[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48548-48564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19219]



[[Page 48547]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Coast Guard



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



33 CFR Parts 151, 155, 157, 158

46 CFR Part 172



Pollution Prevention for Oceangoing Ships and Certain Vessels in 
Domestic Service; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 48548]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 151, 155, 157, and 158

46 CFR Part 172

[USCG 2000-7641]
RIN 2115-AF56


Pollution Prevention for Oceangoing Ships and Certain Vessels in 
Domestic Service

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes amending U.S. regulations for 
pollution prevention from ships. To align with international standards, 
we propose amending the domestic regulations concerning oily-water 
separators, operational discharges of oil, damage and intact stability 
of tank vessels, International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificates, 
garbage recordkeeping requirements, and placards for reception 
facilities. To provide consistency with industry standards and 
clarification in U.S. oil regulations, we propose changing oily mixture 
discharge shore connection requirements for certain vessels and 
redefining certain terms dealing with oil.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before Ocotber 10, 2000. Comments sent to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB 
on or before October 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material are not 
entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of 
the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2000-7641), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (2) By hand delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    You must also mail comments on collection of information to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, 
U.S. Coast Guard.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket 
on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this 
proposed rule, contact Lieutenant Commander Michael Jendrossek, Vessel 
and Facility Operating Standards Division, 202-267-1181. For questions 
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, 
Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2000-
7641), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit 
your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic 
means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 
but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you 
submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, 
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic 
filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know they reached 
the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We currently do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may 
submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we 
determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will announce the time 
and place in a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    This proposed rule would amend U.S. regulations for pollution 
prevention from oceangoing ships and certain vessels in domestic 
service. Most amendments are ones adopted by the Marine Environment 
Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization 
(IMO) during several sessions. MEPC adopted amendments to Annex I of 
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78) during 
its 32nd session (MEPC 32, March 6, 1992) and 40th session (MEPC 40, 
September 25, 1997). The MEPC also adopted amendments to Annex V in its 
37th session (MEPC 37, September 14, 1995). Additional proposed 
amendments include allowing certain vessels in domestic service to use 
quick-connect fittings rather than international-type shore 
connections, and redefining for clarity certain terms dealing with oil 
in the domestic regulations.
    Aligning Coast Guard regulations with international standards. By 
aligning the domestic regulations with international standards, 
compliant U.S. ships would encounter fewer difficulties while engaged 
in international trade. Under 33 U.S.C. 1902, the Coast Guard is 
authorized to prescribe or amend regulations necessary to implement any 
changes to the standards of MARPOL 73/78. Changes to MARPOL 73/78, 
Annex I, are described in a Federal Register notice published on 
November 12, 1993 (58 FR 60080). They established more stringent 
criteria for controlling the discharge of oil and oily water from the 
machinery space bilges and cargo tanks of certain vessels. Changes to 
MARPOL 73/78, Annex V, added Regulation 9 that requires ships to carry 
garbage recordkeeping books and reception facilities to post placards. 
Regulation 9 was effective July 1, 1998. We propose aligning the U.S. 
regulations with the recent amendments in MARPOL 73/78 Annex I and 
Annex V, Regulation 9.
    Allowing certain ships in domestic service to use quick-connect 
fittings rather than international-type shore connections. Allowing 
certain ships to use quick-connect fittings compatible with domestic 
reception facilities for discharging oily mixtures ensures that these 
ships are in compliance with U.S. regulations without imposing 
unnecessary costs to the ship owners and operators.
    During voluntary dockside examinations of uninspected towing 
vessels in the Coast Guard's 5th District,

[[Page 48549]]

