section 
generally. One comment argued that the Coast Guard should require 
contracts or training and permits, for wildlife response. As indicated 
in the discussion on fish and wildlife and sensitive environments in 
Sec. 154.1035, the Coast Guard will not require these resources to be 
contracted for in the final rule.
    Another comment contended that the regulations should provide 
further guidance on matching response equipment with the grade of 
petroleum oil spilled, arguing that the groups of petroleum oil do not 
necessarily correspond to the grades of petroleum oil and that the 
grade spilled is not necessarily the grade recovered. Response 
equipment must be certified for the grade of oil handled, stored or 
transported by any facility for which the equipment is identified as a 
response resource. The Coast Guard expects that discharged petroleum 
oil will weather and that the grade of petroleum oil discharged will 
weather sufficiently to be recovered by response equipment.
    Reclassification of bodies of water. Six comments were received 
specifically addressing the COTP's reclassification of specific bodies 
of water as being operating environments needing more or less stringent 
response resource planning in Sec. 154.1045(a)(3). Four comments argued 
that significant wave height may be such that it is unsafe to conduct 
recovery operations, making more response equipment moot. These 
comments suggested that the regulation allow less response equipment if 
operation would be unsafe in wave conditions exceeding the significant 
wave height criteria during more than 35 percent of the year. The Coast 
Guard requires the facility owner or operator to plan to recover the 
oil in the operating environment in which the facility is located. As 
stated in Sec. 154.1010, the regulation establishes a planning standard 
and not a performance standard. Decisions on whether to deploy 
equipment at the time of a discharge will remain with the COTP in 
consultation with the responsible party and OSRO.
    Two comments argued that significant wave height is only one 
criterion which should be considered during the reclassification 
determination. These comments stated that the presence of debris, ice, 
currents, wind, and darkness should also be determining factors. These 
comments further argued that the standard for reducing classification 
should be the presence of prevailing wave conditions not exceeding the 
significant wave height criteria for the less stringent operating 
environment during 85 percent of the year while the standard for 
increasing classification should remain the presence of prevailing wave 
conditions exceeding the significant wave height criteria for more than 
35 percent of the year.
    The Coast Guard has retained the percentages from the IFR. The 35 
percent threshold provides balance between anticipated area 
environmental conditions and equipment available to operate in those 
conditions. Setting a lower threshold would require new areas to 
stockpile equipment with the capability of operating in unlikely 
conditions. The rule requires that ice conditions, debris, and other 
conditions as determined by the COTP must also be considered in the 
area where the facility operates.
    Requirements pertaining to average most probable discharges. The 
Coast Guard received one comment which responded to the requirements of 
Sec. 154.1045(c). It argued that the Coast Guard should clarify that 
facilities are not responsible or obligated to respond to spills from 
vessels they do not own or operate. While the Coast Guard requires the 
facility to plan for responding to an average most probable discharge 
at the facility, it remains the responsibility of the owner or operator 
of the source of the discharge to initiate effective response at the 
time of the discharge. The regulation does not require the facility to 
respond to a discharge from a vessel and the regulation has not been 
changed to state otherwise.
    Under Sec. 154.1045(c) (1) and (2) of the IFR, facility owners or 
operators are required to identify certain equipment such as 
containment boom and means of deploying and anchoring the boom, oil 
recovery devices, and recovered oil storage capacity that are capable 
of arriving at the facility within specified times to respond to the 
average most probable discharge. Upon review of the IFR, the Coast 
Guard determined that the phrase ``at the facility'' does not indicate 
that this response equipment must be available at the scene of the oil 
discharge in the specified times. Accordingly, the Coast Guard has 
revised these provisions of the final rule to require the 
identification of response equipment that is capable of arriving at the 
spill site within the times specified by this section. This change also 
applies to comparable sections in Sec. 154.1047 of subpart F, 
Sec. 154.1225 of subpart H, and Sec. 154.1325 of subpart I.
    Requirements pertaining to response to maximum most probable 
discharges. The Coast Guard received three comments in response to the 
requirements of Sec. 154.1045(d). One comment argued that the planned 
response time for possible spills in the Great Lakes should not be 
lower than it is for other bodies of water. The Coast Guard disagrees 
and has retained the 6-hour requirement for response to a maximum most 
probable discharge. The Great Lakes are unique, self-contained, bodies 
of fresh water especially vulnerable to spills. Because of this, it is 
especially important that the response capability be available to 
respond rapidly. The maximum most probable discharge response 
capability provides a base capability that can be deployed rapidly to 
the scene of a discharge to mitigate its effects.
    Several comments argued that the Coast Guard should allow resources 
located in one or more COTP zones to be moved to another zone as part 
of a response effort. The Coast Guard expects that response resources 
may be shifted in response to large pollution incidents. The rule does 
not prohibit this shifting of resources. It may be necessary for the 
facility owner or operator to confirm the availability of other 
response resources or those response resources identified in the 
response plan above the caps. The Coast Guard reserves the right to 
invalidate a plan due to the absence of available response resources to 
respond to a maximum most probable discharge or the worst case 
discharge. However, under the final rule, the COTP may impose 
operational restrictions on a case-by-case basis, such as limitations 
on the number of transfers at the facility, or, where appropriate, may 
permit the facility to operate with temporarily modified response plan 

[[Page 7905]]
development and evaluation criteria (e.g., modified response times, 
alternate response resources, etc.).
    The Coast Guard has made minor organizational changes to this 
section of the final rule to clarify the planning requirements for the 
maximum most probable discharge. These changes more clearly indicate 
that resources identified to respond to the maximum most probable 
discharge include all equipment and personnel identified to respond to 
the average most probable discharge.
    Requirements pertaining to response to a worst case discharge to 
the maximum extent practicable. The Coast Guard received 3 comments 
responding to the requirements of Sec. 154.1045(e). One comment argued 
that owners and operators should be required to plan only for a worst 
case discharge.
    The Coast Guard's authority to regulate is broader than OPA 90. 
Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the FWPCA authorizes the Coast Guard to require 
planning for discharges other than the worst case. Based on the 
recommendations of the Oil Spill Response Plan Negotiated Rulemaking 
Committee, the Coast Guard determined that the rule also should address 
operational discharges. The Coast Guard is using its FWPCA authority to 
require planning for spills other than a worst case discharge.
    Response times and tiers. The Coast Guard received 12 comments 
addressing the response time and tier requirements for worst case 
discharges (Sec. 154.1045(f)). Two of these comments dealt with the 
issue of giving credit for early arrival of response resources. One 
comment argued in favor of this proposal and suggested that such credit 
take the form of a reduction of monetary liability for a spill, a 
reduction in liability for natural resource damage assessments, or a 
reduction in drill requirements. One comment argued against issuing 
credit for early arrival. This comment specifically argued that credit 
should not be given for dispersants if such credit would result in 
planning to use a lesser amount of mechanical recovery equipment during 
a spill. The other comment argued that the Coast Guard should encourage 
early arrival of response equipment but that it should not issue credit 
for meeting an early or minimum arrival time.
    The rule is written to require the arrival of resources in a timely 
manner to contain and remove discharged oil before it has the 
opportunity for greater dispersal. The Coast Guard cannot lessen the 
monetary liability or the liability for damage to natural resources 
based on the arrival times of response resources. The early arrival of 
these resources will lessen the likelihood of damage to natural 
resources.
    The use of dispersants is a valid response technique in certain 
circumstances. A facility that handles, stores, or transports Group II 
or III petroleum oils can receive up to 25 percent credit against on-
water recovery capability in any environment with year-round 
preapproval for use of dispersants. The response plan must address the 
arrival of these dispersants within 12 hours. The Coast Guard's 
position is that the rule strikes a proper balance in planning for the 
use of dispersants and mechanical recovery.
    One comment addressed the tiering of response resources. The 
comment indicated that this approach is not useful because it does not 
allow for an initial response with all available resources. The tiering 
requirements provide a maximum time in which certain response resources 
are capable of arriving at the scene of a petroleum oil spill; they do 
not preclude the early arrival of response resources and, therefore, do 
not preclude an initial spill response with all available resources.
    The same comment also indicated that the evaluation of the 
equipment's recovery capacity should not be based on the equipment's 
operability in the different operating environments because those 
conditions may not exist during an actual spill response. The Coast 
Guard recognizes that the conditions and assumptions on which a 
response plan is based may not exist during an actual spill response. 
However, to develop an effective response plan, a facility owner or 
operator must identify and plan to respond in the conditions which 
normally exist in the port or at the facility. As Sec. 154.1010 
indicates, the regulation establishes a planning standard and not a 
performance standard. During an actual spill response, a final 
assessment as to the type of equipment to be deployed for response to a 
discharge will be made by the COTP in the consultation with the 
responsible party and OSRO.
    Eight comments addressed various issues concerning the amounts of 
time allotted for responding to an oil spill. Two comments argued that 
facilities in higher volume port areas and the Great Lakes should plan 
using 48-hour response times for Tier 3 response resources. Two 
comments urged the Coast Guard to increase the Tier 1 response time to 
12 hours as opposed to 6 hours for higher volume port areas. Four 
comments argued that the response times should be the same regardless 
of the location of the spill. These comments further contended that the 
major reason for requiring shorter times should be for fish and 
wildlife and sensitive environment purposes, which varies for vessels 
but seems irrelevant for stationary facilities. Two comments argued 
that the response times were too low in light of the levels agreed upon 
at the Negotiated Rulemaking meetings. One of these comments urged the 
Coast Guard to reconsider these response times because current response 
times are difficult and expensive to achieve. One comment urged the 
Coast Guard to review and revise the response times in light of 
response capability. This comment also urged the Coast Guard to clarify 
that response times apply to arrival on-scene rather than deployment of 
response resources and argued that the Coast Guard should only require 
first tier dispersants to be on-scene within 12 hours, with more 
dispersants being available as needed.
    The Coast Guard contends that the tiering concept is valid and 
adequately approximates the availability of response resources. The 
tiering process reflects the arrival of available response resources 
from nearby and more distant locations. The response times in this rule 
are different than those applicable to vessels. The response times for 
vessels are predicated on responding to an incident at the outermost 
boundaries of the applicable areas, including up to 6 hours on-water 
transit of response equipment. Since MTR facilities are located on or 
along the shoreline, it will not be necessary to account for extensive 
over-water transit times. The response times provided in the final rule 
are for the planned arrival of response resources at the MTR facility 
which is the likely site of the initial cleanup activity and does not 
account for on-water deployment time. Therefore, the transit times in 
this final rule are less than those provided for vessel response plans.
    One comment addressed the definition of tiers and urged the Coast 
Guard to adopt the EPA terminology and definitions of tiers to avoid 
confusion and duplication. The EPA and the Coast Guard have used the 
same approach to the concept of tiering response resources. Tier has 
been defined under Sec. 154.1020 of the final rule.
    Identification of firefighting capability. The Coast Guard received 
several comments on firefighting capability requirements 
(Sec. 154.1045(j)). Because many of the requirements for firefighting 
capability in this section also are contained in Secs. 154.1047 and 
154.1049, comments addressing those sections also will be discussed.

[[Page 7906]]

    Two comments suggested that the coordinator of firefighting 
activities for a facility should be extremely familiar with the 
facility and its operations. Additionally, one comment argued that 
``sufficient firefighting capacity'' would be difficult to define and 
should not be included in the rule. Another comment urged the Coast 
Guard to develop more specific firefighting requirements.
    The many variables involved in the design and construction of MTR 
facilities, the products handled, and the conditions encountered in an 
actual fire, preclude the development of a fixed definition or formula 
for calculating ``sufficient firefighting capacity.'' The IRF and the 
final rule require a facility owner or operator to provide an in-house 
expert to work with the local and facility firefighting resources. This 
in-house expert is responsible for verifying that the firefighting 
resources are sufficient to respond to a worst case scenario. The Coast 
Guard believes that this approach is flexible enough to be adapted to 
the peculiarities of different facilities, and at the same time, 
provides the best practical assurance that the firefighting resources 
identified in the plan will be able to handle a fire or explosion 
resulting in a facility's worst case discharge scenario.
    One comment argued that firefighting should be addressed by the 
facility itself along with its local fire department. As written, the 
rule requires a facility owner or operator to work with local fire 
departments through an in-house expert when developing and implementing 
response planning requirements. The rule requires additional 
firefighting capability, ensured by contract or other approved means, 
only when both the facility's firefighting resources and the local 
firefighting resources are inadequate.
    One comment argued that petroleum oil fires are so rare that 
firefighting contracts should not be required. The Coast Guard 
disagrees. A facility owner or operator must be prepared to respond to 
any situation which may cause or arise from a petroleum oil discharge 
into the marine environment. Section 311(j)(5)(C)(iii) of the FWPCA 
requires resources to remove, mitigate or prevent a discharge including 
one caused by fire. The Coast Guard has consistently interpreted this 
provision to authorize the requirement that response plans ensure the 
availability of firefighting resources by contract or other approved 
means.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard cross-reference other 
applicable firefighting sections of the regulation (Secs. 154.1047 and 
154.1049). The Coast Guard has determined that these requirements 
should be set out in each section for ease of reference.
    Consistency with ACP(s). The Coast Guard received one comment on 
Sec. 154.1045(k). This comment argued that according to the IFR, a 
response method not mentioned in the ACP would be considered 
appropriate to protect fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. 
This comment suggested that the Coast Guard change the language of the 
IFR to indicate that the response plan must be consistent with the 
appropriate ACP.
    The Coast Guard has revised this section of the final rule to state 
that any plan submitted 6 months or more after the appropriate ACP is 
published must be consistent with that ACP. A plan that is consistent 
with that ACP must at least identify the fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environments covered by the ACP; however, a facility owner or 
operator who has identified additional fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments also may identify these areas in the plan. The IFR 
provision was developed so that the facility owner or operator who 
submitted a response plan prior to the publication of the ACP would not 
be required to resubmit or amend the plan once the ACP was published or 
at the time of each annual revision of the ACP. However, since the 
publication of the IFR, all of the ACPs have been published; therefore, 
all facility owners or operators making initial plan submissions under 
the final rule, the required annual update, or resubmitting plans at 
the plan's 5-year resubmission date will be required to submit plans 
which are consistent with the appropriate ACP.
    Future caps review process. The Coast Guard received seven comments 
which addressed the provisions of Sec. 154.1045(m) regarding the review 
of caps in the years 1998 and 2003. One comment argued that the Coast 
Guard should delete the 1998 cap increases until the need for such 
increases is assessed. This comment contended that the percentage 
increase as noted currently in the regulations is arbitrary and instead 
should be based on valid data.
    One important goal of OPA 90 is to increase the overall oil spill 
response capability in the United States. The Coast Guard believes that 
setting the 1998 cap now provides a clear upper target for which 
facility owners or operators and the oil spill response industry must 
plan. The Coast Guard, however, will conduct an evaluation of the 1998 
cap increase to determine if it remains practicable before it becomes 
effective.
    Four comments suggested that if the spill history of a facility 
between 1993 and 1998 is consistently better than required, then the 25 
percent increase in caps should not be required. These comments argued 
that such an exemption would encourage a quick response to an oil 
spill. Although the Coast Guard encourages rapid response to an oil 
spill, it does not believe that exempting certain facilities from the 
cap increases will expedite a facility's spill response. Additionally, 
this option does not move toward Congress's goal to increase the 
overall spill response capacity in the United States.
    One comment suggested that planning caps be increased when the plan 
is due for resubmission rather than in 1998. The Coast Guard has 
determined that the planning caps will be increased in 1998 provided 
that the required review confirms the practicability of the increases. 
A facility owner or operator will not be required to incorporate these 
caps into their plans until the Coast Guard completes the review.
    One comment suggested that the caps be rejected because the Coast 
Guard offers no rationale for the levels prescribed. This comment 
further suggested that the Coast Guard reevaluate its approach to caps 
and instead base it on an analysis of what would be a response to the 
maximum extent practicable. Alternatively, this comment suggested that 
the cap increases in Table 5 of the regulations would be acceptable if 
the amounts were doubled initially.
    As discussed in the VRP NPRM (57 FR 27514, June 19, 1992), the caps 
set out in the IFR were established by the Coast Guard upon 
recommendation by the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The Committee 
recognized that the current limits on response technologies would 
require a cap to be placed on the amount of response resources required 
to be identified for responding to a petroleum oil discharge to the 
maximum extent practicable. The caps established in the IFR reflect the 
Coast Guard's assessment of the overall response capability that can be 
achieved in the United States by 1998 taking into account factors such 
as anticipated advances in skimming efficiencies and technology, the 
development of high rate response techniques, and other applicable 
response technologies.
    Identification of equipment above Tier 3 cap. One comment was 
received addressing this provision. It argued that the capability may 
not exist to meet this requirement. Through its discussions with 
representatives of the spill response industry, the Coast Guard has 
determined that adequate response 

[[Page 7907]]
resources are currently available to enable facility owners or 
operators to meet this requirement. The final rule requires the 
identification of response equipment above the Tier 1 and 2 caps, as 
well as the Tier 3 cap. Since there is no requirement to contract for 
these resources, this is not a significant change. Response plans 
submitted prior to the IFR, following the guidance in NVIC 7-92, 
readily met this requirement.

Section 154.1047  Response Plan Development and Evaluation Criteria for 
Facilities That Handle, Store, or Transport Group V Petroleum Oils

    The Coast Guard received three comments on this section which 
requires the inclusion of certain information in response plans for 
facilities involving Group V petroleum oils. One comment addressed this 
section generally, asking for clarification of the term ``the impact of 
such discharges'' in paragraph (c)(4) of this section which requires 
the identification of equipment necessary to assess the impact of a 
worst case discharge of Group V petroleum oils to the maximum extent 
practicable. The physical characteristics of Group V petroleum oils 
make them likely to sink when spilled. As a result, traditional 
response techniques such as containing the spread of the oil on the 
surface of the water are often ineffective against these petroleum 
oils. The Coast Guard has required equipment to assess the impact of 
Group V petroleum oil discharges because that impact cannot be 
ascertained by the usual methods such as visual examination. The impact 
of discharges of Group V petroleum oil will only be detectable through 
the use of such methods as sonar or sampling equipment which can, for 
example, ascertain what petroleum oil has sunk to the bottom or remains 
suspended in the water column.
    Response time for deployment of response equipment. One comment was 
received which concerned the provisions in Sec. 154.1047(d) regarding 
the required response time for deployment of equipment. This comment 
argued that the 24-hour response time would not necessarily be the best 
for heavy petroleum oils since they are best recovered after hardening. 
This comment further argued that the Coast Guard should design more 
appropriate response times for Group V petroleum oils in general and 
asphalt in particular. The Coast Guard has designed the response times 
to ensure that an effective response is made while taking into account 
the different properties of the various petroleum oils, as well as the 
different natures of the MTR facilities and their operating 
environments. The Coast Guard recognizes that Group V petroleum oils 
react differently from other petroleum oils and this is why the Coast 
Guard separated these oils into a different category. The Coast Guard 
believes that the 24-hour response time is appropriate given the varied 
nature of Group V petroleum oils themselves, as well as the varied 
environments and conditions in which a discharge might occur.
    Firefighting capability. The Coast Guard received one comment 
addressing the requirements for firefighting capability contained 
within Sec. 154.1047(e). This comment argued that ``sufficient 
firefighting capacity'' would be difficult to define and should not be 
included in the rule. This comment further argued that firefighting 
should be addressed by the facility itself along with its local fire 
department. Identical comments were also made to Secs. 154.1045 and 
154.1049. See Sec. 154.1045 of this preamble for the Coast Guard 
response.

Section 154.1049  Response Plan Development and Evaluation Criteria for 
Facilities That Handle, Store, or Transport Non-Petroleum Oil

    Firefighting capability. The Coast Guard received one comment 
addressing the requirements for firefighting capability contained 
within Sec. 154.1049(e) of the IFR. This comment argued that 
``sufficient firefighting capacity'' would be difficult to define and 
should not be included in the rule. This comment further argued that 
firefighting should be addressed by the facility itself along with its 
local fire department. Identical comments also were made to 
Secs. 154.1045 and 154.1047. See Sec. 154.1045 of this preamble for the 
Coast Guard response.
    Non-Petroleum Oils. The Coast Guard received comments addressing 
the issue of whether the requirements set forth in the IFR for 
petroleum oils should apply to animal fats and vegetable oils and other 
non-petroleum oils. 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 non-petroleum oil spills.
    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 these 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; 
readily biodegrade; and are not persistent in the environment like 
petroleum oils. 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 which could 
result in oxygen deprivation where there is a large spill in a confined 
body of water that has a low flow and a low 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 conclude, based upon Coast Guard data, that the likelihood of a 
non-petroleum 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 VRP IFR, the Coast Guard disagreed with 
comments on the VRP NPRM which claimed that edible oils pose less 
relative risk to the environment. The environmental effects of 
discharges of non-petroleum oils are clearly documented and in many 
respects are similar to the environmental effects of discharges of 
petroleum oils.
    In letters to the docket, 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 and other non-petroleum 
oils. DOI, NOAA and FWS all concluded that these oils pose risks to the 
marine environment when spilled.
    The agencies attributed the detrimental effects of non-petroleum 
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 morality. All three 
agencies also confirmed the industry report's conclusion that 
discharges of non-petroleum oils can result in increased Biological 
Oxygen Demand in receiving waters, thereby decreasing available oxygen 
in the 

[[Page 7908]]
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 behave like Crisco (a hydrogenated animal fat) 
probably persisting for over a decade.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service letter specifically responded to the 
industry sponsored study. The FWS 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 non-petroleum oils including different toxicity levels. It pointed 
out that physical fouling is similar for both petroleum and non-
petroleum oils, and additionally, 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 these oils allows deeper penetration into the plumage of 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 uninformed 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 non-petroleum oils can cause lipid 
pneumonia, diarrhea, and 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 non-
petroleum 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 found to be coated with paraffin and consequently was no longer 
water repellent; and surveys of Dutch beaches in 1990 which found that 
25 percent 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 worst case 
discharge of animal fats or vegetable oils or other non-petroleum oils 
from an MTR facility could reasonably be expected to cause harm to the 
environment. Therefore, facilities that handle, store, or transport 
these oils, and meet the requirements of Sec. 154.1015(b), are required 
to prepare and submit response plans. If the facility meets the 
criteria in Sec. 154.1015(c) for a facility that could cause 
significant and substantial harm, the response plan must be approved by 
the Coast Guard.
    Because there is insufficient data to support a finding that a 
spill of a large quantity of animal fats or vegetable oils or other 
non-petroleum 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 facility that handles, stores, or transports these oils should 
have reduced response requirements from those provided in the IFR. 
However, the Coast Guard does acknowledge that animal fats and 
vegetable oils or other non-petroleum oils may behave differently from 
petroleum or petroleum-based oils and has created new subparts H and I 
to address response plan requirements for these oils. For further 
information see the discussions of subparts H and I in this preamble.
    The Coast Guard received one comment which requested the suspension 
of the IFR's implementation until hearings can be held on amending the 
rule to exclude animal and vegetable fats from these regulations. The 
Coast Guard disagrees. Animal fats and vegetable oils are considered to 
be oils under the FWPCA. They are specifically defined as non-petroleum 
oils in the final rule and may result in serious harm to the 
environment in the event of a discharge to navigable waters. For 
additional information on this issue, see response to similar comments 
in Sec. 154.1015.

Section 154.1050  Training

    The Coast Guard received 15 comments on this section. The comments 
were not in agreement about whether the Coast Guard should include more 
specific training requirements in the final rule. Three comments stated 
they wanted more detailed standards to define the frequency of 
refresher courses and the minimum level of Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) training required. One comment suggested 
making training requirements compatible with EPA standards. Five 
comments were against developing any additional training requirements.
    The Coast Guard has not modified the training requirement of this 
section in the final rule; however, a new appendix D entitled 
``Training Elements for Oil Spill Response Plans'' has been added to 
subpart 154 to provide guidelines to facility owners or operators for 
the development of the training portions of their response plans. 
Additionally, training guidelines for facility response plans, 
including refresher training, are defined in OSHA standards for 
emergency response operations in 29 CFR part 1910, appendix D. As 
indicated in appendix D to part 154, the specifics of the training 
program should be determined by the facility owner or operator. On the 
job training and experience may cover parts or all of the training 
requirements, as appropriate.
    Many comments remarked that the responsibility of a facility owner 
or operator to ensure adequate training of all private response 
personnel in Sec. 154.1050(d) is inappropriate, costly, and possibly 
duplicative when an OSRO also is required to demonstrate training. One 
comment argued that the Coast Guard should require OSROs rather than 
the owners or operators to be 

[[Page 7909]]
responsible for training employees and maintaining proper records. The 
Coast Guard disagrees. While the owner or operator of the facility may 
shift training requirements to an OSRO through contract or agreement, 
the owner or operator of the facility remains responsible to ensure 
that adequate trained response resources are available.
    One comment suggested specifying that OSHA retains enforcement 
authority for working conditions not addressed by Coast Guard 
standards. The Coast Guard agrees, but does not find it necessary to 
state that enforcement of the OSHA standards remains with that agency.
    One comment mentioned that facilities handling only edible oils 
should be exempt from the training requirements. The Coast Guard 
believes training standards are necessary for MTR facilities regardless 
of the specific type of oil handled, stored, or transported. Therefore, 
the Coast Guard will not change the requirements.
    One comment remarked that it was not practical to ensure that 
volunteers and casual laborers have OSHA training. In Sec. 154.1050 
(a), the Coast Guard requires only that a ``method of training'' be 
identified to comply with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120. 
Volunteers and casual laborers who are not trained or familiar with 
hazards associated from contact with oil must be trained to meet OSHA 
requirements.

Section 154.1055  Exercises

    The Coast Guard has extensively revised Sec. 154.1055 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 facility 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. 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 this regulation.
    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 OSROs. Four public workshops were announced in 
the Federal Register and were conducted in Washington, DC, and Tampa, 
FL. These efforts resulted in the creation of unified requirements 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.
    Equipment. The Coast Guard received 16 comments on 
Sec. 154.1055(a)(3), equipment deployment drills. One comment argued 
that facility owners and operators should not be penalized when 
response resources are not available due to a real emergency. The Coast 
Guard recognizes that actual availability of response resources may be 
limited by unforeseeable events such as multiple simultaneous oil 
spills.
    Three comments requested additional information on equipment 
deployment. Another wanted specific information on equipment deployment 
drills for facilities that have no equipment of their own. One comment 
stated that the Coast Guard should remove mandatory equipment 
deployment for the entire plan drill. Two comments remarked that it 
would be better to require one major equipment deployment exercise in 
each COTP zone every 3 years. Another comment suggested that full scale 
drills should determine only the response time of contractors and test 
only strategic personnel, and not require equipment deployment. The 
Coast Guard's position is that equipment deployment exercises are vital 
for maintaining readiness and for testing the effectiveness of a 
facility's response plan. The revised Sec. 154.1055 continues to 
require semiannual equipment deployment exercises for facility owned or 
operated equipment and annual equipment deployment exercises for OSRO 
equipment. These standards are in accord with the requirements of the 
PREP program.
    Frequency. Several comments remarked that the costs of drills were 
excessive. Many suggested that the frequency of various drills should 
be decreased. Two comments requested additional details on frequency of 
drills and credit provisions for separate drill elements. Two comments 
also suggested that the number of drills required should be decreased 
over time because they lose effectiveness. As indicated earlier, the 
Coast Guard has revised the exercises section of the final rule to be 
in accordance with PREP. It has adjusted the frequency of some 
exercises. Qualified individual notification exercises are required 
quarterly instead of monthly and whole plan exercises may now be 
carried out in parts rather than all at once. The Coast Guard believes 
exercises continue to be effective over time as equipment and personnel 
change.
    A significant number of comments suggested that credit be given for 
equipment and personnel drill requirements when other drills provide 
adequate practice. The different kinds 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.
    Two comments suggested that an actual response situation should 
credit some drills. In this final rule, the Coast Guard has made 
participation in the PREP program satisfy all exercise requirements. 
Under PREP, facilities which have an actual response situation may get 
exercise credit. For more detailed guidance the PREP guidelines should 
be consulted.
    Six comments remarked that participation in one drill by a spill 
management team (SMT) should meet the requirements for all facilities 
using that team. The PREP guidelines address this concern in detail; 
PREP allows multiple facilities using the same SMT to receive credit 
for a single exercise of that SMT as long as the specified criteria are 
met.
    Seven comments wanted other Federal, state, or local drills to 
credit Coast Guard drills where appropriate. The Coast Guard has no 
control over whether other agencies give credit for Coast Guard 
exercises.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard coordinate nationally to 
determine that credit be given only for personnel and equipment which 
actually participated in drills. The Coast Guard requires that the 
facility maintain records of exercises; and that these records be made 
available to the COTP upon request. A facility that lists an OSRO 
located outside the facility's COTP zone must still satisfy the 
facility's own COTP that the listed OSRO has fulfilled the applicable 
exercise requirements. Any facility which does not satisfy the 
applicable COTP that it has fulfilled its exercise requirements is 
subject to enforcement action by the COTP under this regulation. The 
Coast Guard believes that the existing requirements are sufficient to 
ensure that all personnel and equipment listed in facility response 
plans are exercised at the appropriate intervals.
    Details of plan. The Coast Guard received 6 comments suggesting 

[[Page 7910]]
    wording changes. One general comment was received discussing the need 
for more detailed guidance. Due to extensive revisions of this section, 
these changes would not be applicable and, therefore, will not be 
incorporated into the text.
    Unannounced drills. Some comments requested that the Coast Guard 
decrease the number of unannounced drills required by Sec. 154.1055(b) 
to one drill every 1, 2, or 5 years. Many argued that unannounced 
drills were too costly and should either be limited due to economic 
concerns or not required at all. Some also remarked that such drills 
were unnecessary due to the need for other drills. Some comments 
asserted that operations should not be disrupted by unannounced drills. 
Others wanted facility owners and operators to be compensated for the 
cost associated with unannounced drills. Two comments suggested that 
OSROs and SMTs should only be activated if experience and available 
resources were believed to be inadequate, two others remarked that only 
the SMT should be activated. One comment suggested focusing on the 
initial callout only. A few comments asked that the unannounced drills 
be limited in scope, kept short and only required after 24-hour 
notification. One comment suggested requiring notification of the Coast 
Guard during an unannounced drill and having the Coast Guard observe 
the drill rather than requesting their own drills separately. Finally, 
one comment questioned whether customers would be expected to 
participate in unannounced drills and wondered who would be liable for 
the costs incurred. The Coast Guard finds that unannounced exercises 
serve an important purpose in maintaining response resource readiness. 
The final rule states that annually one of the required exercises 
(spill management team tabletop, equipment deployment, or emergency 
procedures) must be conducted unannounced. Unannounced means that the 
personnel participating in the exercise must not be advised in advance 
of the exact date, time and scenario of the exercise. Additionally, the 
facility owner or operator may be required by the COTP to conduct an 
unannounced exercise at the facility. These COTP initiated exercises 
will be limited to average most probable discharge exercises as 
outlined in the facility's response plan. Such exercises involve 
notifications and equipment deployment. Each COTP will limit the number 
of COTP initiated unannounced exercises to no more than 4 per year. If 
a facility owner or operator participates in an unannounced exercise 
initiated by the COTP, the facility will be exempt from participating 
in a COTP initiated unannounced exercise for at least 3 years.
    Records. The Coast Guard received 5 comments on Sec. 154.1055(d), 
stating that the facility owner or operator should bear the 
responsibility for keeping and maintaining the records at the facility 
along with the plan. The comments asserted that it would suffice to 
have the records signed by an authorized federal representative at the 
drill site, rather than having the records sent to the Coast Guard. The 
Coast Guard has changed Sec. 154.1055 to reflect this comment. The 
section now requires records to be maintained at the facility for 3 
years and be made available to the Coast Guard upon request.

Section 154.1060  Submission and Approval Procedures

    The Coast Guard received 9 comments addressing the proposed 
requirement for a maximum validation period of up to 5 years. Three 
comments did not support having a plan expiration date at all, 
suggesting that the Coast Guard would not have sufficient time to 
approve the new plans. Four comments suggested that substantive changes 
as a result of major NCP or ACP revisions should not require plans to 
be resubmitted until the 5-year term is complete. Several comments did 
not want facility owners or operators to be required to resubmit plans 
when no substantive changes were made. One comment asked for 
clarification as to whether plans must be resubmitted to the Coast 
Guard 5 years from the date of COTP approval or every 5 years, 
regardless of whether there have been revisions.
    OPA 90 requires a facility 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 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.
    Although the plans need not be resubmitted until the end of the 5-
year term, major revisions to a response plan as set out in 
Sec. 154.1065(b) must be sent to the COTP within 30 days; and 
deficiencies in an originally submitted plan or a 5-year resubmission 
of a plan, must be corrected within the time specified by the COTP. NCP 
or ACP changes will not require resubmission of the plan until the 5-
year term is complete. The requirements for plan resubmission after the 
5-year term are set out in Sec. 154.1060 of the final rule. The COTP 
will notify the facility owner or operator in writing of the status of 
the plan.
    Another two comments requested 60 days rather than 30 days to 
forward major plan corrections to the COTP in response to COTP noted 
deficiencies in the originally submitted plan, or a 5-year plan 
resubmission. Several comments proposed that the COTP determine the 
time period for sending such plan corrections, but that the period be 
not less than 30 days. As a result of the comments on the 30-day time 
limit for sending plan corrections to the COTP in response to COTP 
noted deficiencies, the Coast Guard has changed this provision and now 
requires that a facility owner or operator correct noted deficiencies 
within the time period provided by the COTP. This adjustment allows for 
greater flexibility in determining an appropriate time period based on 
the corrections needed.
    Two comments expressed concern over the number of copies needed to 
review the facility response plan, and asserted that only one copy was 
needed by the COTP. The comment also argued that the COTP need not 
return the approved plan, but instead, that an approval notice would be 
sufficient. The Coast Guard has changed Sec. 154.1060 of the final rule 
to require only one copy of the plan to be submitted to the COTP. 
Additionally, one copy of the plan must be maintained at the facility 
in a 

[[Page 7911]]
position where the plan is readily available to persons in charge of 
conducting transfer operations.
    Two comments suggested that a copy of the plan should be forwarded 
to the state water pollution control agency and the emergency response 
organization's and be available to the local response organizations 
upon request. Any state agency which desires a copy of the response 
plan should request one from the facility owner or operator directly. 
The Coast Guard cannot involve itself in matters which would be largely 
governed by state statute. In order to fulfill the requirements for 
exercises under Sec. 154.1055, OSROs must be familiar with any response 
plans in which they are listed. The Coast Guard leaves to the owners or 
operators and their OSROs the specific method by which the OSROs will 
gain the needed familiarity with the plan.
    One comment stated that there should be an appeals process, 
allowing the facility owner or operator to contest the COTP decision. 
Both the IFR and the final rule already contain an appeal process 
located in Sec. 154.1075 and entitled ``Appeal process.''

Section 154.1065  Plan Review and Revision Procedures

    The Coast Guard received 6 comments on the revision of plans. Four 
comments requested that the facility owner or operator be given at 
least 6 months to incorporate major revisions into the plan. One 
comment suggested that the rule needed a better definition of which 
facilities are required to revise plans. Another comment requested 
clarification of which revisions to facility plans require notification 
of the Coast Guard.
    Section 154.1065 requires all facilities to review their plans 
annually and to send any revisions to the COTP for information or 
approval; or if no revisions are made during the course that year, the 
facility owner or operator must certify by letter to the COTP that the 
plan remains valid with no revisions. Revisions which must be submitted 
to the COTP for approval or inclusion in the plan are listed in 
Sec. 154.1065(b). Requirements for 5-year plan resubmission have been 
removed from Sec. 154.1065(b)(7) and now are specified in 
Sec. 154.1060(e) of the final rule.
    The Coast Guard received two comments recommending that plan 
revisions be sent to the COTP before planned actions occur, to ensure 
COTP approval. A 30-day period for approving a plan was also suggested. 
In order to meet the statutory requirements of OPA 90, facilities must 
operate in full compliance with their submitted response plan. the 
Coast Guard concludes that a 30-day period is appropriate for COTP 
action on submitted revisions(s); and as an effective date for 
submitted revision(s). This final rule provides that when revision(s) 
to a plan are necessary, the facility owner or operator must submit the 
proposed revision(s) to the COTP. The COTP will review the proposed 
revision(s) and will provide any necessary feedback to the facility 
owner or operator within 30 days. The revisions will become effective 
not later than 30 days from their submission to the COTP, unless the 
COTP indicates otherwise.
    Another comment argued that requiring annual certification by 
facility owners and operators was too administratively burdensome to 
the Coast Guard. Five comments suggested that it should only be 
necessary to notify the Coast Guard of significant changes to the plan. 
Two comments requested that facilities be allowed to file a letter at 
the facility instead of placing it with the plan itself to avoid 
unnecessary paper buildup. The Coast Guard has reviewed this 
requirement in light of these comments and the President's directive to 
reduce reporting requirements and has eliminated the requirement to 
submit an annual certification that the owner or operator has reviewed 
the facility response plan. The regulation has been modified to reflect 
that the owner or operator is still required to annually review the 
plan and notify the Coast Guard of changes; however, no report is 
required if changes are not needed.

Section 154.1070  Deficiencies

    The Coast Guard received 6 comments addressing this section. One 
comment stressed that the Coast Guard should allow 30 days, rather than 
7, to appeal a deficiency notice from the COTP. Another comment argued 
that 60 days minimum should be allowed to correct deficiencies. Other 
comments stated that the revised plan should be submitted within a time 
period provided by the COTP, after a minimum of 30 days. It has been 
the Coast Guard's experience that the 7 day appeal limit allows 
adequate time for a facility owner or operator to make an initial 
appeal of a COTP issued deficiency and it is not expected that a 
shorter time frame would be imposed unless a significant hazard exists. 
However, because these time requirements are relatively new, the Coast 
Guard will continue to monitor this time frame as well as other time 
limits contained in the FRP appeal process and may modify the time 
limits in the future.
    One comment urged the Coast Guard to provide more detail on 
enforcement mechanisms. The Coast Guard has provided guidance directly 
to the COTPs responsible for enforcing these regulations. This guidance 
will be updated as the Coast Guard gains more experience in the review 
and usefulness of response plans.

Section 154.1075  Appeal Process

    The Coast Guard received 6 comments concerning the appeal process. 
Four comments wanted the scope of appealable issues more clearly 
defined. Another comment stated that the Coast Guard should allow a 
time period to determine whether a facility is a substantial harm, or 
significant and substantial harm facility. The comment continued by 
arguing that notification to a facility owner or operator of 
reclassification should occur within 60 days. If no response is 
received within this time frame, then the facility owner or operator 
can assume that reclassification is accepted. The comment continued by 
stating that 30 days should be allowed to appeal the COTP's decision to 
the District Commander. Another comment agreed and stressed that 
facility owners and operators should be able to appeal the COTP's 
decision that a plan is not adequate. A facility owner or operator may 
appeal any initial determination made by a COTP regarding that 
facility's plan. This includes but is not limited to, classification 
decisions, reclassification decisions and deficiency decisions. The 
Coast Guard believes the present procedures give owners or operators 
sufficient time and opportunity to appeal a decision.

Subpart G--Additional Response Plan Requirements for a Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA) Facility Operating in Prince William 
Sound, Alaska

Section 154.1120  Operating Restrictions and Interim Operating 
Authorization

    The Coast Guard received one comment recommending that it establish 
a 4-day time limit in which a 200,000 barrel spill must be removed. The 
comment also suggested changing the wording in this section by 
replacing ``provided, through an oil spill removal organization 
required by Sec. 154.1125'' with ``ensured, by contract or other 
approved means.'' The Coast Guard concludes that the required response 
times are appropriate and will ensure that adequate response is made in 


[[Page 7912]]
Prince William Sound. A set 4-day time limit would be too inflexible 
and would not take into account varying conditions. Section 154.1110 of 
subpart G requires a TAPAA facility owner or operator to meet all 
requirements of subpart F in addition to the requirements of subpart G 
itself. Because subpart F includes requirements for ensuring by 
contract or other approved means any OSRO, a restatement of the 
requirement in subpart G is unnecessarily repetitive.
    The comment also recommended that the Coast Guard include a 
statement telling facility owners or operators that plan approval for 
Prince William Sound facilities is valid only as long as the Prince 
William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council is funded in 
accordance with OPA 90. The Coast Guard agrees with the comment and has 
added language to Sec. 154.1120 to that effect.

Section 154.1125  Additional Response Plan Requirements

    The Coast Guard received one comment on this section stating that 
additional communities should be included for training. The communities 
suggested are Seward, Seldovia, Homer, and Kodiak, Alaska. The comment 
also argued that a minimum of 2,000 trained personnel should be 
required to remove a 200,000 barrel discharge. 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 154.1130  Requirements for Prepositioned Response Equipment

    The Coast Guard received one comment on this section of the IFR. 
The comment agreed that an independent inspection or certification 
entity was a good idea. The comment also stated that the section should 
be revised to include the standard for response capabilities which is 
currently 200,000 barrels per day in the Prince William Sound to 
reflect the true maximum extent practicable. Maximum extent practicable 
is based upon the planned capability to respond to a worst case 
discharge in adverse weather. The standards set forth in the IFR, and 
continued in the final rule, include a daily recovery rate of 30,000 
barrels per day on scene within 2 hours, and a daily recovery rate of 
40,000 barrels on scene within 18 hours. In addition, Sec. 154.1130 
also requires on-water storage capability of 100,000 barrels to be on 
scene within 2 hours, and on-water storage capability of 300,000 
barrels to be on scene within 12 hours. The Coast Guard concludes that 
the standards set forth are sufficient to protect Prince William Sound 
and meet OPA 90's requirement of a response to the maximum extent 
practicable.