inspectors found that many of these vessels did not have the required 
shore connections. Instead, the vessels had quick-connect fittings 
compatible with the shoreside reception facilities used in U.S. ports. 
The requirement is intended to standardize the means of transferring 
oily wastes for ships on international routes. However, ships operating 
only in domestic service do not need this standardization. We propose 
revising 33 CFR 155.410 and 155.420 to change the requirements for 
shore connections on certain ships with domestic routes.
    Redefining certain terms dealing with oil. Redefining the 
terminology dealing with oil throughout the U.S. regulations provides 
consistency and clarity. We would redefine or clarify terms, such as 
``oily mixtures,'' ``oil,'' ``oil cargo residues,'' and ``oil 
residues,'' throughout 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 157, and 158. We would 
also remove conflicting and duplicating terms.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed amendments regarding the alignment of U.S. regulations 
with MARPOL 73/78 standards are discussed as follows:
    1. Rate of discharge of oil into the sea. This proposed change 
would reduce the maximum allowable rate of discharge of oil and oily 
mixtures. At present, 33 CFR 157.37(a)(3) allows tank vessels of 150 
gross tons and above carrying crude oil or products in bulk as cargo to 
discharge an oily mixture into the sea from a cargo tank, a slop tank, 
or the bilges of a cargo pump room if the instantaneous rate of oil 
discharge does not exceed 60 liters per nautical mile. However, the 
discharge rate under MARPOL 73/78 was reduced from 60 liters per 
nautical mile to 30 liters per nautical mile. To align with 
international standards, we propose reducing the allowable rate 
specified in Sec. 157.37(a)(3) to 30 liters per nautical mile.
    2. Oil content of the effluent discharged. This proposed change 
would reduce the allowable oil content in effluent from oil tanker 
bilges and other ships 400 gross tons and above. This change would 
affect the requirements regarding the effluent from machinery-space 
bilges of oil tankers (excluding effluent from cargo pump room bilges 
unless mixed with oil cargo residue) and from other ships of 400 gross 
tons and above. MARPOL 73/78 reduced the parts per million (ppm) oil 
content allowances from 100 ppm to 15 ppm. To meet the international 
standard, we propose reducing the allowable content to 15 ppm in 33 CFR 
151.10(a)(5), 155.360(a), 155.370(a), and 157.39(b)(3) (redesignated as 
(b)(2)).
    3. Means for automatically stopping a discharge. This proposed 
amendment would require certain ships to install a means for 
automatically stopping oil or oily water discharges when the oil 
content in the effluent exceeds the required allowance. MARPOL 73/78 
requires ships of 10,000 gross tons and above to install a means of 
automatically stopping oily mixture discharges when the oil content in 
the effluent exceeds 15 ppm. This requirement also applies to ships of 
400 gross tons and above that carry ballast water in their fuel oil 
tanks. To align with MARPOL 73/78 standards, we propose revising 33 CFR 
155.370(a) to require a means of automatically stopping discharges 
exceeding 15 ppm for ships of 400 gross tons to less than 10,000 gross 
tons that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks and for ships of 
10,000 gross tons and above.
    4. Oil filtering equipment, alarms, and automatic stop requirements 
for ships delivered before July 6, 1993. This proposed amendment 
requires all ships delivered before July 6, 1993, to comply with the 
discharge equipment requirements for oil filtering, alarms, and 
automatic stops when we publish a final rule. MARPOL 73/78 did not 
require ships delivered before July 6, 1993, to comply until July 6, 
1998, or until the date the ship was fitted with this equipment, 
whichever was earlier. Until that date, all oil or oily mixture 
discharges from machinery space bilges were prohibited, unless certain 
specified conditions were met. Since the international compliance date 
has passed, we propose revising 33 CFR 155.370(a) to require all ships 
to comply with the oil filtering equipment, alarms, and automatic stop 
requirements by the effective date of this rulemaking.
    5. Term of validity for International Oil Pollution Prevention 
(IOPP) Certificates. This proposed change would set the maximum term of 
validity for IOPP Certificates at 5 years. Currently, 33 CFR 151.19(e) 
states that IOPP Certificates for U.S. inspected ships are valid for a 
maximum period of 4 years from the date of issuance. For U.S. 
uninspected ships, IOPP Certificates are valid for a maximum period of 
5 years. The International Maritime Organization's (IMO's) Harmonized 
System of Surveys and Certification and MARPOL 73/78 set the term of 
validity for IOPP Certificates at a maximum period of 5 years. Until 
now, the U.S. used a 4-year maximum term of validity because it was 
compatible with the 2-year cycle for U.S. Certificates of Inspection 
(COI). On February 2, 2000 we published a final rule (65 FR 6493) 
introducing a five year Certificate of Inspection cycle in accordance 
with the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996. The change to a five 
year term of validity on IOPP certificates would reflect this new 
inspection cycle, help reduce the paperwork burden for vessel owners 
and operators, and harmonize our IOPP certificate term of validity with 
the rest of the world's fleet who already have 5-year certificates. To 
align the U.S. regulations with international standards, we propose 
setting the term of validity for IOPP Certificates at a maximum of 5 
years for both inspected and uninspected vessels. This regulatory 
change would occur in 33 CFR 151.19(e).
    6. Damage stability of tank vessels. This proposed amendment would 
incorporate new damage assumptions to consider when calculating the 
potential penetration to tank vessel hulls for raking damage. These new 
damage assumptions should help prevent loss of stability from bottom-
raking damage on double-hull tank vessels. Unlike single-hull tank 
vessels, double-hull tank vessels have large void or ballast spaces 
surrounding the cargo tanks. Changing the requirement would prevent the 
loss of stability of double-hull tank vessels when some void spaces are 
flooded from long, relatively shallow extents of damage characterized 
by certain types of bottom-raking damage. Though the number of raking 
damage incidents is relatively low, the possible consequences make 
raking damage risks significant enough to take preventive measures.
    As the U.S. representative at the 1992 IMO meeting of the Sub-
Committee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety 
(SLF), we supported IMO's suggested damage stability standards for 
double-hull tank vessels. We supported the assertion that double-hull 
tank vessels should be designed to sustain certain forms of raking 
damage and still meet the minimum damage stability requirements. 
Working with the U.S. tank vessel industry, we submitted several 
studies to IMO demonstrating the need for these proposed standards and 
the feasibility for new double-hull designs. As a result of these and 
other studies, IMO adopted these design standards enabling tank vessels 
to sustain a certain amount of damage without capsizing or sinking. The 
IMO document adopting these standards is in Resolution MEPC.52(32) 
adopted on March 6, 1992.
    Current U.S. regulations 33 CFR 157.21 and 46 CFR 172.065 require 
designing all tank vessels to survive certain types of damage without 
capsizing or sinking. To meet MARPOL