Section 154.1140  TAPAA Facility Contracting With a Vessel

    The Coast Guard received one comment that the section on TAPAA 
facility contracting with a vessel was unclear because it referred to 
subpart G of the VRP IFR, which does not exist. The Coast Guard has 
corrected the cross reference in this section of the FRP final rule to 
refer to subpart E of the VRP final rule.

Subpart H--Response Plan Requirements for Facilities That Handle, 
Store, or Transport Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils

    This subpart establishes oil spill response planning requirements 
for an owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats and vegetable oils. It requires such facilities 
to also meet the applicable requirements set forth in subpart F of this 
part. This subpart, and subpart I, were created to address concerns 
that some of the criteria proposed in subpart F of this part were not 
applicable to animal fats and vegetable oils, and other non-petroleum 
oils. The specific comments on non-petroleum oils which the Coast Guard 
received are addressed in this preamble under Sec. 154.1049 which was 
the non-petroleum oils section of the IFR.
    In the preamble to the VRP IFR, the Coast Guard stated that it had 
been unable to verify that the evaporation and emulsification factors 
in appendix B of the VRP IFR were applicable to both petroleum oils and 
non-petroleum oils. As a result of that determination, non-petroleum 
oils were divided from petroleum oils in both the Vessel and MTR 
Facility Response Plan regulations.
    In response to the comments to the IFR on this issue, the Coast 
Guard is creating two new subparts and further subdividing non-
petroleum oils into three categories. Subpart H covers animal fats and 
vegetable oils, and subpart I covers 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 welcomes information that may be useful in determining the 
types and quantities of response equipment necessary to respond to a 
discharge of these oils, and information on new or innovative response 
techniques that will be appropriate for these oils. This information 
would be helpful in deciding whether additional rulemaking is 
appropriate.
    Section 154.1225 requires owners or operators of MTR facilities 
that handle, store, or transport animal fats and vegetable oils to 
identify the procedures and equipment necessary to respond to a worst 
case discharge of these oils to the maximum extent practicable. 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. Subpart H 
allows the owner or operator of the facility to propose the amount of 
equipment needed to respond to a worst case discharge of animal fats or 
vegetable oils to the maximum extent practicable. It does not include 
specific requirements for identifying the amount of response resources. 
The Coast Guard will evaluate the information submitted by the owner or 
operator of the facility to determine if the resources identified are 
consistent with the volume of animal fats or vegetable oils that may be 
spilled as a result of the worst case discharge. This procedure was the 
same in the IFR.
    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 facility must obtain 
a letter from an oil spill removal organization stating that it will 
respond to a worst case discharge from the facility. 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 facility.
    Section 154.1225 also requires the owner or operator of an MTR 
facility that handles, stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable 
oils to contract for firefighting resources should the facility not 
have access to sufficient local firefighting resources. For further 
discussion of firefighting 

[[Page 7913]]
resources see the preamble discussion of Sec. 154.1045(j).
    The Coast Guard has included in subpart H, for animal fats and 
vegetable oils, Sec. 154.1225(f) on the use of dispersants, and other 
similar, new, or unconventional spill mitigation techniques including 
mechanical dispersal. Response plans for facilities located in 
environments with year-round preapproval for use of chemical 
dispersants will be allowed to receive credit 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.
    The Coast Guard has included in appendix C a new paragraph 2.8 
covering non-petroleum oils including animal fats and vegetable oils.

Subpart I--Response Plan Requirements for Facilities That Handle, 
Store, or Transport Other Non-petroleum Oils

    This subpart establishes oil spill response planning requirements 
for an owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable 
oils. It requires such facilities to also meet the applicable 
requirements set forth in subpart F of this part. This subpart was 
created to address industry concerns with grouping animal fats and 
vegetable oils together with other non-petroleum oils. 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 maybe other 
non-petroleum oils. The specific comments on non-petroleum oils which 
the Coast Guard received are addressed in this preamble under 
Sec. 154.1049 which was the non-petroleum oils section of the IFR.
    Section 154.1325 requires owners or operators of MTR facilities 
that handle, store, or transport other non-petroleum oils to identify 
the procedures and equipment necessary to respond to a worst case 
discharge of these oils to the maximum extent practicable. Other non-
petroleum oils include those that are not animal fats or vegetable oils 
such as essential oils, turpentine and tung oil.
    Section 154.1325 allows the owner or operator of the facility to 
propose the amount of equipment needed to respond to a worst case 
discharge of other non-petroleum oils to the maximum extent 
practicable. It does not include specific requirements for identifying 
the amount of response resources. The Coast Guard will evaluate the 
information submitted by the owner or operator of the facility 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. This procedure was the same in the IFR.
    As with petroleum oils, Sec. 154.1325 requires that 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 facility must obtain a letter from an oil spill removal 
organization stating that it will respond to a worst case discharge 
from the facility. 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 facility.
    Subpart I also requires the owner or operator of an MTR facility 
that handles, stores, or transports other non-petroleum oils to 
contract for firefighting resources should the facility not have access 
to sufficient local firefighting resources. For further discussion of 
firefighting resources see the preamble discussion of Sec. 154.1045(j).
    Under subpart I, a response plan may propose, for other non-
petroleum oils, the use of other spill mitigation techniques provided 
that the identified response measures comply with the NCP and the 
applicable ACP.
    The Coast Guard has included in appendix C a new paragraph 2.8 
covering the evaluation of response plans for non-petroleum oils 
including other non-petroleum oils.

Appendix C of Part 154. Guidelines for Determining and Evaluating 
Required Response Resources for Facility Response Plans

    The Coast Guard received one comment recommending that special 
allowance be made for harbors since they often have conditions similar 
to rivers and canals. The comment also recommended that such special 
allowance not be limited only to waterways having depths of 12 feet or 
less. The Coast Guard disagrees. The term harbor is a broad term and 
can be applied to a sheltered part of a body of water deep enough to 
provide anchorage for ships. In reality, a harbor may range from small 
embayments to large bodies of water. Under the final rule, a harbor 
could be considered as either being in a rivers and canals operating 
environment or an inland operating environment. The 12 feet project 
depth was selected as part of the rivers and canals operating 
environment to assist in establishing the ability of response resources 
to operate in specific water depths. The Coast Guard finds that the 
depth of 12 feet remains relevant in establishing the rivers and canals 
environment or the inland operating environment.

1. Purpose

    The Coast Guard did not receive comments to this section but has 
revised appendix C to reference the newly created subparts H and I and 
indicate the portions of appendix C which are applicable.

2. Equipment Operability and Readiness

    2.5  The Coast Guard received 2 comments on this paragraph. Both 
comments asked whether Table 1 adverse weather conditions can be 
reduced or increased if the Area Committee determines that the 
conditions listed in the table are not appropriate. Both comments also 
recommended that the local COTP be allowed to determine the applicable 
weather conditions until the ACP is finalized. The comments also 
requested a mechanism for input by the regulated community to the Area 
Committee before that committee's determinations are completed.
    The COTP may reclassify a specific body of water or location within 
the COTP zone. Section 154.1045 provides details on COTP 
reclassification to more or less stringent operating environments. The 
Coast Guard has issued guidance that strongly encourages Area 
Committees to solicit advice, guidance, and expertise from all 
appropriate sources including facility owners or operators, OSROs, 
environmental groups, members of academia, and concerned citizens.
    2.6  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. The 
comment noted that currently the Coast Guard, EPA and RSPA each have a 
different planning speed and recommended that a single standardized 
speed be adopted. The Coast Guard agrees and the Coast Guard, EPA, and 
RSPA will use the same planning speeds.
    2.7  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. The 
comment recommended that each type of boom only be required to have 
compatible connectors with the same type of boom because, for example, 
there would be no reason to connect high seas boom to harbor or river 
boom. This statement in the appendix is there only to remind facility 
owners or operators to ensure that the equipment on which they are 
going to rely in the event of an oil spill will be capable of 

[[Page 7914]]
carrying out the function for which it is intended. If boom of varying 
types will never be used together, the need for compatible connectors 
is moot.
    2.8  The Coast Guard has added paragraph 2.8 covering the newly 
created subparts H and I.

3. Determining Response Resources Required for the Average Most 
Probable Discharge

    3.1  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. The 
comment expressed concern that under the IFR's current language small 
facilities would be required to purchase booms and boats rather than 
contracting for them. It recommended that the language be amended to 
require only a ``means of initiating deployment.'' The Coast Guard 
disagrees. Section 154.1045(c) provides for the use of contracted 
response resources for an average most probable discharge provided that 
the responders can meet the stated response times.
    3.2.1  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. The 
comment proposed that the Coast Guard amend the language on required 
boom length to read: ``two times the length of the largest vessel * * * 
or the amount needed to contain a 50 barrel discharge during a transfer 
operation.'' The Coast Guard disagrees. Requiring an amount of boom to 
contain only a ``50 barrel discharge'' could result in many variations 
between facilities. Requiring a minimum of 1,000 feet creates a more 
uniform standard.
    3.2.2  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. The 
comment said that the Coast Guard should require a minimum level of 
sorbent material to support other recovery equipment. The Coast Guard 
disagrees. While sorbents are effective in certain circumstances, they 
are not considered major spill response equipment. They are expendable 
resources and may be used during routine facility operations. It is the 
responsibility of the owner or operator of the facility to make sure 
that adequate amounts of sorbent materials are available.

5. Determining Response Resources Required for the Worst Case Discharge 
to the Maximum Extent Practicable

    5.5  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. This 
comment recommended that the paragraph be amended by adding language 
which restricts the definition of shallow water resources to vessels 
with a fully loaded draft of not more than six feet. The Coast Guard 
concludes that the response plan must demonstrate that sufficient 
resourses 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).
    5.6  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. The 
comment suggested that a more specific planning standard be adopted for 
determining the required length of boom in order to avoid wide 
variations in interpretation. The Coast Guard disagrees. Environmental 
conditions vary at each recovery site and each fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environment that must be protected. The Coast Guard contends 
that there is sufficient guidance, ``rules of thumb'', and practical 
experience to be used in determining the quantities of boom necessary 
to contain oil or provide protective booming for fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environments. In addition, ACPs address the strategies to 
protect these areas.

7. Calculating Worst Case Discharge Planning Volumes

    7.2.2  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. The 
comment addressed the requirement that facilities which handle, store, 
or transport oils from different petroleum groups assume, for planning 
purposes, that the oil groups resulting in the largest on-water 
recovery volume will be stored in the tank or tanks identified as 
constituting the worst case discharge. The comment recommended that the 
oil groups resulting in the largest on-water recovery volume should 
apply only if the largest tank does, in fact, store the largest oil 
volume. The comment stated that if the product changed in a way that 
required more planning then the plan could be amended accordingly at 
that time. The marine transportation-related (MTR) facility pertains to 
the piping that conveys the oils between the vessel and the non-
transportation-related storage tanks. The MTR facility does not 
generally include the storage tanks and therefore the comment applies 
to the non-transportation related portion which is regulated by the 
EPA, not the Coast Guard. The EPA has addressed this comment in their 
final rule issued on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34071).

8. Determining the Availability of Alternative Response Methods

    8.6  The Coast Guard received one comment on this paragraph. The 
comment encouraged the Coast Guard to credit a portion of the required 
on-water recovery capacity for in-situ burning similar to the credit 
allowed for dispersants. The comment asserted that in-situ burning is 
most effective early in a spill response and in order to use it as 
early as possible authority to use in-situ burning must be authorized 
ahead of time. The Coast Guard will not permit an owner or operator of 
a facility to use in-situ burning as a planning response strategy in 
the final rule. The use of in-situ burning is still being studied. As 
the effectiveness and environmental effects of non-mechanical methods 
of pollution recovery are studied, they may be included as alternate 
response strategies. The Coast Guard will evaluate in-situ burning as a 
permissible response strategy for capability increases in 1998.

9. Additional Equipment Necessary to Sustain Response Operations

    9.1  The Coast Guard received 1 comment on this paragraph. The 
comment expressed concern that the language of the IFR regarding 
additional equipment and personnel allows for varying interpretations. 
It recommended adoption of a planning standard using a ``systems'' 
approach to clarify the final rule. The Coast Guard agrees and 
concludes that the section reflects a ``systems'' approach to spill 
response. The equipment must be suitable for use with the primary 
equipment identified in the response plan. Section 2.4 of appendix C 
and Sec. 154.1045 require that equipment must be capable of operating 
in the applicable operating environment.
    9.2  The Coast Guard received 1 comment on this paragraph. The 
comment recommended using a 10-hour operating day in determining the 
level of adequate temporary storage capacity. The comment also asked 
for guidance from the Coast Guard in determining the time needed for 
transferring recovered oil to a temporary storage facility. The 
suggested guidance included pumping capacity, number of oil discharge 
stations, and any other pertinent factors. The Coast Guard disagrees 
and determines that the storage capacity should be based on the types 
and quantities of oil recovery identified in the plan. Pump capacities 
are variable and discharge stations are dependent on local factors. The 
owner or operator is 

[[Page 7915]]
best equipped to estimate and certify the availability of these 
resources.

Appendix C of Part 154. Tables 1-5

Table 1  Response Resource Operating Criteria

    The Coast Guard received two comments stating that Tables 1, 2 and 
3 are oversimplified because they do not take into account variables 
such as temperature and flow rate, which the comments claim affect 
dissipation and emulsification rates. Another comment recommended 
referencing the factors used to calculate the figures in the tables. 
That comment asked for clarification because it stated that the 3-day 
quick mobilization mentioned in the explanatory note is incompatible 
with the 3, 4, or 6-day sustainability requirements in Table 2. The 
comment also claimed that the 3-day quick mobilization is inconsistent 
with the tiering of response equipment which is required to be on-scene 
within 60 hours.
    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 values in 
Table 2 were drawn from the 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.
    The three days referred to by the comment appears in the preamble 
to the IFR. This reflects a desire for the planned mobilization of 
response resources within the first 3 days of the response. It should 
not be confused with the equipment sustainability listed in Table 2.

Table 2  Removal Capacity Planning Table

    The Coast Guard received one comment remarking that the values in 
Table 2 should not total over 100 percent. As was explained in the IFR, 
the Coast Guard recognizes that the percentages exceed 100 percent in 
the inland, nearshore, Great Lakes, and offshore areas. This reflects a 
desire to increase the quantity of response that are planned for 
mobilization within the first 3 days of a response.

Table 3  Emulsification Factors for Petroleum Oil Groups

    The Coast Guard received four comments on Table 3. One comment 
asserted that the entire amount of oil spilled will not emulsify 
because emulsification occurs over time, and therefore, the IFR's rapid 
spill response requirements will not allow the impact to be as 
extensive as suggested. The comment stated that emulsification factors 
are only appropriate for open ocean spills from vessels; and that the 
factors should not apply to the total worst case discharge in river/
nearshore areas. The comment also recommended that the regulations not 
use emulsification factors at all. Another comment pointed out that 
emulsification is already accounted for in the derating of recovery 
devices in paragraph 6.2 of appendix C. Two comments stated that Table 
3 is overly simple because it does not take into account other 
variables which affect emulsification such as flow rate and 
temperature. One comment recommended that the emulsification factor for 
Group III oil should be changed to 3.0 to better reflect the level of 
Alaskan crude oil.
    Emulsification factors vary considerably within an oil group and 
are dependent on many factors, such as temperature and weather 
conditions. The proposed Table 3 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 favor 
the emulsification process. No other factors were proposed. The Coast 
Guard does not require that the entire amount of oil be emulsified. 
Rather the oil to be emulsified depends on the percentage of recovered 
floating oil taken from Table 2.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the comment that the emulsification 
is accounted for in the derating of recovery devices. The 
emulsification factors listed in Table 3 are to account for actual 
emulsification that occurs to the oils prior to being encountered by 
the skimming equipment. The derating factor included, among other 
things, consideration of the actual skimming device to remove oily 
material from water, the two issues are unrelated.
    The emulsification factors in this final rule are the same as those 
in the VRP IFR. The factors in the VRP IFR were revised from the 
factors in the VRP NPRM. The factors were revised down because the 
Coast Guard was convinced that the original factors were too high.

Table 5  Response Capability Caps by Operating Area

    The Coast Guard received one comment on Table 5. The comment 
suggested that the 1998 caps be changed to ``To Be Determined'' because 
practical experience may demonstrate that the 1993 values may not need 
to be increased. The Coast Guard disagrees. The caps provided in Table 
5 reflect a 25 percent increase in response resources from 1993 to 
1998. Prior to these caps becoming effective, the Coast Guard will 
initiate a review of the cap increases. This review will determine if 
the scheduled increases for 1998 remain practicable and will also 
establish a specific cap for 2003.

Appendix D of Part 154. Interim Guidelines for Determining Economically 
Important and Environmentally Sensitive Areas for Facility Response 
Plans

    The Coast Guard received 12 comments to Appendix D--Guidelines for 
Determining Economically Important and Environmentally Sensitive Areas 
for Facility Response Plans. The Coast Guard reviewed the comments and 
provided them to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA). NOAA used the comments in drafting its Federal Register notice 
entitled ``Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans Fish and 
Wildlife and Sensitive Environments.''
    The Coast Guard has adopted EPA's terminology in this final rule 
and therefore the term ``Environmentally Sensitive Areas'' has been 
changed to ``Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments.'' The Coast 
Guard determined that Appendix D on sensitive areas is unnecessary 
because fish and wildlife and sensitive environments are identified in 
the Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) and all coastal ACPs are now 
complete. Since the ACPs identify fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments for each area, there is no longer a need for the Coast 
Guard to provide the guidance that was contained in appendix D to the 
IFR. Therefore, the Coast Guard has removed appendix D on sensitive 
areas from the final rule and has replaced it with a new Appendix D 
entitled ``Training Elements for Oil Spill Response Plans.''

Appendix D to Part 154--Training Elements for Oil Spill Response Plans

    This appendix was added to the final rule to provide guidelines to 
facility owners and operators for the development of the training 
portions of their response plans. These guidelines were developed in 
the same manner as PREP, which is addressed in the preamble discussion 
on the revisions to Sec. 154.1055.

Assessment

    This final rule is a significant regulatory action under section 
3(f) of 

[[Page 7916]]
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). An 
Assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. Seven public 
comments addressed the Regulatory Evaluation section of the IFR. The 
comments are discussed in the appropriate section of this discussion.

1. Facility Response Plan Costs and Benefits

    In the aggregate, the requirement for facility response plans will 
result in substantial costs to the facilities affected. If all the 
costs for MTR facilities affected by this rule are attributed to the 
Coast Guard's regulations, the present value cost of this regulation 
for the first 10 years is estimated at $305.9 million. In the first 
year, most of this cost is attributable to conducting training and 
exercise evaluations and arranging for or providing adequate response 
capability. In subsequent years, the majority of the cost is 
attributable to conducting exercising and retaining the response 
capability. The incremental cost of the entire regulation was $63 
million for 1992, but declined to $40 million annually in subsequent 
years. However, since many of these facilities are complexes which are 
being jointly regulated by the Coast Guard and the EPA and the total 
costs are already accounted for under EPA's facility response plan 
regulation (59 FR 34097, July 1, 1994), these costs could be reduced to 
reflect this fact. Thus, total present value costs for Coast Guard 
facility response plans will be $90 million and incremental costs will 
be $18.7 million for the first full year and $11.9 million for 
subsequent years.
    Four comments argued that the costs of this regulation are 
excessive and have not been thoroughly examined in the IFR. The Coast 
Guard disagrees with these comments. The Coast Guard has reexamined its 
cost data and concludes that costs are not excessive. Two comments 
argued that the $25,000 cost estimate for large facilities is much too 
low and does not take into consideration expenditures such as equipment 
purchases, costs of training, costs of exercises, and retainer fees. 
With regard to exercises, two comments argued that the costs would be 
prohibitive. The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. The 
Regulatory Impact Analysis did take into consideration equipment 
purchases, costs of training, costs of exercises, and retainer fees. 
Facility owners or operators are already required to comply with 
existing pollution regulations which require them to prepare operations 
manuals and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plans 
that address some elements of the facility response plan regulations. 
The Coast Guard assumed in its analysis that facility owners or 
operators would not be redundant when complying with requirements. The 
Coast Guard's analysis indicated that the requirements set forth are 
the most practical and least burdensome which give acceptable levels of 
planning for spill response.
    The benefit analysis indicates an incremental volume of 230,848 
discounted barrels of spilled oil (using a 7 percent discount rate) 
that will be recovered due to compliance with this regulation. The cost 
effectiveness ratio (costs divided by benefits) is $1,325 per barrel of 
oil recovered.
    A Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying, as indicated under ADDRESSES. The RIA prepared 
for the IFR was reviewed based upon comments received and no changes 
made in the final rule caused a great enough impact on costs to require 
redrafting the RIA. It has 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.
    One comment expressed concern that the RIA for the final rule would 
be different from the RIA on which the IFR was based and that an 
opportunity for comment would not be permitted before the rule would be 
finalized. While the costs and benefits in the RIA have changed from 
the IFR to the final rule, the change is the result of lowering the 
discount rate from 10 to 7 percent, reflecting a change in OMB guidance 
between publication of the IFR and publication of the final rule.