[[Page 48550]]

73/78 standards, we propose requiring that oil tankers of 20,000 
deadweight tons (DWT) and above be designed to survive potential raking 
damage caused by grounding of the ship. This change would occur in 33 
CFR part 157, appendix B, and 46 CFR 172.065, table 172.065(a), and 
would become effective on the effective date of this rulemaking.
    7. Intact stability of tankships. This proposed rule would add new 
regulations for design-based intact stability. The new regulations 
would help eliminate incidents of lolling (the uncontrolled heeling of 
tankships due to loss of initial intact stability) during simultaneous 
ballast and cargo operations by requiring tankship designs that provide 
adequate intact stability. We also propose excluding tank barges from 
the proposed intact stability requirement. Ballast tanks on tank barges 
are typically used as void spaces. Thus, it is highly unlikely for 
barges to conduct simultaneous ballast and cargo operations.
    Before 1993, there were no mandatory international standards for 
intact stability for tankships. Single-hull tankships in the intact 
condition were considered relatively stable, so mandatory intact 
stability regulations were not necessary. However, certain double-hull 
tankship designs are considered less stable than single-hull tankships 
and require intact stability regulations. For example, some double-hull 
designs develop large free-surfaces during simultaneous cargo and 
ballast operations that can lead to lolling. In 1993, IMO re-issued 
intact stability standards for various ship types by issuing the Code 
on Intact Stability, adopted by IMO Resolution A.749(18), which can be 
applied to double-hull tankship designs. However, compliance with the 
Code was not mandatory.
    While lolling does not occur often, one 1993 case documented by the 
Coast Guard demonstrated that lolling could cause damage to property, 
with the potential for loss of life, personnel injury, and 
environmental pollution. Based on the potential dangers of lolling and 
because the IMO Code on Intact Stability was not mandatory, we 
determined that double-hull tankships should have intact stability 
requirements.
    We determined two regulatory approaches for solving the problem. 
One approach, the ``design approach,'' would eliminate lolling through 
tanker designs. The second approach, the ``operations approach,'' would 
eliminate lolling by restricting operations.
    At the 1997 IMO meeting of the Marine Environment Protection 
Committee, representatives of the United States, other nations, and the 
Oil Companies International Marine Forum advocated the design approach. 
Despite advocating the operations approach, other countries and 
organizations, including Japan and the International Association of 
Independent Tanker Owners, agreed that the design approach was 
preferable. After extended debate, IMO adopted the design approach, 
limiting exceptions to combination carriers. IMO was concerned that a 
tankship's master and cargo officer would find themselves too 
preoccupied with the complicated and often time-sensitive loading and 
unloading process to properly implement the operations approach to 
prevent lolling. The IMO document adopting the design approach is 
Resolution MEPC.75(40), adopted on September 25, 1997.
    We propose adding the new regulations 33 CFR 157.22 and 46 CFR 
172.070 requiring all tankships of 5,000 DWT and above contracted for 
after the effective date of this rulemaking, to comply with the 
international intact stability design standards of MARPOL 73/78. The 
proposed 33 CFR 157.22 and 46 CFR 172.070 specifically address the 
problem of tankships lolling during loading and unloading. These new 
sections would require that tankships of 5,000 DWT and above contracted 
after the effective date of this rulemaking be designed to prevent 
lolling.
    8. Garbage discharge records. This proposed amendment would change 
the requirements regarding which ships are required by law to maintain 
garbage discharge records. MARPOL 73/78 provides the requirements for 
every ship of 400 gross tons and above to carry garbage discharge 
records. To align more closely with MARPOL 73/78, we propose changing 
33 CFR 151.55 by removing the requirements for manned oceangoing ships 
of 12.2 meters (approximately 40 feet) and above in length and engaged 
in commerce. Instead, we would require every manned oceangoing ship of 
400 gross tons and above engaged in commerce to carry garbage discharge 
records. Additionally, we would require every manned ship engaged in an 
international voyage that is certified to carry 15 passengers or more 
to carry garbage discharge records according to MARPOL 73/78, Annex V, 
regulation 9(3).
    9. Placards for reception facilities. This proposed amendment would 
require ports and terminals to display a placard or placards notifying 
users to report inadequacies to the local U.S. Coast Guard Captain of 
the Port (COTP). This proposal is a requirement of 33 U.S.C. 1905. 
Requirements for adequate reception facilities already exist under 33 
CFR part 158, however this proposal requires port and terminal users 
with an avenue to report inadequacies. The placards would instruct port 
users to report any inadequacy, such as inability to receive medical or 
hazardous waste or inability to receive waste within 24 hours notice, 
to the proper authority. Proposed 33 CFR 158.415 specifies the wording 
for reception facility placards.
    10. Equivalent shore connections for the discharge of oily 
mixtures. This proposed amendment would change the shore connection 
requirement for certain U.S.-flag ships operating only in domestic 
service. Currently, 33 CFR 155.410 and 155.420 specify the requirements 
for shore connections on non-oceangoing ships of 100 gross tons and 
above and oceangoing ships of 100 gross tons to less than 400 gross 
tons. On these ships, the connections for discharging oily mixtures to 
shoreside reception facilities are required to meet the international-
type standard specified in 33 CFR 155.430. We propose amending 33 CFR 
155.410 and 155.420 to allow the specified ships operating only in 
domestic service to use any shore connection compatible with U.S. 
reception facilities, rather than an international-type connection.
    11. Definitions of the terms ``fuel oil,'' ``oily mixtures,'' 
``oil,'' ``petroleum oil,'' ``oil cargo residue,'' ``oily rags,'' and 
``oil residue.'' These proposed amendments would redefine for clarity 
those words in the regulations dealing with oil. Section 151.10(c) of 
33 CFR addresses the control of discharge of ``cargo related oil 
residue.'' Recently, this term was judged as too vague to criminally 
charge a person with illegally discharging muck or paraffin from the 
crude oil cargo tanks of a vessel. To eliminate any future 
misinterpretations, we propose re-defining ``oil,'' ``petroleum oil,'' 
and ``oily mixtures.'' We eliminated ``mineral oil'' from the examples 
in the definition of ``petroleum oil'' because it is a petroleum-based 
oil component regulated under Annex I of MARPOL. The deletion is not 
intended to imply that ``mineral oil'' is not a regulated substance but 
that it does not need to be separately stated as an example in the 
definition. We also propose adding definitions for ``fuel oil,'' ``oil 
residue,'' ``oily rags,'' and ``oil cargo residue'' and incorporating 
industry standard terms into these definitions. The definitions of 
``fuel oil'' and ``oil cargo residue'' also list synonyms of the terms 
(i.e., ``oil fuel'' and ``cargo oil residue,'' respectively). We would 
use these terms and definitions consistently throughout