2. Additional Response Plans Requirements for Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
Authorization Act (TAPAA) Facilities Operating in Prince William Sound, 
Alaska

    At present, there is only one Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPAA) 
facility operating in Prince William Sound. This facility is the Valdez 
Marine Terminal which is operated by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. 
This facility transfers approximately 700 million barrels annually to 
approximately 900 tank vessels.
    The increase in unit cost of handling, storing, and transporting 
crude oil to comply with section 5005 of OPA 90 is relatively small. 
This can easily be absorbed by the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.
    Overall industry costs for complying with additional response 
planning requirements were previously discussed in the Draft Regulatory 
Evaluation for Prince William sound, Alaska referenced in the VRP NPRM 
published in the Federal Register on June 19, 1992 (57 FR 27514). While 
this specifically addressed requirements for certain vessels in Prince 
William Sound, Alaska, it also included the costs and benefits incurred 
by the sole TAPAA facility located in Prince William Sound. The costs 
of complying with section 5005 of OPA 90 are estimated to be $232 
million for the 10-year period, 1993 through 2002. The benefits include 
the quick recovery of spilled oil from the environment and subsequent 
reduction in net impact of the spill. The regulations for Prince 
William Sound are estimated to increase the volume of recovered oil by 
25 percent for crude oil.
    A copy of the Assessment for Prince William Sound is available in 
the docket for inspection or copying, as indicated under ``ADDRESSES.''

Small Entities

    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. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    The Coast Guard received one comment to the IFR concerning the 
impact of the Facility Response Plan regulation on small businesses. 
The comment argued that smaller operators may not have the resources to 
comply with regulations as the Coast Guard has envisioned. The Coast 
Guard disagrees. The regulation may have a significant impact on a very 
few small facility operators. The impact on small entities of the 
changes in this final rule are not substantial.

Collection of Information

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements. The 
Coast Guard previously submitted the requirements to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for 

[[Page 7917]]
review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.) and OMB approved them. The Coast Guard has submitted 
revised requirements to OMB for renewed approval under the current OMB 
Control Number 2115-0595. For subpart F, the section numbers are 
Secs. 154.1025, 154.1030, 154.1050, 154.1055, 154.1060, and 154.1065, 
and the corresponding OMB approval number is OMB Control Number 2115-
0595. For subpart G, the section numbers are Secs. 154.1120 and 
154.1125, and the corresponding OMB approval number is OMB Control 
Number 2115-0595. Subparts H and I refer to subpart F for all 
collection-of-information requirements. Accordingly, additional OMB 
approval is not needed.
    The Coast Guard received one comment responding to this portion of 
the IFR, which contended that the estimated recordkeeping burden of 4.5 
hours annually is much too low. The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast 
Guard has reexamined its recordkeeping analysis and has concluded that 
its estimate is accurate.

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under 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 President's and 
Congress' 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 facility response plan rule 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. Therefore, a State standard 
setting more stringent planning requirements for facilities owners and 
operators in the regulating State's water is encouraged under the FWPCA 
and in 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 facility response plan rules would not preclude that option. 
The Federal facility 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 considered the environmental impact of this final 
rule and prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) under section 311(j) 
of the FWPCA (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)), and a separate EA for Prince William 
Sound under section 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 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) declared offshore supply vessels and certain fishing vessels 
not to be ``tank vessels'' for purposes of implementing the VRP rule. 
The Prince William Sound EA was entirely revised when section 352 of 
the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act effectively 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 Williams 
Sound, including non-TAPS vessels. The Coast Guard received no comments 
on the EAs.
    The Coast Guard has identified and studies 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 where indicated 
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 150

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational safety and 
health, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR 154

    Fire prevention, Oil pollution, Hazardous substances, Incorporation 
by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the interim rule amending 
33 CFR parts 150 and 154 which was published at 58 FR 7330 on February 
5, 1993, is adopted as final except for changes to part 154 which are 
set forth below:

PART 154--FACILITIES TRANSFERRING OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN BULK

    1. The authority citation for part 154 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321 (j)(1)(C), (j)(5), (j)(6) and 
(m)(2); sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; 49 CFR 1.46. Subpart F is 
also issued under 33 U.S.C. 2735.

    2. Subpart F of part 154 is revised to read as follows:

Subpart F--Response Plans for Oil Facilities

Sec.
154.1010  Purpose.
154.1015  Applicability.
154.1016  Facility Classification by COTP.
154.1017  Response plan submission requirements.
154.1020  Definitions.
154.1025  Operating restrictions and interim operating 
authorization.
154.1026  Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual.
154.1028  Methods of ensuring the availability of response resources 
by contract or other approved means.
154.1029  Worst case discharge.

[[Page 7918]]

154.1030  General response plan contents.
154.1035  Specific requirements for facilities that could reasonably 
be expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the 
environment.
154.1040  Specific requirements for facilities that could reasonably 
be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment.
154.1041  Specific response information to be maintained on mobile 
MTR facilities.
154.1045  Response plan development and evaluation criteria for 
facilities that handle, store, or transport Group I through Group IV 
petroleum oils.
154.1047  Response plan development and evaluation criteria for 
facilities that handle, store, or transport Group V petroleum oils.
154.1050  Training.
154.1055  Exercises.
154.1057  Inspection and maintenance of response resources.
154.1060  Submission and approval procedures.
154.1065  Plan review and revision procedures.
154.1070  Deficiencies.
154.1075  Appeal process.

Subpart F--Response Plans for Oil Facilities


Sec. 154.1010  Purpose.

    This subpart establishes oil spill response plan requirements for 
all marine transportation-related (MTR) facilities (hereafter also 
referred to as facilities) that could reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial harm or significant and substantial harm to the environment 
by discharing oil into or on the navigable waters, adjoining 
shorelines, or exclusive economic zone. The development of a response 
plan prepares the facility owner or operator to respond to an oil 
spill. These requirements specify criteria to be used during the 
planning process to determine the appropriate response resources. The 
specific criteria for response resources and their arrival times are 
not performance standards. The criteria are based on a set of 
assumptions that may not exist during an actual oil spill incident.


Sec. 154.1015  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to all MTR facilities that because of 
their location could reasonably be expected to cause at least 
substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil into or on the 
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or exclusive economic zone.
    (b) The following MTR facilities that handle, store, or transport 
oil, in bulk, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to 
the environment by discharging oil into or on the navigable waters or 
adjoining shorelines and are classified as substantial harm MTR 
facilities:
    (1) Fixed MTR onshore facilities capable of transferring oil to or 
from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more and deepwater 
ports;
    (2) Mobile MTR facilities used or intended to be used to transfer 
oil to or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more; and
    (3) Those MTR facilities specifically designated as substantial 
harm facilities by the COTP under Sec. 154.1016.
    (c) The following MTR facilities that handle, store, or transport 
oil in bulk could not only reasonably be expected to cause substantial 
harm, but also significant and substantial harm, to the environment by 
discharging oil into or on the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, 
or exclusive economic zone and are classified as significant and 
substantial harm MTR facilities:
    (1) Deepwater ports, and fixed MTR onshore facilities capable of 
transferring oil to or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or 
more except for facilities that are part of a non-transportation-
related fixed onshore facility with a storage capacity of less than 
42,000 gallons; and
    (2) Those MTR facilities specifically designated as significant and 
substantial harm facilities by the COTP under Sec. 154.1016.
    (d) An MTR facility owner or operator who believes the facility is 
improperly classified may request review and reclassification in 
accordance with Sec. 154.1075.


Sec. 154.1016  Facility classification by COTP.

    (a) The COTP may upgrade the classification of:
    (1) An MTR facility not specified in Sec. 154.1015 (b) or (c) to a 
facility that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to 
the environment; or
    (2) An MTR facility specified in Sec. 154.1015(b) to a facility 
that could reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial 
harm to the environment.
    (b) The COTP may downgrade, the classification of:
    (1) An MTR facility specified in Sec. 154.1015(c) to a facility 
that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the 
environment; or
    (2) An MTR facility specified in Sec. 154.1015(b) to a facility 
that could not reasonably be expected to cause substantial, or 
significant and substantial harm to the environment.
    (3) The COTP will consider downgrading an MTR facility's 
classification only upon receiving a written request for a downgrade of 
classification from the facility's owner or operator.
    (c) When changing a facility classification the COTP may, as 
appropriate, consider all relevant factors including, but not limited 
to: Type and quantity of oils handled in bulk; facility spill history; 
age of facility; proximity to public and commercial water supply 
intakes; proximity to navigable waters based on the definition of 
navigable waters in 33 CFR 2.05-25; and proximity to fish and wildlife 
and sensitive environments.


154.1017  Response plan submission requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of an MTR facility identified only in 
Sec. 154.1015(b), or designated by the COTP as a substantial harm 
facility, shall prepare and submit to the cognizant COTP a response 
plan that meets the requirements of Secs. 154.1030, 154.1040, 154.1045, 
or Sec. 154.1047, as appropriate. This applies to:
    (1) A mobile MTR facility used or intended to be used to transfer 
oil to or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more; and
    (2) A fixed MTR facility specifically designated as a substantial 
harm facility by the COTP under Sec. 154.1016.
    (b) The owner or operator of an MTR facility identified in 
Sec. 154.1015(c) or designated by the COTP as a significant and 
substantial harm facility shall prepare and submit for review and 
approval of the cognizant COTP a response plan that meets the 
requirements of Secs. 154.1030, 154.1035, 154.1045, or 154.1047, as 
appropriate. This applies to:
    (1) A fixed MTR facility capable of transferring oil, in bulk, to 
or from a vessel with a capacity of 250 barrels or more; and
    (2) An MTR facility specifically designated as a significant and 
substantial harm facility by the COTP under Sec. 154.1016.
    (c) In addition to the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, the response plan for a mobile MTR facility must meet the 
requirements of Sec. 154.1041 subpart F.


Sec. 154.1020  Definition.

    Except as otherwise defined in this section, the definition in 33 
CFR 154.105 apply to this subpart and subparts H and I.
    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 as 
specified in Secs. 154.1045, 154.1047, 154.1225, or 154.1325, as 
appropriate; 

[[Page 7919]]
ice conditions, temperatures, weather-related visibility, and currents 
within the 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 or 1 percent of the volume of the worst case discharge.
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone means a zone specified in 33 CFR 
part 3 and, where applicable, the seaward extension of that zone to the 
outer boundary of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
    Complex means a facility possessing a combination of marine-
transportation related and non-transportation-related components that 
is subject to the jurisdiction of more than one Federal agency under 
section 311(j) of the Clean Water Act.
    Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) means the zone contiguous to the 
territorial sea of the United States extending to a distance up to 200 
nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the 
territorial sea is measured.
    Facility that could reasonably be expected to cause significant and 
substantial harm means any MTR facility (including piping and any 
structures that are used for the transfer of oil between a vessel and a 
facility) classified as a ``significant and substantial harm'' facility 
under Sec. 154.1015(c) including a facility specifically designated by 
the COTP under Sec. 154.1016(a).
    Facility that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial 
harm means any MTR facility classified as a ``substantial harm'' 
facility under Sec. 154.1015(b) including a facility specifically 
designated by the COTP under Sec. 154.1016(a).
    Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environment means areas that may be 
identified by either their legal designation or by Area Committees in 
the applicable Area Contingency Plan (ACP) (for planning) or by members 
of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator's spill response structure (during 
responses). These areas may include: Wetlands, national and state 
parks, critical habitats for endangered or threatened species, 
wilderness and natural resource areas, marine sanctuaries and estuarine 
reserves, conservation areas, preserves, wildlife areas, wildlife 
refuges, wild and scenic rivers, areas of economic importance, 
recreational areas, national forests, Federal and state lands that are 
research areas, heritage program areas, land trust areas, and 
historical and archaeological sites and parks. These areas may also 
include unique habitats such as: aquaculture sites and agricultural 
surface water intakes, bird nesting areas, critical biological resource 
areas, designated migratory routes, and designated seasonal habitats.
    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 ports:
    (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.
    (7) Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), LA.
    (8) Lake Charles, LA.
    (9) Sabine-Neches River, TX.
    (10) Galveston Bay and Houston Ship Channel, TX.
    (11) Corpus Christi, TX.
    (12) Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor, CA.
    (13) San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, and Suisun 
Bay to Antioch, CA.
    (14) Straits of Juan De Fuca from Port Angeles, WA, to and 
including Puget Sound, WA.
    (15) Prince William Sound, AK.
    Inland area means the area shoreward of the boundary lines defined 
in 46 CFR part 7, except in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf of Mexico, 
it means the area shoreward of the lines of demarcation (COLREG lines) 
defined in Secs. 80.740 through 80.850 of this chapter. The inland area 
does not include the Great Lakes.
    Marine transportation-related facility (MTR facility) means any 
onshore facility or segment of a complex regulated under section 311(j) 
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) by two or more 
Federal agencies, including piping and any structure used or intended 
to be used to transfer oil to or from a vessel, subject to regulation 
under this part and any deepwater port subject to regulation under part 
150 of this chapter. For a facility or segment of a complex regulated 
by two or more Federal agencies under section 311(j) of the FWPCA, the 
MTR portion of the complex extends from the facility oil transfer 
system's connection with the vessel to the first valve inside the 
secondary containment surrounding tanks in the non-transportation-
related portion of the facility or, in the absence of secondary 
containment, to the valve or manifold adjacent to the tanks comprising 
the non-transportation-related portion of the facility, unless another 
location has otherwise been agreed to by the COTP and the appropriate 
Federal official.
    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 cognizant COTP.
    Maximum most probable discharge means a discharge of the lesser of 
1,200 barrels or 10 percent of the volume of a worst case discharge.
    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, it means the area extending seaward 12 miles 
from the line of demarcation (COLREG lines) defined in Secs. 80.740-
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 percent of which by volume, distill at a 
temperature of 340 degrees C (645 degrees F); and
    (2) At least 95 percent of which by volume, distill at a 
temperature of 370 degrees C (700 degrees F).
    Ocean means the offshore area and nearshore area as defined in this 
subpart.
    Offshore area means the area beyond 12 nautical miles measured from 
the boundary lines defined in 46 CFR part 7 extending seaward to 50 
nautical miles, except in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf of Mexico, it 
is the area beyond 12 nautical miles of the line of demarcation (COLREG 
lines) defined in Secs. 80.740-80.850 of this chapter extending seaward 
to 50 nautical miles.
    Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not 
limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, oil mixed with 
wastes other than dredge spoil.
    Oil spill removal organization (OSRO) means an entity that provides 
response resources.
    On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) means the definition in the National Oil 
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR part 300).
    Operating area means Rivers and Canals, Inland, Nearshore, Great 
Lakes, or Offshore geographic location(s) in which a facility is 
handling, storing, or transporting oil.

[[Page 7920]]

    Operating environment means Rivers and Canals, Inland, Great Lakes, 
or Ocean. These terms are used to define the conditions in which 
response equipment is designed to function.
    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 drills.
    Other non-petroleum oil means a non-petroleum oil of any kind that 
is not generally an animal fat or vegetable oil.
    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.
    Qualified individual and alternate qualified individual means a 
person located in the United States who meets the requirements of 
Sec. 154.1026.
    Response activities means the containment and removal of oil from 
the land, 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 the 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 means a body of water confined within the inland 
area, including the Intracoastal Waterways and other waterways 
artificially created for navigation, that has a project depth of 12 
feet or less.
    Specific gravity means the ratio of the mass of a given volume of 
liquid at 15 deg.C (60 deg.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 a discharge means any incident or condition 
involving a facility that may create a risk of discharge of oil. Such 
incidents include, but are not limited to storage tank or piping 
failures, above ground or underground leaks, fires, explosions, 
flooding, spills contained within the facility, or other similar 
occurrences.
    Tier means the combination of required response resources and the 
times within which the resources must arrive on scene.

    [Note: Tiers are applied in three categories:
    (1) Higher Volume Port Areas,
    (2) Great Lakes, and
    (3) All other operating environments, including rivers and 
canals, inland, nearshore, and offshore areas.
    Appendix C, Table 4 of this part, provides specific guidance on 
calculating response resources. Sections 154.1045(f) and 154.1135, 
set forth the required times within which the response resources 
must arrive on-scene.]

    Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat derived from plant 
seeds, nuts, kernels or fruits, and not specifically identified 
elsewhere in this part.
    Worst case discharge means in the case of an onshore facility and 
deepwater port, the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather 
conditions meeting the requirements of Sec. 154.1029.


Sec. 154.1025  Operating restrictions and interim operating 
authorization.

    (a) The owner or operator of an MTR facility who submitted a 
response plan prior to May 29, 1996, may elect to comply with any of 
the provisions of this final rule by revising the appropriate section 
of the previously submitted plan in accordance with Sec. 154.1065. An 
owner or operator of an MTR facility who elects to comply with all 
sections of this final rule must resubmit the plan in accordance with 
Sec. 154.1060 of this part.
    (b) No facility subject to this subpart may handle, store, or 
transport oil unless it is operating in full compliance with a 
submitted response plan. No facility categorized under Sec. 154.1015(c) 
as a significant and substantial harm facility may handle, store, or 
transport oil unless the submitted response plan has been approved by 
the COTP. The owner or operator of each new facility to which this 
subpart applies must submit a response plan meeting the requirements 
listed in Sec. 154.1017 not less than 60 days prior to handling, 
storing, or transporting oil. Where applicable, the response plan shall 
be submitted along with the letter of intent required under 
Sec. 154.110.
    (c) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section, a facility categorized under Sec. 154.1015(c) as a significant 
and substantial harm facility may continue to handle, store, or 
transport oil for 2 years after the date of submission of a response 
plan, pending approval of that plan. To continue to handle, store, or 
transport oil without a plan approved by the COTP, the facility owner 
or operator shall certify in writing to the COTP that the owner or 
operator has ensured, by contract or other approved means as described 
in Sec. 154.1028(a), the availability of the necessary private 
personnel and equipment to respond, to the maximum extend practicable 
to a worst case discharge or substantial threat of such a discharge 
from the facility. Provided that the COTP is satisfied with the 
certification of response resources provided by the owner or operator 
of the facility, the COTP will provide written authorization for the 
facility to handle, store, or transport oil while the submitted 
response plan is being reviewed. Pending approval of the submitted 
response plan, deficiencies noted by the COTP must be corrected in 
accordance with Sec. 154.1070.
    (d) A facility may not continue to handle, store, or transport oil 
if--
    (1) The COTP determines that the response resources identified in 
the facility certification statement or reference response plan do not 
substantially meet the requirements of this subpart;
    (2) The contracts or agreements cited in the facility's 
certification statement or referenced response plans are no longer 
valid;
    (3) The facility is not operating in compliance with the submitted 
plan;
    (4) The response plan has not been resubmitted or approved within 
the last 5 years; or
    (5) The period of the authorization under paragraph (c) of this 
section has expired.


Sec. 154.1026  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 must be available on a 24-hour basis 
and be able to arrive at the facility in a reasonable time.
    (b) The qualified individual and alternate must:
    (1) Be located in the United States;
    (2) Speak fluent English;
    (3) Be familiar with the implementation of the facility response 
plan; and
    (4) Be trained in the responsibilities of the qualified individual 
under the response plan.
    (c) The owner or 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);

[[Page 7921]]

    (2) Act as a liaison with the predesignated Federal On-Scene 
Coordinator (OSC); and
    (3) Obligate funds required to carry out response activities.
    (d) The owner or operator of a facility may designate an 
organization to fulfill the role of the qualified individual and the 
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 facility owner or 
operator is required to list in the response plan the organization, the 
person identified as the qualified individual, and the person or 
person(s) identified as the alternate qualified individual(s).
    (e) 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 authority contained in their designation from the owner or operator 
of the facility.
    (f) The liability of a qualified individual is considered to be in 
accordance with the provisions of 33 USC 1321(c)(4).


Sec. 154.1028  Methods of ensuring the availability of response 
resources by contract or other approved means.

    (a) When required in this subpart, the availability of response 
resources must be ensured by the following methods:
    (1) A written contractual agreement with 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 facility owner or operator that specified 
personnel and equipment required under this subpart are owned, 
operated, or under the direct control of the facility 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 drills; 
and
    (iv) Is referenced in the response plan; or
    (5) The identification of an oil spill removal organization with 
specified equipment and personnel available within stipulated response 
times in specified geographic areas. The organization must provide 
written consent to being identified in the plan.
    (b) The contracts and documents required in paragraph (a) of this 
section must be retained at the facility and must be produced for 
review upon request by the COTP.


Sec. 154.1029  Worst case discharge.

    (a) The response plan must use the appropriate criteria in this 
section to develop the worst case discharge.
    (b) For the MTR segment of a facility, not less than--
    (1) Where applicable, the loss of the entire capacity of all in-
line and break out tank(s) needed for the continuous operation of the 
pipelines used for the purposes of handling or transporting oil, in 
bulk, to or from a vessel regardless of the presence of secondary 
containment; plus
    (2) The discharge from all piping carrying oil between the marine 
transfer manifold and the non-transportation-related portion of the 
facility. The discharge from each pipe is calculated as follows: The 
maximum time to discover the release from the pipe in hours, plus the 
maximum time to shut down flow from the pipe in hours (based on 
historic discharge data or the best estimate in the absence of historic 
discharge data for the facility) multiplied by the maximum flow rate 
expressed in barrels per hour (based on the maximum relief valve 
setting or maximum system pressure when relief valves are not provided) 
plus the total line drainage volume expressed in barrels for the pipe 
between the marine manifold and the non-transportation-related portion 
of the facility; and
    (c) For a mobile facility it means the loss of the entire contents 
of the container in which the oil is stored or transported.


Sec. 154.1030  General response plan contents.

    (a) The plan must be written in English.
    (b) A response plan must be divided into the sections listed in 
this paragraph and formatted in the order specified herein unless noted 
otherwise. It must also have some easily found marker identifying each 
section listed below. The following are the sections and subsections of 
a facility response plan:
    (1) Introduction and plan contents.
    (2) Emergency response action plan:
    (i) Notification procedures.
    (ii) Facility's spill mitigation procedures.
    (iii) Facility's response activities.
    (iv) Fish and wildlife and sensitive environments.
    (v) Disposal plan.
    (3) Training and Exercises:
    (i) Training procedures.
    (ii) Exercise procedures.
    (4) Plan review and update procedures.
    (5) Appendices.
    (i) Facility-specific information.
    (ii) List of contacts.
    (iii) Equipment lists and records.
    (iv) Communications plan.
    (v) Site-specific safety and health plan.
    (vi) List of acronyms and definitions.
    (vii) A geographic-specific appendix for each zone in which a 
mobile facility operates.
    (c) The required contents for each section and subsection of the 
plan are contained in Secs. 154.1035, 154.1040, and 154.1041, as 
appropriate.
    (d) The sections and subsections of response plans submitted to the 
COTP must contain at a minimum all the information required in 
Secs. 154.1035, 154.1040, and 154.1041, as appropriate. It may contain 
other appropriate sections, subsections, or information that are 
required by other Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) For initial and subsequent submission, a plan that does not 
follow the format specified in paragraph (b) of this section must be 
supplemented with a detailed cross-reference section to identify the 
location of the applicable sections required by this subpart.
    (f) The information contained in a response plan must be consistent 
with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 
Plan (NCP) (40 CFR part 300) and the Area Contingency Plan(s) (ACP) 
covering the area in which the facility operates. Facility owners or 
operators shall ensure that their response plans are in accordance with 
the ACP in effect 6 months prior to initial plan submission or the 
annual plan review required under Sec. 154.1065(a). Facility owners or 
operators are not required to, but may at their option, conform to an 
ACP which is less than 6 months old at the time of plan submission.

[[Page 7922]]



Sec. 154.1035  Specific requirements for facilities that could 
reasonably be expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the 
environment.

    (a) Introduction and plan content. This section of the plan must 
include facility and plan information as follows:
    (1) The facility's name, street address, city, county, state, ZIP 
code, facility telephone number, and telefacsimile number, if so 
equipped. Include mailing address if different from street address.
    (2) The facility's location described in a manner that could aid 
both a reviewer and a responder in locating the specific facility 
covered by the plan, such as, river mile or location from a known 
landmark that would appear on a map or chart.
    (3) The name, address, and procedures for contacting the facility's 
owner or operator on a 24-hour basis.
    (4) A table of contents.
    (5) During the period that the submitted plan does not have to 
conform to the format contained in this subpart, a cross index, if 
appropriate.
    (6) A record of change(s) to record information on plan updates.
    (b) Emergency Response Action Plan. This section of the plan must 
be organized in the subsections described in this paragraph:
    (1) Notification procedures. (i) This subsection must contain a 
prioritized list identifying the person(s), including name, telephone 
number, and their role in the plan, to be notified of a discharge or 
substantial threat of a discharge of oil. The telephone number need not 
be provided if it is listed separately in the list of contacts required 
in the plan. This Notification Procedures listing must include--
    (A) Facility response personnel, the spill management team, oil 
spill removal organizations, and the qualified individual(s) and the 
designated alternate(s); and
    (B) Federal, State, or local agencies, as required.
    (ii) This subsection must include a form, such as that depicted in 
Figure 1, which contains information to be provided in the initial and 
follow-up notifications to Federal, State, and local agencies. The form 
shall include notification of the National Response Center as required 
in part 153 of this chapter. Copies of the form also must be placed at 
the location(s) from which notification may be made. The initial 
notification form must include space for the information contained in 
Figure 1. The form must contain a prominent statement that initial 
notification must not be delayed pending collection of all information.

                  Figure 1.--Information on discharge *                 
                           [Involved Parties]                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        (A) Reporting party            (B) Suspected responsible party  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name                                 Name                               
Phones (    )     -                  Phones (    )     -                
Company                              Company                            
Position                             Organization Type:                 
Address                                Private citizen                  
Address                                Private enterprise               
                                       Public utility                   
                                       Local government                 
                                       State government                 
                                       Federal government               
City                                 City                               
State                                State                              
Zip                                  Zip                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* It is not necessary to wait for all information before calling NRC.   
  National Response Center--1-800-424-8802.                             


Were materials Discharged (Y/N)?                                        
Calling for Responsible Party (Y/N)                                     
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Incident Description                          
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source and/or Cause of Incident                                         
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date  -  -   Time:                                                      
Cause                                                                   
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incident Address/Location          Nearest City                         
Distance from City                                                      
Storage Tank Container Type--Above ground (Y/N)          Below ground (Y/
 N)          Unknown                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                            Facility Capacity                           
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank Capacity                                                           
Latitude Degrees                                                        
Longitude Degrees                                                       
Mile Post or River Mile                                                 
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Materials                               
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge Unit of Quantity      Measure      Discharged Material        
 Quantity in Water                                                      
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7923]]
                                                                        
                             Response Action                            
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Taken to Correct or Mitigate Incident                           
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Impact                                 
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Injuries          Number of Fatalities                        
Were there Evacuations (Y/N/U)?          Number Evacuated               
Was there any Damage (Y/N/U)?          Damage in Dollars                
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Additional Information                         
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any information about the Incident not recorded elsewhere in the report 
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Caller Notifications                          
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG          EPA          State          Other                         
                                                                        


    (2) Facility's spill mitigation procedures. (i) This subsection 
must describe the volume(s) and oil groups that would be involved in 
the--
    (A) Average most probable discharge from the MTR facility;
    (B) Maximum most probable discharge from the MTR facility;
    (C) Worst case discharge from the MTR facility; and
    (D) Where applicable, the worst case discharge from the non-
transportation-related facility. This must be the same volume provided 
in the response plan for the non-transportation-related facility.
    (ii) This subsection must contain prioritized procedures for 
facility personnel to mitigate or prevent any discharge or substantial 
threat of a discharge of oil resulting from operational activities 
associated with internal or external facility transfers including 
specific procedures to shut down affected operations. Facility 
personnel responsible for performing specified procedures to mitigate 
or prevent any discharge or potential discharge shall be identified by 
job title. A copy of these procedures shall be maintained at the 
facility operations center. These procedures must address actions to be 
taken by facility personnel in the event of a discharge, potential 
discharge, or emergency involving the following equipment and 
scenarios:
    (A) Failure of manifold, mechanical loading arm, other transfer 
equipment, or hoses, as appropriate;
    (B) Tank overfill;
    (C) Tank failure;
    (D) Piping rupture;
    (E) Piping leak, both under pressure and not under pressure, if 
applicable;
    (F) Explosion or fire; and
    (G) Equipment failure (e.g. pumping system failure, relief valve 
failure, or other general equipment relevant to operational activities 
associated with internal or external facility transfers.)
    (iii) This subsection must contain a listing of equipment and the 
responsibilities of facility personnel to mitigate an average most 
probable discharge.
    (3) Facility's response activities. (i) This subsection must 
contain a description of the facility personnel's responsibilities to 
initiate a response and supervise response resources pending the 
arrival of the qualified individual.
    (ii) This subsection must contain a description of the 
responsibilities and authority of the qualified individual and 
alternate as required in Sec. 154.1026.
    (iii) This subsection must describe the organizational structure 
that will be used to manage the response actions. This structure must 
include the following functional areas.
    (A) Command and control;
    (B) Public information;
    (C) Safety;
    (D) Liaison with government agencies;
    (E) Spill Operations;
    (F) Planning;
    (G) Logistics support; and
    (H) Finance.
    (iv) This subsection must identify the oil spill removal 
organizations and the spill management team to:
    (A) Be capable of providing the following response resources:
    (1) Equipment and supplies to meet the requirements of 
Secs. 154.1045, 154.1047 or subparts H or I of this part, as 
appropriate; and
    (2) Trained personnel necessary to continue operation of the 
equipment and staff of the oil spill removal organization and spill 
management team for the first 7 days of the response.
    (B) This section must include job descriptions for each spill 
management team member within the organizational structure described in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section. These job descriptions should 
include the responsibilities and duties of each spill management team 
member in a response action.
    (v) For mobile facilities that operate in more than one COTP zone, 
the plan must identify the oil spill removal organization and the spill 
management team in the applicable geographic-specific appendix. The oil 
spill removal organization(s) and the spill management team discussed 
in paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(A) of this section must be included for each 
COTP zone in which the facility will handle, store, or transport oil in 
bulk.
    (4) Fish and wildlife and sensitive environments. (i) This section 
of the plan must identify areas of economic importance and 
environmental sensitivity, as identified in the ACP, which are 
potentially impacted by a worst case discharge. ACPs are required under 
section 311(j)(4) of the FWPCA to identify fish and wildlife and 
sensitive environments. The applicable ACP shall be used to designate 
fish and wildlife and sensitive environments in the plan. Changes to 
the ACP regarding fish and wildlife and sensitive environments shall be 
included in the annual update of the response plan, when available.
    (ii) For a worst case discharge from the facility, this section of 
the plan must--
    (A) List all fish and wildlife and sensitive environments 
identified in the ACP which are potentially impacted by a discharge of 
persistent oils, non-persistent oils, or non-petroleum oils.
    (B) Describe all the response actions that the facility anticipates 
taking to protest these fish and wildlife and sensitive environments.
    (C) Contain a map or chart showing the location of those fish and 
wildlife and sensitive environments which are potentially impacted. The 
map or chart shall also depict each response action that the facility 
anticipates taking to protect these areas. A legend of 

[[Page 7924]]
activities must be included on the map page.
    (iii) For a worst case discharge, this section must identify 
appropriate equipment and required personnel, available by contract or 
other approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028, to protect fish and 
wildlife and sensitive environments which fall within the distances 
calculated using the methods outlined in this paragraph as follows:
    (A) Identify the appropriate equipment and required personnel to 
protect all fish and wildlife and sensitive environments in the ACP for 
the distances, as calculated in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this 
section, that the persistent oils, non-persistent oils, or non-
petroleum oils are likely to travel in the noted geographic area(s) and 
number of days listed in Table 2 of appendix C of this part;
    (B) Calculate the distances required by paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of 
this section by selecting one of the methods described in this 
paragraph;
    (1) Distances may be calculated as follows:
    (i) For persistent oils and non-petroleum oils discharged into non-
tidal waters, the distance from the facility reached in 48 hours at 
maximum current.
    (ii) For persistent and non-petroleum oils discharged into tidal 
waters, 15 miles from the facility down current during ebb tide and to 
the point of maximum tidal influence or 15 miles, whichever is less, 
during flood tide.
    (iii) For non-persistent oils discharged into non-tidal waters, the 
distance from the facility reached in 24 hours at maximum current.
    (iv) For non-persistent oils discharged into tidal waters, 5 miles 
from the facility down current during ebb tide and to the point of 
maximum tidal influence or 5 miles, whichever is less, during flood 
tide.
    (2) A spill trajectory or model may be substituted for the 
distances calculated under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B)(l) of this section. 
The spill trajectory or model must be acceptable to the COTP.
    (3) The procedures contained in the Environmental Protection's 
Agency's regulations on oil pollution prevention for non-
transportation-related onshore facilities at 40 CFR part 112, appendix 
C, Attachment C-III may be substituted for the distances listed in non-
tidal and tidal waters; and
    (C) Based on historical information or a spill trajectory or model, 
the COTP may require the additional fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments also be protected.
    (5) Disposal Plan. This subsection must describe any actions to be 
taken or procedures to be used to ensure that all recovered oil and oil 
contaminated debris produced as a result of any discharge are disposed 
according to Federal, state, or local requirements.
    (c) Training and exercises. This section must be divided into the 
following two subsections:
    (1) Training procedures. This subsection must describe the training 
procedures and programs of the facility owner or operator to meet the 
requirements in Sec. 154.1050.
    (2) Exercise procedures. This subsection must describe the exercise 
program to be carried out by the facility owner or operator to meet the 
requirements in Sec. 154.1055.
    (d) Plan review and update procedures. This section must address 
the procedures to be followed by the facility owner or operator to meet 
the requirements of Sec. 154.1065 and the procedures to be followed for 
any post-discharge review of the plan to evaluate and validate its 
effectiveness.
    (e) Appendices. This section of the response plan must include the 
appendices described in this paragraph.
    (1) Facility-specific information. This appendix must contain a 
description of the facility's principal characteristics.
    (i) There must be a physical description of the facility including 
a plan of the facility showing the mooring areas, transfer locations, 
control stations, locations of safety equipment, and the location and 
capacities of all piping and storage tanks.
    (ii) The appendix must identify the sizes, types, and number of 
vessels that the facility can transfer oil to or from simultaneously.
    (iii) The appendix must identify the first valve(s) on facility 
piping separating the transportation-related portion of the facility 
from the non-transportation-related portion of the facility, if any. 
For piping leading to a manifold located on a dock serving tank 
vessels, this valve is the first valve inside the secondary containment 
required by 40 CFR part 112.
    (iv) The appendix must contain information on the oil(s) and 
hazardous material handled, stored, or transported at the facility in 
bulk. A material safety data sheet meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 
1910.1200, 33 CFR 154.310(a)(5) or an equivalent will meet this 
requirement. This information can be maintained separately providing it 
is readily available and the appendix identifies its location. This 
information must include--
    (A) The generic or chemical name;
    (B) A description of the appearance and odor;
    (C) The physical and chemical characteristics;
    (D) The hazards involved in handling the oil(s) and hazardous 
materials. This shall include hazards likely to be encountered if the 
oil(s) and hazardous materials come in contact as a result of a 
discharge; and
    (E) A list of firefighting procedures and extinguishing agents 
effective with fires involving the oil(s) and hazardous materials.
    (v) The appendix may contain any other information which the 
facility owner or operator determines to be pertinent to an oil spill 
response.
    (2) List of contacts. This appendix must include information on 24-
hour contact of key individuals and organizations. If more appropriate, 
this information may be specified in a geographic-specific appendix. 
The list must include--
    (i) The primary and alternate qualified individual(s) for the 
facility;
    (ii) The contact(s) identified under paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this 
section for activation of the response resources; and
    (iii) Appropriate Federal, State, and local officials.
    (3) Equipment list and records. This appendix must include the 
information specified in this paragraph.
    (i) The appendix must contain a list of equipment and facility 
personnel required to respond to an average most probable discharge, as 
defined in Sec. 154.1020. The appendix must also list the location of 
the equipment.
    (ii) The appendix must contain a detailed listing of all the major 
equipment identified in the plan as belonging to an oil spill removal 
organization(s) that is available, by contract or other approved means 
as described in Sec. 154.1028(a), to respond to a maximum most probable 
or worst case discharge, as defined in Sec. 154.1020. The detailed 
listing of all major equipment may be located in a separate document 
referenced by the plan. Either the appendix or the separate document 
referenced in the plan must provide the location of the major response 
equipment.
    (iii) It is not necessary to list response equipment from oil spill 
removal organization(s) when the organization has been classified by 
the Coast Guard and their capacity has been determined to equal or 
exceed the response capability needed by the facility. For oil spill 
removal organization(s) classification by the Coast Guard, the 
classified must be noted in this section of the plan. When it is 
necessary for the appendix to contain a listing of response equipment, 
it shall include all of the following items that are identified in the 

[[Page 7925]]
response plan: Skimmers; booms; dispersant application, in-situ 
burning, bioremediation equipment and supplies, and other equipment 
used to apply other chemical agents on the NCP Product Schedule (if 
applicable); communications, firefighting, and beach cleaning 
equipment; boats and motors; disposal and storage equipment; and heavy 
equipment. The list must include for each piece of equipment--
    (A) The type, make, model, and year of manufacture listed on the 
nameplate of the equipment;
    (B) For oil recovery devices, the effective daily recovery rate, as 
determined using section 6 of Appendix C of this part;
    (C) For containment boom, the overall boom height (draft and 
freeboard) and type of end connectors;
    (D) The spill scenario in which the equipment will be used for or 
which it is contracted;
    (E) The total daily capacity for storage and disposal of recovered 
oil;
    (F) For communication equipment, the type and amount of equipment 
intended for use during response activities. Where applicable, the 
primary and secondary radio frequencies must be specified.
    (G) Location of the equipment; and
    (H) The date of the last inspection by the oil spill removal 
organization(s).
    (4) Communications plan. This appendix must describe the primary 
and alternate method of communication during discharges, including 
communications at the facility and at remote locations within the areas 
covered by the response plan. The appendix may refer to additional 
communications packages provided by the oil spill removal organization. 
This may reference another existing plan or document.
    (5) Site-specific safety and health plan. This appendix must 
describe the safety and health plan to be implemented for any response 
location(s). It must provide as much detailed information as is 
practicable in advance of an actual discharge. This appendix may 
reference another existing plan requiring under 29 CFR 1910.120.
    (6) List of acronyms and definitions. This appendix must list all 
acronyms used in the response plan including any terms or acronyms used 
by Federal, State, or local governments and any operational terms 
commonly used at the facility. This appendix must include all 
definitions that are critical to understanding the response plan.


Sec. 154.1040  Specific requirements for facilities that could 
reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment.

    (a) The owner or operator of a facility that, under Sec. 154.1015, 
could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the 
environment, shall submit a response plan that meets the requirements 
of Sec. 154.1035, except as modified by this section.
    (b) The facility's response activities section of the response plan 
need not list the facility or corporate organizational structure that 
will be used to manage the response, as required by 
Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iii).
    (c) The owner or operator of a facility must ensure the 
availability of response resources required to be identified in 
Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iv) by contract or other approved means described 
in Sec. 154.1028.
    (d) A facility owner or operator must have at least 200 feet of 
containment boom and the means of deploying and anchoring the boom 
available at the spill site within 1 hour of the detection of a spill 
to respond to the average most probable discharge in lieu of the 
quantity of containment boom specified in Sec. 154.1045(c)(1). Based on 
site-specific or facility-specific information, the COTP may specify 
that additional quantities of containment boom are available within one 
hour. In addition, there must be adequate sorbent material for initial 
response to an average most probable discharge. If the facility is a 
fixed facility, the containment boom and sorbent material must be 
located at the facility. If the facility is a mobile facility, the 
containment boom and sorbent must be available locally and be at the 
site of the discharge within 1 hour of its discovery.


Sec. 154.1041  Specific response information to be maintained on mobile 
MTR facilities.

    (a) Each mobile MTR facility must carry the following information 
as contained in the response plan when performing transfer operations:
    (1) A description of response activities for a discharge which may 
occur during transfer operations. This may be a narrative description 
or a list of procedures to be followed in the event of a discharge.
    (2) Identity of response resources to respond to a discharge from 
the mobile MTR facility.
    (3) List of the appropriate persons and agencies (including the 
telephone numbers) to be contacted in regard to a discharge and its 
handling, including the National Response Center.
    (b) The owner or operator of the mobile facility must also retain 
the information in this paragraph at the principal place of business.