[[Page 48551]]

33 CFR parts 151, 155, 157, and 158 to eliminate ambiguity.
    The following table, Table 1, provides the:
     Proposed amendments for NPRM;
     MARPOL 73/78 cites dictating regulatory changes;
     33 and 46 CFR cites affected; and
     Brief descriptions of the proposed regulatory changes to 
the U.S. regulations.
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

[[Page 48552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU00.000


[[Page 48553]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU00.001


[[Page 48554]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU00.002

BILLING CODE 4910-15-C

[[Page 48555]]

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this 
regulatory evaluation under that order. Also, this proposed rulemaking 
is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 
1979). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be 
minimal, and a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the 
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is not necessary. However, we 
have prepared a regulatory evaluation to clarify the potential cost and 
benefit impact from this proposed rule.

a. General Assumptions

    1. The cost of this rulemaking is calculated for a 10-year period 
beginning in 2001 and ending on 2010.
    2. In accordance with current Office of Budget and Management (OMB) 
guidance, program costs and benefits are discounted at 7 percent 
present value in year 2000 dollars.
    3. Annual populations for the cost requirements are based on trend 
data from 1992 through 1996 contained in the Coast Guard Marine Safety 
Management System (MSMS) for U.S-flag vessels.
    4. Tank vessels are currently practicing the policies established 
in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 6-94, 
``Guidance for Issuing International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) 
Certificates Under Annex I of the International Convention for the 
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol 
of 1978 Relating Thereto (MARPOL 73/78).'' These policies resulted, in 
part, from amendments to MARPOL 73/78 that required each tanker of 150 
gross tons and above and each ship of 400 gross tons and above that 
engages in a voyage between countries party to MARPOL 73/78 to be 
surveyed and to have an IOPP Certificate. Also, NVIC No. 6-94 updated 
and corrected former NVIC No. 9-86 to account for U.S. policy 
determinations made since NVIC No. 9-86 was issued and for the 
following actions taken by the International Maritime Organization 
(IMO):
     Acceptance and entering into force of requirements dealing 
with the design of new tankers built on or after July 6, 1993.
     Measures for existing tankers.
     New oil discharge criteria for filtering equipment and 
control systems including instantaneous rate to discharge oily cargo 
mixtures.
    This rulemaking proposes to incorporate these policies into our 
regulations to ensure that all U.S. vessels subject to these 
requirements meet the international standards approved by the IMO and 
required by MARPOL 73/78.