Sec. 154.1045  Response plan development and evaluation criteria for 
facilities that handle, store, or transport Group I through Group IV 
petroleum oils.

    (a) The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group I through Group IV petroleum oils shall use the 
criteria in this section to evaluate response resources identified in 
the response plan for the specified operating environment.
    (1) The criteria in Table 1 of appendix C of this part are to be 
used solely for identification of appropriate equipment in a response 
plan. 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 facility operations.
    (2) The response resources must be evaluated considering 
limitations for the COTP zones in which the facility operates, 
including but not limited to--
    (i) Ice conditions;
    (ii) Debris;
    (iii) Temperature ranges;
    (iv) Weather-related visibility; and
    (v) Other appropriate environmental conditions as determined by the 
COTP.
    (3) The COTP may reclassify a specific body of water or location 
within the COTP zone. Any reclassifications will be identified by the 
COTP in the applicable ACP. Reclassifications may be to--
    (i) 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
    (ii) 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.
    (b) Response equipment must--
    (1) Meet or exceed the operating criteria listed in Table 1 of 
appendix C of this part;
    (2) Function in the applicable operating environment; and
    (3) Be appropriate for the petroleum oil carried.
    (c) The response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group I through Group IV petroleum oils must identify 
response resources that are available, by contract or other approved 
means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a)(1)(4), to respond to the 
facility's average most probable discharge. The response resources must 
include, at a minimum--
    (1) 1,000 feet of containment boom or two times the length of the 
largest vessel 

[[Page 7926]]
that regularly conducts petroleum oil transfers to or from the 
facility, whichever is greater, and the means of deploying and 
anchoring the boom available at the spill site within 1 hour of the 
detection of a spill; and
    (2) Oil recovery devices and recovered oil storage capacity capable 
of being at the spill site within 2 hours of the discovery of a 
petroleum oil discharge from a facility.
    (d) The response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group I through Group IV petroleum oils must identify 
response resources that are available, by contract or other approved 
means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a)(1)(4), to respond to a discharge 
up to the facility's maximum most probable discharge volume.
    (1) The response resources must include sufficient containment 
boom, oil recovery devices, and storage capacity for any recovery of up 
to the maximum most probable discharge planning volume, as contained in 
appendix C.
    (2) The response resources must be appropriate for each group of 
petroleum oil identified in Sec. 154.1020 that is handled, stored, or 
transported by the facility.
    (3) These response resources must be positioned such that they can 
arrive at the scene of a discharge within the following specified 
times:
    (i) The equipment identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 
this section or in Sec. 154.1040(d) must arrive within the times 
specified in those paragraphs or that section, as appropriate.
    (ii) In higher volume port areas and the Great Lakes, response 
resources must be capable of arriving on scene within 6 hours of the 
discovery of an petroleum oil discharge from a facility.
    (iii) In all other locations, response resources must be capable of 
arriving on scene within 12 hours of the discovery of a petroleum oil 
discharge from a facility.
    (4) The COTP may determine that mobilizing response resources to an 
area beyond the response times indicated in this paragraph invalidates 
the response plan. In this event, the COTP may impose additional 
operational restrictions (e.g., limitations on the number of transfers 
at a facility), or, at the COTP's discretion, the facility may operate 
with temporarily modified response plan development and evaluation 
criteria (e.g., modified response times, alternate response resources, 
etc.).
    (e) The response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group I through Group IV petroleum oils must identify the 
response resources that are available, by contract or other approved 
means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a)(1)(4), to respond to the worst 
case discharge volume of petroleum oil to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    (1) The location of these response resources must be suitable to 
meet the response times identified in paragraph (f) of this section for 
the applicable geographic area(s) of operation and response tier.
    (2) The response resources must be appropriate for--
    (i) The volume of the facility's worst case discharge;
    (ii) Group(s) of petroleum oil as identified in Sec. 154.1020 that 
are handled, stored, or transported by the facility; and
    (iii) The geographic area(s) in which the facility operates.
    (3) The response resources must include sufficient boom, oil 
recovery devices, and storage capacity to recover the worst case 
discharge planning volumes.
    (4) The guidelines in appendix C 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.
    (5) When determining response resources necessary to meet the 
requirements of this section, 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) Offshore--10 percent.
    (ii) Nearshore/inland/Great Lakes/rivers and canals--20 percent.
    (6) The COTP may determine that mobilizing response resources to an 
area beyond the response times indicated in this paragraph invalidates 
the response plan. In this event, the COTP may impose additional 
operational restrictions (e.g., limitations on the number of transfers 
at a facility), or, at the COTP's discretion, the facility may be 
permitted to operate with temporarily modified response plan 
development and evaluation criteria (e.g., modified response times, 
alternate response resources, etc.).
    (f) Response equipment identified in a response plan for a facility 
that handles, stores, or transports Group I through Group IV petroleum 
oils 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
                                                (hrs.)   (hrs.)   (hrs.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port area (except for a TAPAA                             
 facility located in Prince William Sound,                              
 see Sec.  154.1135).........................        6       30       54
Great Lakes..................................       12       36       60
All other river and canal, inland, nearshore,                           
 and offshore areas..........................       12       36       60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) For the purposes of arranging for response resources for a 
facility that handles, stores, or transports Group I through Group IV 
petroleum oils, by contract or other approved means as described in 
Sec. 154.1028(a)(1)-(4), response equipment identified for Tier 1 plan 
credit must be capable of being mobilized and en route to the scene of 
a discharge within 2 hours of notification. The notification procedures 
identified in the plan must provide for notification and authorization 
of 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.
    (h) Response resources identified for Tier 2 and Tier 3 plan credit 
must be capable of arriving on scene within the time specified for the 
applicable tier.
    (i) The response plan for a facility that is located in any 
environment with year-round preapproval for use of dispersants and that 
handles, stores, or transports Group II or III persistent petroleum 
oils may request a credit for up to 25 percent of the on-water recovery 
capability set forth by this part. To receive this credit, the facility 
owner or operator must identify in the plan and ensure, by contract or 
other approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a)(1)-(4), 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' recommend dosage rates. 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 

[[Page 7927]]
during a spill response will be governed by the provisions of the NCP 
and the applicable ACP.
    (j) A response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group I through Group IV petroleum oils must identify 
response resources with firefighting capability. The owner or operator 
of a facility that does not have adequate firefighting resources 
located at the facility or that can not rely on sufficient local 
firefighting resources must identify and ensure, by contract or other 
approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a)(1)-(4), the 
availability of adequate firefighting resources. The response plan must 
also identify an individual located at the facility to work with the 
fire department for petroleum oil fires. This individual shall also 
verify that sufficient well-trained firefighting resources are 
available within a reasonable time to respond to a worst case 
discharge. The individual may be the qualified individual as defined in 
Sec. 154.1020 and identified in the response plan or another 
appropriate individual located at the facility.
    (k) The response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Groups I through IV petroleum oils must identify equipment 
and required personnel available, by contract or other approved means 
as described in Sec. 154.1028(a) (1)-(4), to protect fish and wildlife 
and sensitive environments.
    (1) Except as set out in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the 
identified response resources must include the quantities of boom 
sufficient to protect fish and wildlife and sensitive environments as 
required by Sec. 154.1035(b)(4).
    (2) The resources and response methods identified in a facility 
response plan must be consistent with the required resources and 
response methods to be used in fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments, contained in the appropriate ACP. Facility owners or 
operators shall ensure that their response plans are in accordance with 
the ACP in effect 6 months prior to initial plan submission or the 
annual plan review required under Sec. 154.1065(a). Facility owners or 
operators are not required to, but may at their option, conform to an 
ACP which is less than 6 months old at the time of plan submission.
    (l) The response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Groups I through IV petroleum oils must identify an oil 
spill removal organization(s) with response resources that are 
available, by contract or other approved means as described in 
Sec. 154.1028(a) (1)-(4), to effect a shoreline cleanup operation 
commensurate with the quantity of emulsified petroleum oil to be 
planned for in shoreline cleanup operations.
    (1) Except as required in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, the 
shoreline cleanup response resources required must be determined as 
described in appendix C of this part.
    (2) The resources and response methods identified in a facility 
response plan must be consistent with the required shoreline cleanup 
resources and methods contained in the appropriate ACP. Facility owners 
or operators shall ensure that their response plans are in accordance 
with the ACP in effect 6 months prior to initial plan submission or the 
annual plan review required under Sec. 154.1065(a). Facility owners or 
operators are not required to, but may at their option, conform to an 
ACP which is less than 6 months old at the time of plan submission.
    (m) Appendix C of this part describes the procedures to determine 
the maximum extent practicable quantity of response resources that must 
be identified and available, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 154.1028(a) (1)-(4), for the maximum most probable 
discharge volume, and for each worst case discharge response tier.
    (1) Included in appendix C of this part is a cap that recognizes 
the practical and technical limits of response capabilities that an 
individual facility owner or operator can be expected to contract for 
in advance.
    (2) Table 5 in appendix C of this part lists the caps that apply in 
February 18, 1993, and February 18, 1998. Depending on the quantity and 
type of petroleum oil handled by the facility and the facility's 
geographic area of operations, the resource capability caps in this 
table may be reached. The owner or operator of a facility whose 
estimated recovery capacity exceeds the applicable contracting caps in 
Table 5 shall identify sources of additional equipment equal to twice 
the cap listed in Tiers 1, 2, and 3 or the amount necessary to reach 
the calculated planning volume, whichever is lower. The identified 
resources must be capable of arriving on scene not later than the Tier 
1, 2, and 3 response times in this section. No contract is required. 
While general listings of available response equipment may be used to 
identify additional sources, a response plan must identify the specific 
sources, locations, and quantities of equipment that a facility owner 
or operator has considered in his or her planning. When listing Coast 
Guard classified oil spill removal organization(s) which have 
sufficient removal capacity to recover the volume above the response 
capability cap for the specific facility, as specified in Table 5 in 
appendix C of this part, it is not necessary to list specific 
quantities of equipment.
    (n) 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 for February 1998 remains practicable, and will also 
establish a specific cap for 2003. The review will include but is not 
limited to--
    (i) Increase 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 in February 1998 and 2003 unless the review of the 
additional requirements has not been completed by the Coast Guard. If 
this occurs, the additional requirements will not be effective until 90 
days after publication of a Federal Register notice with the results of 
the review.


Sec. 154.1047  Response plan development and evaluation criteria for 
facilities that handle, store, or transport Group V petroleum oils.

    (a) An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group V petroleum oils must provide information in his or 
her response plan that identifies--
    (1) Procedures and strategies for responding 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) An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group V petroleum oil 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 facility operates using 
the criteria in Table 1 of appendix C of this part. When evaluating the 
operability of equipment, the facility owner or operator must consider 
limitations that are identified in the ACPs for the COTP 

[[Page 7928]]
zones in which the facility operates, including--
    (1) Ice conditions;
    (2) Debris;
    (3) Temperature ranges; and
    (4) Weather-related visibility.
    (c) The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group V petroleum oil must identify the response resources 
that are available by contract or other approved means as described in 
Sec. 154.1028. The equipment identified in a response plan must 
include--
    (1) Sonar, sampling equipment, or other methods for locating the 
petroleum oil on the bottom or suspended in the water column;
    (2) Containment boom, sorbent boom, silt curtains, or other methods 
for containing the petroleum oil that may remain floating on the 
surface or to reduce spreading on the bottom;
    (3) Dredges, pumps, or other equipment necessary to recover 
petroleum oil from the bottom and shoreline;
    (4) Equipment necessary to assess the impact of such discharges; 
and
    (5) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a discharge 
involving the type of petroleum oil handled, stored, or transported.
    (d) Response resources identified in a response plan for a facility 
that handles, stores, or transports Group V petroleum oils under 
paragraph (c) of this section must be capable of being at the spill 
site within 24 hours of discovery of a discharge.
    (e) A response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports Group V petroleum oils must identify response resources with 
firefighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility that does 
not have adequate firefighting resources located at the facility or 
that can not rely on sufficient local firefighting resources must 
identity and ensure, by contract or other approved means as described 
in Sec. 154.1028, the availability of adequate firefighting resources. 
The response plan must also identify an individual located at the 
facility to work with the fire department for petroleum oil fires. This 
individual shall also verify that sufficient well-trained firefighting 
resources are available within a reasonable response time to a worst 
case scenario. The individual may be the qualified individual as 
defined in Sec. 154.1020 and identified in the response plan or another 
appropriate individual located at the facility.


Sec. 154.1050  Training.

    (a) A response plan submitted to meet the requirements of 
Secs. 154.1035 or 154.1040, as appropriate, must identify the training 
to be provided to each individual with responsibilities under the plan. 
A facility owner or operator must identify the method to be used for 
training any volunteers or casual laborers used during a response to 
comply with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120.
    (b) A facility owner or operator shall ensure the maintenance of 
records sufficient to document training of facility personnel; and 
shall make them available for inspection upon request by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. Records for facility personnel must be maintained at the 
facility for 3 years.
    (c) Where applicable, a facility owner or operator shall ensure 
that an oil spill removal organization identified in a response plan to 
meet the requirements of this subpart maintains records sufficient to 
document training for the organization's personnel and shall make them 
available for inspection upon request by the facility's management 
personnel, the qualified individual, and U.S. Coast Guard. Records must 
be maintained for 3 years following completion of training.
    (d) The facility owner or operator remains responsible for ensuring 
that all private response personnel are trained to meet the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for 
emergency response operations in 29 CFR 1910.120.


Sec. 154.1055  Exercises.

    (a) A response plan submitted by an owner or operator of an MTR 
facility must include an exercise program containing both announced and 
unannounced exercises. The following are the minimum exercise 
requirements for facilities covered by this subpart:
    (1) Qualified individual notification exercises (quarterly).
    (2) Spill management team tabletop exercises (annually). In a 3-
year period, at least one of these exercises must include a worst case 
discharge scenario.
    (3) Equipment deployment exercises:
    (i) Semiannually for facility owned and operated equipment.
    (ii) Annually for oil spill removal organization equipment.
    (4) Emergency procedures exercises (optional).
    (5) Annually, at least one of the exercises listed in 
Sec. 154.1055(a)(2) through (4) must be unannounced. Unannounced means 
the personnel participating in the exercise must not be advised in 
advance, of the exact date, time and scenario of the exercise.
    (6) The facility 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) A facility owner or operator shall participate in unannounced 
exercises, as directed by the COTP. The objectives of the unannounced 
exercises will be to test notifications and equipment deployment for 
response to the average most probable discharge. After participating in 
an unannounced exercise directed by a COTP, the owner or operator will 
not be required to participate in another COTP initiated unannounced 
exercise for at least 3 years from the date of the exercise.
    (c) A facility 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 facility 
owner or operator will be a member. After participating in an Area 
exercise, a facility owner or operator will not be required to 
participate in another Area exercise for at least 6 years.
    (d) The facility owner or operator shall ensure that adequate 
records of all required exercises are maintained at the facility for 3 
years. Records shall be made available to the Coast Guard upon request.
    (e) The response plan submitted to meet the requirements of this 
subpart must specify the planned exercise program. The plan must detail 
the exercise program, including the types of exercises, frequency, 
scope, objectives and the scheme for exercising the entire response 
plan every 3 years.
    (f) Compliance with the National Preparedness for Response Exercise 
Program (PREP) Guidelines will satisfy the facility response plan 
exercise requirements.


Sec. 154.1057  Inspection and maintenance of response resources.

    (a) A facility owner or operator 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 inspection and maintenance is documented and that these 
records are maintained for 3 years.

[[Page 7929]]

    (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 existences 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, and other major equipment listed or referenced in the plan and 
ensured available from an oil spill removal organization through the 
written consent required under Sec. 154.1028(a)(5).


Sec. 154.1060  Submission and approval procedures.

    (a) The owner or operator of a facility to which this subpart 
applies shall submit one copy of a facility response plan meeting the 
requirements of this subpart to the COTP for initial review and, if 
appropriate, approval.
    (b) The owner or operator of a facility to which this subpart 
applies shall include a statement certifying that the plan meets the 
applicable requirements of subparts F, G, H, and I of this part, as 
appropriate.
    (c) For an MTR facility that is located in the inland response zone 
where the EPA Regional Administrator is the predesignated Federal On-
Scene Coordinator, the COTP may consult with the EPA Federal On-Scene 
Coordinator prior to any final approval.
    (d) For an MTR facility identified in Sec. 154.1015(c) of this 
subpart that is also required to prepare a response plan under 40 CFR 
part 112, if the COTP determines that the plan meets all applicable 
requirements and the EPA Regional Administrator raises no objection to 
the response plan contents, the COTP will notify the facility owner or 
operator in writing that the plan is approved.
    (e) The plan will be valid for a period of up to 5 years. The 
facility owner or operator must resubmit an updated plan every 5 years 
as follows:
    (1) For facilities identified in only Sec. 154.1015(b) of this 
subpart, the 5-year period will commence on the date the plan is 
submitted to the COTP.
    (2) For facilities identified in Sec. 154.1015(c) of this subpart, 
the 5-year period will commence on the date the COTP approves the plan.
    (3) All resubmitted response plans shall be accompanied by a cover 
letter containing a detailed listing of all revisions to the response 
plan.
    (f) For an MTR facility identified in Sec. 154.1015(c)(2) the COTP 
will notify the facility owner or operator in writing that the plan is 
approved.
    (g) If a COTP determines that a plan does not meet the requirements 
of this subpart either upon initial submission or upon 5-year 
resubmission, the COTP will return the plan to the facility owner or 
operator along with an explanation of the response plan's deficiencies. 
The owner or operator must correct any deficiencies in accordance with 
Sec. 154.1070 and return the plan to the COTP within the time specified 
by the COTP in the letter describing the deficiencies.
    (h) The facility owner or operator and the qualified individual and 
the alternative qualified individual shall each maintain a copy of the 
most current response plan submitted to the COTP. One copy must be 
maintained at the facility in a position where the plan is readily 
available to persons in charge of conducting transfer operations.


Sec. 154.1065  Plan review and revision procedures.

    (a) A facility owner or operator must review his or her response 
plan(s) annually. This review shall incorporate any revisions to the 
plan, including listings of fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments identified in the ACP in effect 6 months prior to plan 
review.
    (1) For an MTR facility identified in Sec. 154.1015(c) of this 
subpart as a ``significant and substantial harm facility,'' this review 
must occur within 1 month of the anniversary date of COTP approval of 
the plan. For an MTR facility identified in Sec. 154.1015(b) of this 
subpart, as a ``substantial harm facility'' this review must occur 
within 1 month of the anniversary date of submission of the plan to the 
COTP.
    (2) The facility owner or operator shall submit any revision(s) to 
the response plan to the COTP and all other holders of the response 
plan for information or approval, as appropriate.
    (i) Along with the revisions, the facility owner or operator shall 
submit a cover letter containing a detailed listing of all revisions to 
the response plan.
    (ii) If no revisions are required, the facility owner or operator 
shall indicate the completion of the annual review on the record of 
changes page.
    (iii) The COTP will review the revision(s) submitted by the owner 
or operator and will give written notice to the owner or operator of 
any COTP objection(s) to the proposed revisions within 30 days of the 
date the revision(s) were submitted to the COTP. The revisions shall 
become effective not later than 30 days from their submission to the 
COTP unless the COTP indicates otherwise in writing as provided in this 
paragraph. If the COTP indicates that the revision(s) need to be 
modified before implementation, the owner or operator will modify the 
revision(s) within the time period set by the COTP.
    (3) Any required revisions must be entered in the plan and noted on 
the record of changes page.
    (b) The facility owner or operator shall submit revisions to a 
previously submitted or approved plan to the COTP and all other holders 
of the response plan for information or approval within 30 days, 
whenever there is--
    (1) A change in the facility's configuration that significantly 
affects the information included in the response plan;
    (2) A change in the type of oil (petroleum oil group) handled, 
stored, or transported that affects the required response resources;
    (3) A change in the name(s) or capabilities of the oil spill 
removal organization required by Sec. 154.1045;
    (4) A change in the facility's emergency response procedures;
    (5) A change in the facility's operating area that includes ports 
or geographic area(s) not covered by the previously approved plan. A 
facility may not operate in an area not covered in a plan previously 
submitted or approved, as appropriate, unless the revised plan is 
approved or interim operating approval is received under Sec. 154.1025; 
or
    (6) Any other changes that significantly affect the implementation 
of the plan.
    (c) Except as required in paragraph (b) of this section, revisions 
to personnel and telephone number lists included in the response plan 
do not require COTP approval. The COTP and all other holders of the 
response plan shall be advised of these revisions and provided a copy 
of the revisions as they occur.
    (d) The COTP may require a facility owner or operator to revise a 
response plan at any time as a result of a compliance inspection if the 
COTP determines that the response plan does not meet the requirements 
of this subpart or as a result of inadequacies noted in the response 
plan during an actual pollution incident at the facility.