b. Costs

    1. Industry Costs. The total present value costs for this proposed 
rule for the 10-year period would approximate $2,399,960. The costs are 
distributed as follows:
    i. Oily-water or bilge monitors, $3,037.
    ii. Implementation and maintenance of placards for reception 
facilities, $2,396,923.
     Oily-water or bilge monitors. Based on the policies 
established in NVIC No. 6-94, we estimated that at least 90 percent of 
the 131 tank vessel affected population is currently operating within 
policy guidelines by automatically or manually setting the oil or oily 
water discharge rate to not exceed 30 liters per nautical mile. The 
other 10 percent would simply upgrade their existing monitoring systems 
with new components that meet the new requirement. The estimated 
equipment costs to upgrade the components of an existing bilge monitor 
averages 250 dollars, making the one time cost of this proposed change 
approximately $3,250. When present valued in 2000 dollars, the cost 
would be $3,037.
     Oil filtering equipment. We estimate that the proposed 
requirement would affected 650 vessels, all of which are currently 
practicing the policies established in NVIC No. 6-94 and currently have 
oil filtering equipment that complies with the 15 ppm oil content of 
the effluent discharged. Therefore, this proposed requirement would not 
impose additional costs.
     Automatic shut-off device/alarm. We estimate that he 
proposed requirement would affect 396 ships, all of which already 
practice the policies established in NVIC No. 6-94. Therefore, this 
proposed requirement would not impose additional costs.
     Damage stability for tank vessels. We estimate that the 
proposed requirement would affect 650 vessels. Based on trend data from 
the MSMS database (1992-1996), we estimate that 13 U.S.-flag tank 
vessels 20,000 DWT and above would be built each year. For every 
single-hull tank vessel that is phased-out before 2015, a double-hull 
tank vessel may be built as its replacement. Currently, 54 single-hull 
tankships and 160 single-hull tank barges will be phased out over the 
next 16 years. For the 10-year period of costs for this rulemaking, 
approximately 3 tankships and 10 tank barges will be built annually to 
meet demand and to replace phased-out tank vessels (130 tank vessels 
over the 10-year period).
    We expect the affected tank vessel fleet to incur minimal costs to 
comply with the damage stability requirements proposed in this rule. 
The U.S. international fleet currently complies with the damage 
stability requirements in MARPOL 73/78. Also, vessels in the U.S. 
domestic fleet that hold IOPP Certificates currently meet the 
additional design and engineering calculation requirements for design 
stability.
    Moreover, under section 4115(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 90 (OPA 
90), these single-hull tank vessels are required to be retrofitted with 
double hulls or phased out of service by the year 2015. For vessels 
being retrofitted, there would be nominal additional costs during the 
design process for additional stability analyses. The proposed 
requirements would entail fitting the vessel with U-shaped ballast 
tanks, instead of J-shaped (or other) ballast tanks, and relocating 
cargo tank boundaries.
     Intact stability for tank vessels. We assume that all tank 
vessels of 5,000 DWT and above will be constructed so that they are 
capable of engaging in international commerce. Therefore, we assume 
that, in order to participate in international commerce, all currently 
operating tank vessels affected by this rulemaking already meet the 
intact stability requirements in MARPOL 73/78. Additionally, we assume 
that, in order to engage in international commerce, all tank vessels 
currently under construction and those constructed subsequent to this 
rulemaking will also be constructed in accordance with the requirements 
of MARPOL 73/78. Therefore, since all current and future tank vessels 
affected by this rulemaking must already meet the requirements of 
MARPOL 73/78 in order to engage in trade with other countries signatory 
to MARPOL, there are no additional costs incurred by the intact 
stability requirement.
     Implementation and maintenance of placards for reception 
facilities. There are 11,391 reception facilities that would be 
affected by the proposed change. We estimate that the average facility 
would need to post three placards to adequately cover the entrances and 
place of business that are