Sec. 154.1070  Deficiencies.

    (a) The cognizant COTP will notify the facility owner or operator 
in writing of any deficiencies noted during review of a response plan, 
drills observed by the Coast Guard, or inspection of equipment or 
records maintained in connection with this subpart.

[[Page 7930]]

    (b) Deficiencies shall be corrected within the time period 
specified in the written notice provided by the COTP. The facility 
owner or operator who disagrees with a deficiency issued by the COTP 
may appeal the deficiency to the cognizant COTP within 7 days or the 
time specified by the COTP to correct the deficiency, whichever is 
less. This time commences from the date of receipt of the COTP notice. 
The owner or operator may request a stay from the COTP decision pending 
appeal in accordance with Sec. 154.1075.
    (c) If the facility owner or operator fails to correct any 
deficiencies or submit a written appeal, the COTP may invoke the 
provisions of Sec. 154.1025 prohibiting the facility from storing, 
handling, or transporting oil.


Sec. 154.1075  Appeal process.

    (a) Any owner or operator of a facility who desires to appeal the 
classification that a facility could reasonably be expected to cause 
substantial harm or significant and substantial harm to the 
environment, shall submit a written request to the cognizant COTP 
requesting review and reclassification by the COTP. The facility owner 
or operator shall identify those factors to be considered by the COTP. 
The factors to be considered by the COTP regarding reclassification of 
a facility include, but are not limited to, those listed in 
Sec. 154.1016(b). After considering all relevant material presented by 
the facility owner or operator and any additional material available to 
the COTP, the COTP will notify the facility owner or operator of the 
decision on the reclassification of the facility.
    (b) Any facility owner or operator directly affected by an initial 
determination or action of the COTP may submit a written request to the 
cognizant COTP requesting review and reconsideration of the COTP's 
decision or action. The facility owner or operator shall identify those 
factors to be considered by the COTP in making his or her decision on 
reconsideration.
    (c) Within 10 days of the COTP's decision under paragraph (b) of 
this section, the facility owner or operator may appeal the decision of 
the COTP to the District Commander. This appeal shall be made in 
writing via the cognizant COTP to the District Commander of the 
district in which the office of the COTP is located.
    (d) Within 30 days of the District Commander's decision, the 
facility owner or operator may formally appeal the decision of the 
District Commander. This appeal shall be submitted in writing to 
Commandant (G-MEP) via the District Commander.
    (e) When considering an appeal, the COTP, District Commander, or 
Commandant may stay the effect of the decision or action being appealed 
pending the determination of the appeal.
    3. Subpart G is revised to read as follows:
Subpart G--Additional Response Plan Requirements for a Trans Alaska 
Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA) Facility Operating in Prince William 
Sound, Alaska
Sec. 154.1110 Purpose and applicability.
154.1115 Definitions.
154.1120 Operating restrictions and interim operating authorization.
154.1125 Additional response plan requirements.
154.1130 Requirements for prepositioned response equipment.
154.1135 Response plan development and evaluation criteria.
154.1140 TAPAA facility contracting with a vessel.

Subpart G--Additional Response Plan Requirements for a Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA) Facility Operating in Prince 
William Sound, Alaska


Sec. 154.1110  Purpose and applicability.

    (a) This subpart establishes oil spill response planning 
requirements for a facility permitted under the Tans-Alaska Pipeline 
Authorization Act (TAPAA), in addition to the requirements of subpart F 
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 by this subpart must be included in 
the Prince William Sound facility-specific appendix to the facility 
response plan required by subpart F of this part.


Sec. 154.1115  Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions in this section, the definitions in 
Secs. 154.105 and 154.1020 apply to this subpart. As used in this 
subpart--
    Crude oil means any liquid hydrocarbon mixture occurring naturally 
in the earth, whether or not treated to render it suitable for 
transportation, and includes crude oil from which certain distillate 
fractions may have been removed, and crude oil to which certain 
distillate fractions may have been added.
    Non-crude oil means any oil other than crude oil.
    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 Rocks.


Sec. 154.1120  Operating restrictions and interim operating 
authorization.

    (a) The owner or operator of a TAPAA facility may not operate in 
Prince William Sound, Alaska, unless the requirements of this subpart 
as well as Sec. 154.1025 have been met. The owner or operator of a 
TAPAA facility shall certify to the COTP that he or she has provided, 
through an oil spill removal organization required by Sec. 154.1125, 
the necessary response resources to remove, to the maximum extend 
practicable, a worst case discharge or a discharge of 200,000 barrels 
of oil, whichever is grater, in Prince William Sound.
    (b) Coast Guard approval of a TAPAA facility response plan is 
effective only so long as the appropriate Regional Citizens Advisory 
Council(s) is funded pursuant to the requirements of section 5002(k) of 
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-380; 104 Stat. 484, 550).


Sec. 154.1125  Additional response plan requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of a TAPAA facility shall include the 
following information in the Prince William Sound appendix to the 
response plan required by subpart F of this part:
    (1) Oil spill removal organization. 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) Provide a plan for training, in addition to the personnel 
listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, sufficient numbers of 
trained personnel to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst 
case discharge; and
    (iv) Address the responsibilities required in 
Sec. 154.1035(b)(3)(iii).
    (2) Exercises. Identification of exercise procedures that must--
    (i) Provide for two exercises of the oil spill removal organization 
each year that test the ability of the prepositioned equipment and 
trained personnel required under this subpart to perform effectively;
    (ii) Consist of both announced and unannounced drills; and
    
[[Page 7931]]

    (iii) Include design(s) for exercises that test either the entire 
appendix or individual components(s).
    (3) Testing, inspection, and certification. Identification of a 
testing, inspecting, and certification program for the prepositioned 
response equipment required in Sec. 154.1130 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 all electrical motors, pumps, 
power packs, air compressors, internal combustion engines, and oil 
recovery devices; and
    (B) Removal for inspection of no less than one-third of required 
boom from storage annually, such that all boom will have been removed 
and inspected within a period of 3 years; and
    (ii) Records of equipment tests and inspection.
    (iii) Use of an independent entity to certify that the equipment is 
on-site and in good operating condition and that required tests and 
inspection have been preformed. The independent entity must have 
appropriate training and expertise to provide this certification.
    (4) Prepositioned response equipment. Identification and location 
of the prepositioned response equipment required in Sec. 154.1130 
including the make, model, and effective daily recovery rate of each 
oil recovery resource.
    (b) The owner or operator of a TAPAA facility shall submit to the 
COTP a schedule for the training and drills 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 COTP.


Sec. 154.1130  Requirements for prepositioned response equipment.

    The owner or operator of a TAPAA facility shall provide the 
following prepositioned response equipment, located within Prince 
William Sound, in addition to that required by Secs. 154.1035, 
154.1045, or 154.1050:
    (a) On-water recovery equipment with a minimum effective daily 
recovery rate of 30,000 barrels capable of being a scene within 2 hours 
of notification of a discharge.
    (b) On-water storage capacity of 100,000 barrels for recovered oily 
material capable of being on scene within 2 hours of notification of a 
discharge.
    (c) On-water recovery equipment with a minimum effective daily 
recovery rate of 40,000 barrels capable of being on scene within 18 
hours of notification of discharge.
    (d) On-water storage capacity of 300,000 barrels for recovered oily 
material capable of being on scene within 12 hours of notification of a 
discharge.
    (e) On-water recovery devices and storage equipment located in 
communities at strategic locations.
    (f) Equipment as identified below, for the locations identified in 
Sec. 154.1125(a)(1)(ii) sufficient for the protection of the 
environment in these locations:
    (1) Boom appropriate for the specific locations.
    (2) Sufficient boats to deploy boom and sorbents.
    (3) Sorbent materials.
    (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.
    (12) Other appropriate removal equipment for the protection of the 
environment as identified by the COTP.


Sec. 154.1135  Response plan development and evaluation criteria.

    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. 154.1045:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Tier 1   Tier 2   tier 3
                                                (hrs.)   (hrs.)   (hrs.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prince William Sound Area....................       12       24       36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 154.1140  TAPAA facility contracting with a vessel.

    The owner or operator of a TAPAA facility may contract with a 
vessel owner or operator to meet some of all of the requirements of 
subpart G of part 155 of this chapter. The extent to which these 
requirements are met by the contractual arrangement will be determined 
by the COTP.
    4. Subpart H, consisting of Secs. 154.1210 through 154.1228, is 
added to read as follows:

Subpart H--Response Plans for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils Facilities

Sec.
154.1210  Purpose and applicability.
154.1220  Response plan submission requirements.
154.1225  Response plan development and evaluation criteria for 
facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats and 
vegetable oils.
154.1228  Methods of ensuring the availability of response resources 
by contract or other approved means.
Subpart H--Response Plans for Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils 
Facilities
Sec. 154.1210  Purpose and applicability.

    This subpart establishes oil spill response planning requirements 
for an owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats and vegetable oils. 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. 154.1220  Response plan submission requirements.

    An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats and vegetable oils shall submit a response plan 
in accordance with the requirements of this subpart, and with all 
sections of subpart F of this part, except Secs. 154.1045 and 154.1047, 
which apply to petroleum oils.


Sec. 154.1225  Response plan development and evaluation criteria for 
facilities that handle, store, or transport animal fats and vegetable 
oils.

    (a) An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats and vegetable oils must provide information in 
his or her plan that identifies--
    (1) Procedures and strategies for responding to a worst case 
discharge of animal fats and vegetable oils to the maximum extent 
practicable; and
    (2) Sources of the equipment and supplies necessary to locate, 
recover, and mitigate such a discharge.
    (b) An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats and vegetable oils 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 facility 
operates using the criteria in section 2 and Table 1 of appendix C of 
this part. When evaluating the operability of equipment, the facility 
owner or operator must consider limitations that are identified in the 
ACPs for the COTP zone in which the facility is located, including--
    (1) Ice conditions;
    (2) Debris;
    (3) Temperature ranges; and
    (4) Weather-related visibility.
    
[[Page 7932]]

    (c) The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats and vegetable oils must identify the response 
resources that are available by contract or other means as described in 
Sec. 154.1228(a). The equipment identified in a response plan must 
include--
    (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 handled; and
    (3) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a discharge 
involving the type of oil handled.
    (d) Response resources identified in a response plan under 
paragraph (c) of this section must be capable of commencing an 
effective on-scene response within the times specified in this 
paragraph for the applicable operating area:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Tier 1                    
                                              (hrs.)   Tier 2    Tier 3 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port area....................        6      N/A       N/A 
Great Lakes................................       12      N/A       N/A 
All other river and canal, inland,                                      
 nearshore, and offshore areas.............       12      N/A       N/A 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) A response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports animal fats and vegetable oils must identify response 
resources with firefighting capability. The owner or operator of a 
facility that does not have adequate firefighting resources located at 
the facility or that can not rely on sufficient local firefighting 
resources must identify and ensure, by contract or other approved means 
as described in Sec. 154.1228(a), the availability of adequate 
firefighting resources. The response plan must also identify an 
individual located at the facility to work with the fire department on 
animal fats and vegetable oil fires. This individual shall also verify 
that sufficient well-trained firefighting resources are available 
within a reasonable response time to a worst case scenario. The 
individual may be the qualified individual as defined in Sec. 154.1020 
and identified in the response plan or another appropriate individual 
located at the facility.
    (f) The response plan for a facility that is located in any 
environment with year-round preapproval for use of dispersants and that 
handles, stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable oils may 
request a credit for up to 25 percent of the worst case planning volume 
set forth by subpart F of this part. To receive this credit, the 
facility owner or operator must identify in the plan and ensure, by 
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 154.1228(a), the 
availability of specified resources to apply the dispersants and to 
monitor their effectiveness. The extent of the credit for dispersants 
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 a spill 
response will be governed by the provisions of the NCP and the 
applicable ACP.


Sec. 154.1228  Methods of ensuring the availability of response 
resources by contract or other approved means.

    (a) When required in this subpart, the availability of response 
resources must be ensured by the following methods:
    (1) The identification of an oil spill removal organization with 
specified equipment and personnel available within stipulated response 
times in specified geographic areas. The organization must provide 
written consent to being identified in the plan;
    (2) 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 drills;
    (iv) Is referenced in the response plan;
    (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 response to a 
discharge within stipulated response times in the specified geographic 
areas;
    (4) Certification by the facility owner or operator that specified 
personnel and equipment required under this subpart are owned, 
operated, or under the direct control of the facility owner or 
operator, and are available within stipulated response times in the 
specified geographic areas; or
    (5) A written contractual agreement with 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.
    (b) The contracts and documents required in paragraph (a) of this 
section must be retained at the facility and must be produced for 
review upon request by the COTP.
    5. Subpart I, consisting of Secs. 154.1310 through 154.1325, is 
added to read as follows:

Subpart I--Response Plans for Other Non-Petroleum Oil Facilities

Sec.
154.1310  Purpose and applicability.
154.1320  Response plan submission requirements.
154.1325  Response plan development and evaluation criteria for 
facilities that handle, store, or transport other non-petroleum 
oils.

Subpart I--Response Plans for Other Non-Petroleum Oil Facilities


Sec. 154.1310  Purpose and applicability.

    This subpart establishes oil spill response planning requirements 
for an owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports other non-petroleum oils. 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. 154.1320  Response plan submission requirements.

    An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports other non-petroleum oils shall submit a response plan in 
accordance with the requirements of this subpart, and with all sections 
of subpart F of this part, except Secs. 154.1045 and 154.1047, which 
apply to petroleum oils.


Sec. 154.1325  Response plan development and evaluation criteria for 
facilities that handle, store, or transport other non-petroleum oils.

    (a) An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports other non-petroleum oils must provide information in his or 
her 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 locate, 
recover, and mitigate such a discharge.

[[Page 7933]]

    (b) An owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports other non-petroleum oils 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 facility operates using 
the criteria in Table 1 of appendix C of this part. When evaluating the 
operability of equipment, the facility owner or operator must consider 
limitations that are identified in the ACPs for the COTP zone in which 
the facility is located, including--
    (1) Ice conditions;
    (2) Debris;
    (3) Temperature ranges; and
    (4) Weather-related visibility.
    (c) The owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports other non-petroleum oils must identify the response 
resources that are available by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 154.1028(a). The equipment identified in a response 
plan must include--
    (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 oils handled; and
    (3) Other appropriate equipment necessary to respond to a discharge 
involving the type of oil handled.
    (d) Response resources identified in a response plan under 
paragraph (c) of this section must be capable of commencing an 
effective on-scene response within the times specified in this 
paragraph for the applicable operating area:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Tier 1   Tier   Tier
                                                    (hrs.)    2      3  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher volume port area...........................       6    N/A    N/A
Great Lakes.......................................      12    N/A    N/A
All other river and canal, inland, nearshore, and                       
 offshore areas...................................      12    N/A    N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) A response plan for a facility that handles, stores, or 
transports other non-petroleum oils must identify response resources 
with firefighting capability. The owner or operator of a facility that 
does not have adequate firefighting resources located at the facility 
or that cannot rely on sufficient local firefighting resources must 
identify and ensure, by contract or other approved means as described 
in Sec. 154.1028(a), the availability of adequate firefighting 
resources. The response plan must also identify an individual located 
at the facility to work with the fire department on other non-petroleum 
oil fires. This individual shall also verify that sufficient well-
trained firefighting resources are available within a reasonable 
response time to a worst case scenario. The individual may be the 
qualified individual as defined in Sec. 154.1020 and identified in the 
response plan or another appropriate individual located at the 
facility.
    (f) The response plan for a facility 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 F of this part. To receive this credit, the facility owner 
or operator must identify in the plan and ensure, by contract or other 
approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a), 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 C is revised to read as follows:

Appendix C--Guidelines for Determining and Evaluating Required Response 
Resources for Facility 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 
subpart F of this part. These guidelines will be used by the 
facility owner or operator in preparing the response plan and by the 
Captain of the Port (COTP) when reviewing them. Response resources 
identified in subparts H and I of this part should be selected using 
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 
designed to operate in the conditions expected in the facility's 
geographic area. These conditions vary widely based on location and 
season. Therefore, it is difficult to identify a single stockpile of 
response equipment that will function effectively in each geographic 
location.
    2.2  Facilities handling, storing, or transporting oil in more 
than one operating environment as indicated in Table 1 of this 
appendix must identify equipment capable of successfully functioning 
in each operating environment.
    2.3  When identifying equipment for response plan credit, a 
facility 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 should be used for evaluating 
the operability in a given environment. These criteria reflect the 
general conditions in certain operating areas.
    2.3.1  The Coast Guard may require documentation that the boom 
identified in a response plan meets the criteria in Table 1. Absent 
acceptable documentation, the Coast Guard may require that the boom 
be tested to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Table 1. 
Testing must be in accordance with ASTM F 715, ASTM F 989, or other 
tests approved by the Coast Guard.
    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 the specified operating environment 
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.
    2.5  A facility owner or operator must refer to the applicable 
local contingency plan or ACP, as appropriate, to determine if ice, 
debris, and weather-related visibility are significant factors in 
evaluating the operability of equipment. The local contingency plan 
or ACP will also identify the average temperature ranges expected in 
the facility's operating area. All equipment identified in a 
response plan must be designed to operate within those conditions or 
ranges.
    2.6  The requirements of subparts F, G, H and I of this part 
establish response resource mobilization and response times. The 
distance of the facility from the storage location of the response 
resources must be used to determine whether the resources can arrive 
on scene within the stated time. A facility owner or operator shall 
include the time for notification, mobilization, and travel time of 
response resources identified to meet the maximum most probable 
discharge and Tier 1 worst case discharge response time 
requirements. For subparts F and G, tier 2 and 3 response resources 
must be notified and mobilized as necessary to meet the requirements 
for arrival on scene in accordance with Secs. 154.1045 or 154.1047 
of subpart F, or Sec. 154.1135 of subpart G, as appropriate. An on 
water speed of 5 knots and a land speed of 35 miles per hour is 
assumed unless the facility owner or operator can demonstrate 
otherwise.
    2.7  For subparts F and G, in identifying equipment, the 
facility owner or operator shall list the storage location, 
quantity, and manufacturer's make and model. 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) should be included. A facility 
owner or operator is responsible for ensuring that identified boom 
has compatible connectors.
    2.8  For subparts H and I, in identifying equipment, the 
facility owner or operator shall list the storage location, 
quantity, and manufacturer's make and model. For boom, 

[[Page 7934]]
the overall boom height (draft plus freeboard) should be included. A 
facility owner or 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 facility owner or operator shall identify sufficient 
response resources available, through contract or other approved 
means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a), to respond to the average 
most probable discharge. The equipment must be designed to function 
in the operating environment at the point of expected use.
    3.2  The response resources must include:
    3.2.1  1,000 feet of containment boom or two times the length of 
the largest vessel that regularly conducts oil transfers to or from 
the facility, whichever is greater, and a means deploying it 
available at the spill site within 1 hour of the discovery of a 
spill.
    3.2.2  Oil recovery devices with an effective daily recovery 
capacity equal to the amount of oil discharged in an average most 
probable discharge or greater available at the facility within 2 
hours of the detection of an oil discharge.
    3.2.3  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 facility owner or operator shall identify sufficient 
response resources available, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 154.1028(a), to respond to discharges up to the 
maximum most probable discharge volume for that facility. This will 
require response resources capable of containing and collecting up 
to 1,200 barrels of oil or 10 percent of the worst case discharge, 
whichever is less. All equipment identified must be designed to 
operate in the applicable operating environment specified in Table 1 
of this appendix.
    4.2  Oil recovery devices identified to meet the applicable 
maximum most probable discharge volume planning criteria must be 
located such that they arrive on scene within 6 hours in higher 
volume port areas (as defined in 154.1020) and the Great Lakes and 
within 12 hours in all other areas.
    4.3  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 percent of the 
planning volume applicable for the facility as determined in section 
4.1 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 plan must 
identify sufficient quantities of containment boom available, by 
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a), 
to arrive within the required response times for oil collection and 
containment and for protection of fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments. While the regulation does not set required quantities 
of boom for oil collection and containment, the response plan must 
identify and ensure, by contract or other approved means as 
described in Sec. 154.1028(a), 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 guidelines of section 9.2 of this 
appendix. If available storage capacity is insufficient to meet this 
level, then the effective daily recovery capacity must be derated 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 facility's worst case discharge 
volume is 20,000 barrels. Ten percent of this is 2,000 barrels. 
Since this is greater than 1,200 barrels, 1,200 barrels is used as 
the planning volume. The effective daily recovery capacity must be 
50 percent of this, or 600 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 rate as 
indicated in section 9 of this appendix, or 1,200 barrels per day. 
This is the information the facility owner or operator will use to 
identify and ensure the availability of, through contract or other 
approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a), the required 
response resources. The facility owner will also need to identify 
how much boom is available for use.