[[Page 48556]]

clearly visible for port and terminal users. Therefore, each facility 
would post approximately three placards, which are estimated to cost 
$50 each. This is a standardized cost for placards or signs approved by 
the Coast Guard. The onetime cost for implementation of this proposed 
requirement is approximately $1,708,650. When present valued in 2000 
dollars, the cost would be $1,596,869.
    The display of placards also implies that the placards be 
maintained by the ports or terminals. This maintenance constitutes a 
collection of information and recordkeeping requirement under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. The total annual cost (burden) of $113,910 for 
this information-collection would be added to a revised OMB collection 
2115-0543. The affected population and hour burden is explained in the 
``Collection of Information'' section. The accumulated present value 
for the 10-year period of this burden is $800,054. Therefore the total 
present value cost (burden) of this requirement is $2,396,923.
    The definitions of the terms ``ports'' and ``terminals'' under 33 
CFR 158.120 include virtually all ports and terminals. It is easier to 
describe those terminals that are not required to provide reception 
facilities for garbage. They are recreational boating facilities that 
can provide wharfage or other services for less than 10 recreational 
vessels at the same time and locations and facilities containing only 
an unattended launching ramp. All other waterfront facilities, where 
vessels can tie up in the navigable waters or waters subject to the 
jurisdiction of the U.S. out to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 
where the owner or operator of the facility is conducting business with 
ships, must be capable of receiving garbage from visiting ships. These 
facilities include fishing terminals, fixed or floating facilities 
supplying petroleum products or other services, waterfront facilities 
servicing the offshore oil industry, recreational boating facilities 
that are capable of providing wharfage or other services for 10 or more 
vessels at the same time, waterfront facilities servicing commercial 
ships, and offshore structures that receive ships such as deepwater 
ports.
     Equivalent shore connections. For the purposes of this 
proposed rulemaking, we consider any shore connection compatible with 
U.S. reception facilities as equivalent to each other. All ships that 
would be subject to this requirement currently have shore connections 
that are compatible with U.S. reception facility connections.
    This proposed rule would allow the specified ships to use any shore 
connection that is compatible with U.S. reception facilities when 
operating only on domestic voyages, rather than a connection that meets 
the international-type standard. Although the ships would not comply 
with the international-type standard, they would meet the intent of the 
standard by having a connector that is compatible with discharge 
facilities in their area of operation. Because these ships currently 
have connections that are compatible with the facilities used, this 
requirement would not impose an additional cost (or benefit) on these 
ships.
    2. Government costs. We expect that government costs under this 
rule would be negligible. The information-collection requirements 
contained in this rule are minor additions to information-collection 
requirements imposed by other Coast Guard regulations.

c. Benefits

    1. Industry Benefits. The total present value of industry benefits 
for this proposed rule for the 10-year period would be approximately 
$164.1 million. The industry benefits for this proposed rulemaking are 
distributed as follows:
    i. IOPP certificates: $3,715.
    ii. Garbage discharge records: $163.5 million.
    iii. International oil discharge compliance: $632,122.
     IOPP Certificates. This rulemaking proposes to change the 
term of the IOPP certificate from 4 to 5 years for both inspected and 
uninspected vessels. The costs for this rulemaking are included under 
the approved collection OMB 2115-0518. By aligning U.S. regulations 
with international standards, the annual paperwork burden cost would be 
reduced by $530. The 10-year accumulated present value of the recurring 
benefit is approximately $3,715.
     Refuse discharge. This proposed regulation would require 
each oceangoing ship of 400 gross tons and above engaged in commerce 
and documented under the laws of the United States or numbered by a 
State, each vessel certified to carry 15 passengers or more on 
international voyages, and each fixed or floating platform subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States to maintain garbage discharge 
records on board. We use these records to determine how ship-generated 
waste is handled (i.e., incinerated, discharged at sea, or off-loaded 
at a shore reception facility). Since all of these vessels currently 
maintain these records, this proposal would impose no additional 
information-collection burden. It would create an annual benefit for 
those vessels no longer required to maintain these records. The total 
annual cost (burden) for this information-collection is estimated in 
revised OMB collection 2115-0613 to be a total annual cost (burden) of 
$2.6 million, and it would apply to 1,296 vessels. The previous 
requirement imposed a cost (burden) of $25.9 million on 16,878 vessels. 
The annual impact of the proposed rule would save industry $23.3 
million. Therefore, the accumulated present value for the 10-year 
period of this benefit is $163.5 million.
     International oil discharge limitations compliance. 
Implementing these proposed regulations would ensure that U.S. vessels 
comply with the international oil discharge limitations, enabling them 
to engage in international trade with minimal interruption. Vessels 
that are not in compliance with this rulemaking could be denied entry 
into ports of countries party to MARPOL 73/78 or could experience 
detention in these ports. These actions would result in a substantial 
monetary loss due to the vessel's inability to engage in trade.
    Assuming non-compliance with the international oil discharge 
limitations, and that one U.S. vessel would be detained each year, we 
estimate the avoided-cost savings of complying with this rulemaking 
would be $90,000 per year. The accumulated present value for the ten-
year period of this benefit would be $632,122.
     Oily-water separating equipment. Based on the methodology 
indicated in the IMO publication and the United States National Academy 
of Sciences study, ``Petroleum in the Marine Environment'' (adopted in 
1981), we identified that the 650 vessels equipped with oily-water 
separating equipment for oil content allowances at 100 ppm currently 
discharge approximately \1/10\ of their accumulated bilge oil to sea. 
When applied to all of the vessels subject to this requirement, the 
Coast Guard estimates indicate a potential reduction in the amount of 
oily water discharged into the sea by approximately 396 tons (2,485 
barrels) annually, if oily-water equipment has a discharge allowance of 
15 ppm.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently

[[Page 48557]]

owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and 
governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    There are two proposed requirements that would impose additional 
costs to the small entities affected by this proposed rulemaking. The 
proposed placards to be posted by reception facilities would add an 
estimated cost of $150 per facility. Reception facilities would also be 
required to maintain the proposed placards, and the annual maintenance 
burden would be $10 per facility. The 10-year present value of the 
maintenance cost imposed on each reception facility would be $75. We 
assume that each facility would need to spend a half-hour maintaining 
the placards on annual basis at a wage rate of $20 per hour. Combined, 
the accumulated present value of the cost of placards and their 
maintenance would be $225 for the analyzed 10-year period ($150 for 
placards + $75 maintenance). We consider this cost to be minimal and 
would not pose a substantial economic burden on the reception 
facilities affected by this proposed requirement.
    The proposed oily-water or bilge monitors requirement would impose 
a $250 cost per tank vessel. This would be a one-time cost, and in our 
view a very small additional cost to tank vessel owners, considering 
that the cost of a tank vessel, depending on its size, may be 
$100,000,000 or more.
    In addition, we propose removing the requirement for garbage 
discharge records for ships of 12.2 meters (40 ft) or more in length 
and less than 400 gross tons. These ships are most likely to be owned 
by the small entities in this industry and would no longer be required 
to keep garbage disposal records. Therefore, the small entities that 
own these vessels would benefit from the proposed change in the 
regulation. We estimate that 15,582 oceangoing vessels would no longer 
need to meet this requirement, and the average annual cost savings to 
each vessel would be $1,494 ($23.3 million/15,582 vessels). The 
accumulated present value of these cost savings for the 10-year period 
of analysis would be $10,491 per vessel (163.5 million/15,582 vessels).
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, 
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, 
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it 
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically 
affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please consult Lieutenant Commander Michael 
Jendrossek at 202-267-1181. We also maintain a small business 
regulatory assistance Web Page at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/regs/reghome.html that has current information on small entity issues and 
proposed Coast Guard regulations.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for three collections of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As 
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises 
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, 
similar actions. The title and description of the information-
collections, a description of those who must collect the information, 
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of 
data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection.
    The information-collection requirements of this proposed rule are 
addressed in the OMB collections 2115-0518, 2115-0543, and 2115-0613.
    Refuse discharge. This proposed requirement would mandate that 
every oceangoing ship 400 gross tons and above and all vessels 
certified to carry 15 or more passengers engaged in international 
voyages develop and maintain garbage discharge records on board. 
Oceangoing vessels less than 400 gross tons would no longer be required 
to carry garbage discharge records with the exception of vessels 
certified to carry 15 passengers or more on international voyages. The 
burden for this requirement would be included in a revised OMB 
collection 2115-0613.
    IOPP Certificates. This rulemaking proposes to change the term of 
the IOPP certificate from 4 to 5 years. This proposed change would 
decrease the information-collection burden on ship owners. The 
information-collection burden of the IOPP certificate is included under 
the previously approved OMB collection 2115-0518.
    Placards for reception facilities. The proposal includes a 
requirement for all U.S. reception facilities to post and maintain 
placards that notify users that the facility is a waste reception 
facility and that inadequacies shall be reported to the local Coast 
Guard COTP. This information is required to comply with the MARPOL 
Protocol. The information-collection costs associated with this 
requirement, under OMB (5 CFR part 1320.3(c)(1)), would include only 
the facilities' cost to keep records to maintain these placards. This 
information-collection would be added in an amended OMB collection 
2115-0543.

1. OMB Collection 2115-0518

    Title: Requirements for the Installation and Use of Oil Discharge 
Monitoring Equipment for Tank Vessels and International Oil Pollution 
Prevention Certificates.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection concerns 
the issuance of International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) 
Certificates and would be impacted by the proposed changes in 33 CFR 
151.19.
    Need for Information: Not applicable. This proposed rule would 
amend a previously approved collection of information by changing the 
term of a certificate. The need to collect this information (i.e., to 
assist the Coast Guard in determining whether or not a ship complies 
with MARPOL 73/78) is required by MARPOL.
    Description of the Respondents: This collection would affect U.S.-
flag tank vessels of 150 gross tons and above, and other U.S.-flag 
ships of 400 gross tons and above, that engage in voyages to ports or 
offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other parties to MARPOL 
73/78.
    Number of Respondents: According to Marine Safety Information 
System (MSIS) records, the collection of information for approximately 
1,062

[[Page 48558]]

vessels would be affected by the proposed changes.
    Frequency of Response: An IOPP Certificate would be issued every 5 
years, instead of every 4 years.
    Burden of Response: The burden to respondents is approximately 20 
minutes (0.33 hours) per response.
    Estimated Total Burden: During a 3-year period, the total reporting 
and recordkeeping burden would be 784 hours.