5. Determining Response Resources Required for the Worst Case 
Discharge to the Maximum Extent Practicable

    5.1  A facility owner or operator shall identify and ensure 
availability of, by contract or other approved means, as described 
in Sec. 154.1028(a), sufficient response resources to respond to the 
worst case discharge of oil to the maximum extent practicable. 
Section 7 of this appendix describes the method to determine the 
required response resources.
    5.2  Oil spill response resources identified in the response 
plan and available through contract or other approved means, as 
described in Sec. 154.1028(a), 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 times specified for the 
applicable response tiers listed in Sec. 154.1045.
    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 facility owner or operator 
shall identify the storage locations of all response resources that 
must be used to fulfill the requirements for each tier. The owner or 
operator of a facility whose required daily recovery capacity 
exceeds the applicable response capability caps in Table 5 of this 
appendix shall identify sources of additional equipment, their 
locations, and the arrangements made to obtain this equipment during 
a response. The owner or operator of a facility whose calculated 
planning volume exceeds the applicable contracting caps in Table 5 
shall identify sources of additional equipment equal to twice the 
cap listed in Tiers 1, 2, and 3 or the amount necessary to reach the 
calculated planning volume, whichever is lower. The resources 
identified above the cap must be capable of arriving on scene not 
later than the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 response times in Sec. 154.1045. No 
contract is required. While general listings of available response 
equipment may be used to identify additional sources, a response 
plan must identify the specific sources, locations, and quantities 
of equipment that a facility owner or operator has considered in his 
or her planning. When listing Coast Guard classified oil spill 
removal organization(s) which have sufficient removal capacity to 
recover the volume above the response capability cap for the 
specific facility, as specified in Table 5 of this appendix, it is 
not necessary to list specific quantities of equipment.
    5.4  A facility 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 derated to the limits of the availabile 
storage capacity.
    5.5  When selecting response resources necessary to meet the 
response plan requirements, the facility 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) Offshore--10 percent
    (ii) Nearshore/inland/Great Lakes/rivers and canals--20 percent.
    5.6  In addition to oil spill recovery devices, a facility owner 
or operator shall identify sufficient quantities of boom that are 
available, by contract or other approved means as described in 
Sec. 154.1028(a), to 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. A facility 
owner or operator shall also identify sufficient quantities of oil 
containment boom to protect fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments for the number of days and geographic areas specified 
in Table 2. Sections 154.1035(b)(4)(iii) and 154.1040(a), as 
appropriate, shall be used to determine the amount of containment 
boom required, through contract or other approved means as described 
in Sec. 154.1028(a), to protect fish and wildlife and sensitive 
environments.
    5.7  A facility owner or operator must also identify, through 
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a), 
the availability of an oil spill removal organization capable of 
responding to a shoreline cleanup operation involving the calculated 
volume of oil and emulsified oil that might impact the affected 
shoreline. The volume of oil that must be planned for is calculated 
through the application of factors contained in Tables 2 and 3. The 
volume 

[[Page 7935]]
calculated from these tables is intended to assist the facility owner 
or operator in identifying a contractor with sufficient resources 
and expertise. 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 facility owner or 
operator must be identified by manufacturer, model, and effective 
daily recovery capacity. These rates must be used to determine 
whether there is sufficient capacity to meet the applicable planning 
critieria for the average most probable discharge, maximum most 
probable discharge, and worst case discharge to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    6.2  For the purpose of determining the effective daily recovery 
capacity of oil recovery devices, the formula listed in section 
6.2.1 of this appendix 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 hours x E

R=Effective daily recovery capacity
T=Throughout rate in barrels per hour (nameplate capacity)
E=20 percent Efficiency factor (or lower factor as determined by 
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 the speed of the belt or mop through the device, 
assumed thickness of oil adhering to or collected by the device, and 
surface area of the belt or mop. For purposes of this calculation, 
the assumed thickness of oil will be 1/4 inch.
    6.2.4  Facility owners or operators including oil recovery 
devices whose throughput is not measurable using a pump capacity or 
belt/mop speed may provide information to support an alternative 
method of calculation. This information must be submitted following 
the procedures in paragraph 6.3.2 of this appendix.
    6.3  As an alternative to 6.2, a facility 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 tests using ASTM F 631, ASTM F 808, 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 facility owner or operator can document 
capability to operate equipment under spill conditions. Ten hours 
per day must be used unless a facility owner or operator can 
demonstrate that the recovery operation can be sustained for longer 
periods.

    6.3.2  A facility owner or operator proposing a different 
effective daily recovery rate for use in a response plan shall 
provide data 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=1829 barrels per day

    After testing using ASTM procedures, the skimmer's oil recovery 
rate is determined to be 220 gpm. The facility owner of operator 
identifies sufficient response resources available to support 
operations 12 hours per day.

220 gpm=314 barrels per hour
R=314 x 12=3768 barrels per day

    The facility owner or operator will be able to use the higher 
rate if sufficient temporary oil storage capacity is available. 
Determinations of alternative efficiency factors under paragraph 6.2 
or alternative effective daily recovery capacities under paragraph 
6.3 of this appendix will be made by Commandant, (G-MEP-6), Coast 
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593. 
Response contractors or equipment manufacturers may submit required 
information on behalf of multiple facility owners or operators 
directly in lieu of including the request with the response plan 
submission.

7. Calculating the Worst Case Discharge Planning Volumes

    7.1  The facility owner or operator shall plan for a response to 
a facility's worst case discharge. The planning for on-water 
recovery must take into account a loss of some oil to the 
environment due to evaporative 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 facility owner or operator for determining 
required on water recovery capacity:
    7.2.1  The following must be determined: The worst case 
discharge volume of oil in the facility; the appropriate group(s) 
for the type of oil handled, stored, or transported at the facility 
(non-persistent (Group I) or persistent (Groups II, III, or IV)); 
and the facility's specific operating area. Facilities which handle, 
store, or transport oil from different petroleum oil groups must 
calculate each group separately. This information is to be used with 
Table 2 of this appendix to determine the percentages of the total 
volume to be used for removal capacity planning. This table divides 
the 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 3 of this 
appendix. Facilities which handle, store, or transport oil from 
different petroleum groups must assume that the oil group resulting 
in the largest on-water recovery volume will be stored in the tank 
or tanks identified as constituting the worst case discharge.
    7.2.3  The adjusted volume is multiplied by the on-water oil 
recovery resource mobilization favor found in Table 4 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 
with 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 
6, 30, and 54 hours of the discovery of an oil discharge. For all 
other river, inland, nearshore, offshore areas, and the Great Lakes, 
these tiers are 12, 36, and 60 hours.
    7.2.4  The resulting on-water recovery capacity in barrels per 
day for each tier must be used to identify response resources 
necessary to sustain operations in the applicable operating area. 
The equipment must be capable of sustaining operations for the time 
period specified in Table 2 of this appendix. The facility owner or 
operator must identify and ensure the availability, through contract 
or other approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a), of 
sufficient oil spill recovery devices to provide the effective daily 
recovery oil recovery capacity required. If the required capacity 
exceeds the applicable cap specified in Table 5 of this appendix, 
then a facility owner or operator shall ensure, by contract or other 
approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a), only for the 
quantity of resources required to meet the cap, but shall identify 
sources of additional resources as indicated in Sec. 154.1045(m). 
The owner or operator of a facility whose planning volume exceeds 
the cap for 1993 must make arrangements to identify and ensure the 
availability, through contract or other approved means as described 
in Sec. 154.1028(a), of the additional capacity in 1998 or 2003, as 
appropriate. For a facility that handles, stores, or transports 
multiple groups of oil, the required effective daily recovery 
capacity for each group is calculated 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 worst case 
discharge volume of oil for the facility; the appropriate group(s) 
for the type of oil handled, stored, or transported at the facility 
(non-persistent (Group I) or persistent (Groups II, III, or IV)); 
and the operating area(s) in which the facility operates. For a 
facility storing oil from different groups, each group must be 
calculated separately. Using this information, Table 2 of this 
appendix must be used to determine the percentages of the total 

[[Page 7936]]
planning volume to be used for shoreline cleanup resource planning.
    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.
    7.3.3  The resulting volume will be used to identify an oil 
spill removal organization with the appropriate shoreline cleanup 
capability.
    7.3.4  The following is an example of the procedure described 
above: A facility receives oil from barges via a dock located on a bay 
and transported by piping to storage tanks. The facility handles Number 
6 oil (specific gravity .96) and stores the oil in tanks where it is 
held prior to being burned in an electric generating plant. The MTR 
segment of the facility has six 18-inch diameter pipelines running one 
mile from the dock-side manifold to several storage tanks which are 
located in the non-transportation-related portion of the facility. 
Although the facility piping has a normal working pressure of 100 
pounds per square inch, the piping has a maximum allowable working 
pressure (MAWP) of 150 pounds per square inch. At MAWP, the pumping 
system can move 10,000 barrels (bbls) of Number 6 oil every hour 
through each pipeline. The facility has a roving watchman who is 
required to drive the length of the piping every 2 hours when the 
facility is receiving oil from a barge. The facility operator estimates 
that it will take approximately 10 minutes to secure pumping operations 
when a discharge is discovered. Using the definition of worst case 
discharge provided in Sec. 154.1029(b)(ii), the following calculation 
is provided:

                                                                        
                                                                   bbls.
                                                                        
2 hrs + 0.17 hour  x  10,000 bbls per hour....................    21,700
Piping volume = 37,322 ft \3\  5.6 ft \3\/bbl.........    +6,664
                                                               ---------
Discharge volume per pipe.....................................    28,364
Number of pipelines...........................................       x 6
                                                               ---------
Worst case discharge from MTR facility........................   170,184
                                                                        

    To calculate the planning volumes for onshore recovery:

Worst case discharge: 170,184 bbls. Group IV oil
Emulsification factor (from Table 3): 1.4
Operating Area impacted: Inland
Planned percent oil onshore recovery (from Table 2): Inland 70%
Planning volumes for onshore recovery: Inland 170,184  x .7  x  1.4 
= 166,780 bbls.

    Conclusion: The facility owner or operator must contract with a 
response resource capable of managing a 166,780 barrel shoreline 
cleanup.
    To calculate the planning volumes for on-water recovery:

Worst case discharge: 170,184 bbls. Group IV oil
Emulsification factor (from Table 3): 1.4
Operating Area impacted: Inland
Planned percent oil on-water recovery (from Table 2): Inland 50%
Planning volumes for on-water recovery: Inland 170,184  x  .5  x  
1.4 = 119,128 bbls.

    To determine the required resources for on-water recovery for 
each tier, use the mobilization factors from Table 4:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Tier 1   Tier 2   Tier 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inland = 119,128 bbls........................    x  .1                  
                                                     5    x  .2         
                                                              5    x  .4
                                                                       0
                                              --------------------------
Barrels per day (pbd)........................   17,869   29,782   47,652
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conclusion: Since the requirements for all tiers for inland 
exceed the caps, the facility owner will only need to contract for 
10,000 bpd for Tier 1, 20,000 bpd for Tier 2, and 40,000 bpd for 
Tier 3. Sources for the bpd on-water recovery resources above the 
caps for all three Tiers need only be identified in the response 
plan.
    Twenty percent of the capability for Inland, for all tiers, must 
be capable of operating in water with a depth of 6 feet or less.
    The facility owner or operator will also be required to identify 
or ensure, by contract or other approved means as described in 
Sec. 154.1028(a), sufficient response resources required under 
Secs. 154.1035(b)(4) and 154.1045(k) to protect fish and wildlife 
and sensitive environments identified in the response plan for the 
worst case discharge from the facility.
    The COTP has the discretion to accept that a facility can 
operate only a limited number of the total pipelines at a dock at a 
time. In those circumstances, the worst case discharge must include 
the drainage volume from the piping normally not in use in addition 
to the drainage volume and volume of oil discharged during discovery 
and shut down of the oil discharge from the operating piping.

8. Determining the Availability of Alternative Response Methods

    8.1  Response plans for facilities that handle, store, or 
transport Groups II or III persistent oils that operate in an area 
with year-round preapproval for dispersant use may receive credit 
for up to 25 percent of their required on-water recovery capacity 
for 1993 if the availability of these resources is ensured by 
contract or other approved means as described in Sec. 154.1028(a). 
For response plan credit, these resources must be capable of being 
on-scene within 12 hours of a discharge.
    8.2  To receive credit against any required on-water recover 
capacity a response plan must identify the locations of dispersant 
stockpiles, methods of shipping to a staging area, and appropriate 
aircraft, vessels, or facilities 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 NCP Product Schedule that is maintained by the 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 where 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 should be identified to sustain dispersant 
application operations for at least 3 days.
    8.2.3  Credit against on-water recovery capacity in preapproved 
areas will be based on the ability to treat oil at a rate equivalent 
to this credit. For example, a 2,500 barrel credit against the Tier 
1 10,000 barrel on-water cap would require the facility owner or 
operator to demonstrate the ability to treat 2,500 barrel/day of oil 
at the manufacturers recommended dosage rate. Assuming a dosage rate 
of 10:1, the plan would need to show stockpiles and sources of 250 
barrels of dispersants at a rate of 250 barrels per day and the 
ability to apply the dispersant at that daily rate for 3 days in the 
geographic area in which the facility is located. 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 
facility owner or operator shall identify a source of support to 
conduct the monitoring and post-use effectiveness evaluation 
required by applicable regional plans and ACPs.
    8.4  Identification of the response 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 NCP and the applicable 
regional plan or ACP. A facility owner or operator who operates a 
facility in areas with year-round preapproval of dispersant can 
reduce the required on-water recovery capacity for 1993 up to 25 
percent. A facility owner or operator may reduce the required on 
water recovery cap increase for 1998 and 2003 up to 50 percent by 
identifying pre-approved alternative response methods.
    8.5  In addition to the credit identified above, a facility 
owner or operator that operates in a year-round area pre-approved 
for dispersant use may reduce their required on water recovery cap 
increase for 1998 and 2003 by up to 50 percent 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.

9. Additional Equipment Necessary to Sustain Response Operations

    9.1  A facility owner or operator is responsible for ensuring 
that sufficient numbers of trained personnel and boats, aerial 
spotting aircraft, containment boom, sorbent materials, boom 
anchoring materials, and other supplies are available to sustain 

[[Page 7937]]
response operations to completion. All such equipment must be suitable 
for use with the primary equipment identified in the response plan. 
A facility owner or operator is not required to list these response 
resources, but shall certify their availability.
    9.2  A facility 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 rate required on scene. This 
temporary storage capacity may be reduced if a facility owner or 
operator can demonstrate by waste stream analysis that the 
efficiencies of the oil recovery devices, ability to decant waste, 
or the availability of alternative temporary storage or disposal 
locations will reduce the overall volume of oily material storage 
requirement.
    9.3  A facility owner or operator shall ensure that his or her 
planning includes the capability to arrange for disposal of 
recovered oil products. Specific disposal procedures will be 
addressed in the applicable ACP.

                       Table 1.--Response Resource Operating Criteria Oil Recovery Devices                      
                                                                                                                
            Operating environment                           Significant wave height \1\               Sea State 
Rivers and Canals............................  1 Foot...................................            1
Inland.......................................  3 feet...................................            2
Great Lakes..................................  4 feet...................................          2-3
Ocean........................................  6 feet...................................          3-4
                                                      BOOM                                                      


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Use                         
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                      Boom property                        Rivers and                                           
                                                             canals        Inland      Great Lakes      Ocean   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Wave Height \1\.............................  1  3  4  6
Sea State...............................................             1             2           2-3           3-4
Boom height--in. (draft plus freeboard).................          6-18         18-42         18-42  4
                                                                                                               2
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  2
                                                                                                           0,000
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.                                                      


                                                        Table 2.--Removal Capacity Planning Table                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Spill location                            Rivers and canals           Nearshore/inland Great Lakes                Offshore            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Sustainability of on-water oil recovery                    3 Days                            4 Days                            6 Days             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     %                                 %                                 %              
                                                     % Natural   Recovered  % Oil on   % Natural   Recovered  % Oil on   % Natural   Recovered  % Oil on
                     Oil group                      dissipation   floating    shore   dissipation   floating    shore   dissipation   floating    shore 
                                                                    oil                               oil                               oil             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1  Non-persistent oils............................          80          10        10          80          20        10          95           5         /
2  Light crudes...................................          40          15        45          50          50        30          75          25         5
3  Medium crudes and fuels........................          20          15        65          30          50        50          60          40        20
4  Heavy crudes and fuels.........................           5          20        75          10          50        70          50          40        30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Table 3.--Emulsification Factors for Petroleum Oil Groups       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Persistent Oil:                                                     
  Group I........................................................    1.0
Persistent Oil:                                                         
  Group II.......................................................    1.8
  Group III......................................................    2.0
  Group IV.......................................................    1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 4.--On Water Oil Recovery Resource Mobilization Factors     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Tier   Tier   Tier
                   Operating Area                      1      2      3  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rivers & Canals....................................    .30    .40    .60
Inland/Nearshore/Great Lakes.......................    .15    .25    .40
Offshore...........................................    .10   .165    .21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These mobilization factors are for total response resources       
  mobilized, not incremental response resources.                        


                              Table 5.--Response Capability Caps by Operating Area                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Tier 1                     Tier 2                     Tier 3         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 18, 1993:                                                                                              
    All except rivers and        10K bbls/day.............  20K bbls/day.............  40K bbls/day/            
     canals, Great Lakes.                                                                                       
    Great Lakes................  5K bbls/day..............  10K bbls/day.............  20K bbls/day.            
    Rivers and canals..........  1,500 bbls/day...........  3,000 bbls/day...........  6,000 bbls/day.          
February 18, 1998:                                                                                              
    All except rivers and        12.5K bbls/day...........  25K bbls/day.............  50K bbls/day.            
     canals, Great Lakes.                                                                                       

[[Page 7938]]
                                                                                                                
    Great Lakes................  6.35K bbls/day...........  12.3K bbls/day...........  25K bbls/day.            
    Rivers and canals..........  1,875 bbls/day...........  3,750 bbls/day...........  7,500 bbls/day.          
February 18, 2003:                                                                                              
    All except rivers and        TBD......................  TBD......................  TBD.                     
     canals, Great Lakes.                                                                                       
    Great Lakes................  TBD......................  TBD......................  TBD.                     
    Rivers and canals..........  TBD......................  TBD......................  TBD.                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The caps show cumulative overall effective daily recovery capacity, not incremental increases.            
TBD = To be determined.                                                                                         


    7. Appendix D is revised to read as follows:

Appendix D--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 OPA 90, 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 trained 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 D 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 
facility 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 failure of 
manifold, mechanical loading arm, or other transfer equipment or 
hoses, as appropriate;
    2.2.3.1  Tank overfill;
    2.2.3.2  Tank rupture;
    2.2.3.3  Piping rupture;
    2.2.3.4  Piping leak, both under pressure and not under 
pressure, if applicable;
    2.2.3.5  Explosion or fire;
    2.2.3.6  Equipment failure (e.g., pumping system failure, relief 
valve failure, or other general equipment relevant to operational 
activities associated with internal or external facility transfers).
    2.2.4  Procedures for transferring responsibility for direction 
of response activities from facility personnel to the spill 
management team.
    2.2.5  Familiarity with the operational capabilities of the 
contracted oil spill removal organizations and the procedures to 
notify the activate such organizations.
    2.2.6  Familiarity with the contracting and ordering procedures 
to acquire oil spill removal organization resources.
    2.2.7  Familiarity with the ACP(s).
    2.2.8  Familiarity with the organizational structures that will 
be used to manage the response actions.
    2.2.9  Responsibilities and duties of the spill management team 
members in accordance with designated job responsibilities.
    2.2.10  Responsibilities and authority of the qualified 
individual as described in the facility response plan and company 
response organization.
    2.2.11  Responsibilities of designated individuals to initiate a 
response and supervise response resources.
    2.2.12  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.
    2.2.13  Information on the cargoes handled by the vessel or 
facility, including familiarity with--
    2.2.13.1  Cargo material safety data sheets;
    2.2.13.2  Chemical characteristic of the cargo;
    2.2.13.3  Special handling procedures for the cargo;
    2.2.13.4  Health and safety hazards associated with the cargo; 
and
    2.2.13.5  Spill and firefighting procedures for cargo.
    2.2.14  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 facility 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 
facility 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 
individual specified in the 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 facility 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 facilities 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 facilities.


[[Page 7939]]

    Dated: February 15, 1996.
A.E. Henn,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 96-4274 Filed 2-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M