2. OMB Collection 2115-0543

    New Title: Adequacy Certification, Advance Notice, and Placards for 
Reception Facilities.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection would be 
amended by the proposed maintenance requirement of placards in 33 CFR 
158.415. The proposed requirement would direct the reception facility 
to maintain placards describing their disposal requirements.
    Need for Information: The maintenance of placards can ensure that 
they are legible and accurate. Section 33 CFR 158.415 requires 
facilities to maintain placards describing how and where to report 
inadequacies.
    Proposed Use of Information: This information would strengthen 
enforcement efforts for discharge prohibitions of MARPOL 73/78 Annex I 
(Oil), Annex II (NLS), and Annex V (Garbage) at reception facilities.
    Description of Respondents: Ports or terminals that have reception 
facilities.
    Number of Respondents: 11,391 reception facilities during a 3-year 
period.
    Frequency of Response: Perform maintenance as needed.
    Burden of Response: We estimate that it would take 30 minutes (0.5 
hours) of management time to comply with the proposed requirement.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The annual maintenance of placards 
would be 5,696 hours.

3. OMB Collection 2115-0613

    New Title: Waste Management Plans, Recordkeeping of Refuse 
Discharge, and Letter of Instruction for Persons-in-Charge.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection addresses 
the refuse discharge records as would be affected by the proposed rule 
in 33 CFR 151.55. As a result, we would amend and incorporate the 
following approved OMB Collections into one:
     OMB 2115-0120 ``Transfer Procedures and Waste Management 
Plans.'' Only the Waste Management Plans portion of this collection is 
being combined into this submission.
     OMB 2115-0613 previously titled ``Recordkeeping of Refuse 
Discharges from Ships.''
     OMB 2115-0634 previously titled ``Letter of Instruction 
for Persons-in-Charge (PIC) on Uninspected Vessels.''
    Need for Information: The proposed 33 CFR 151.55 would require U.S. 
ships to maintain records of discharge and disposal operations 
(incineration, legal discharge at sea, off-loading to a port reception 
facility, etc.) to determine how ship-generated waste is handled.
    Proposed Use of Information: This information would ensure that the 
designated vessel meets a particular pollution prevention standard that 
promotes the safety of life, environment, and property in marine 
transportation.
    Description of Respondents: The proposed rule would affect 
operators of U.S.-flag oceangoing vessels of 400 gross tons and above 
and all vessels certified to carry 15 passengers or more engaged in 
international voyages. Vessel operators would maintain documentation on 
garbage discharge. Current collection requirements on Manned Fixed or 
MODUs would not be impacted by the proposed changes.
    Number of Respondents: The proposed regulation would require 1,296 
vessel operators to maintain records.
    Frequency of Response: Every time garbage is disposed, it must be 
documented.
    Burden of Response: Each record entry is estimated to take 5 
minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The refusal discharge requirement 
would pose a burden of 52,569 hours for the affected vessels in this 
proposed rulemaking. The Office of Management and Budget has already 
approved the collection requirement. The effect this proposed rule 
would have on the collection of information is to reduce the affected 
population as it relates to refuse discharge records.
    Public Comment on the Collections of Information: As required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have 
submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information 
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help 
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available 
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; 
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve 
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can 
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit 
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated 
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    Before the requirements for this collection of information become 
effective, we will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's 
decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

Federalism

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, and have determined that it does not have implications for 
federalism under that order.
    Section 3(b) of the order allows Federal agencies to take a 
national action that limits the policymaking discretion of the States 
if there is constitutional and statutory authority for the action and 
if the action is appropriate in light of the presence of a problem of 
national significance. With the decision of the Supreme Court in the 
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke (number 98-1701) and 
Intertanko v. Locke (number 1706) on March 6, 2000, (120 S.Ct. 1135 
(1999)) the States are precluded from regulating any of the categories 
covered by 46 U.S.C. 3703(a): design, construction, alteration, repair, 
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning 
of tank vessels.
    This proposed rule concerns requirements for the construction 
(damage and intact stability), operation (operational discharges of 
oil, International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificates, and garbage 
recordkeeping requirements), and equipping (oily-water separators) for 
tank vessels or other oceangoing vessels. It also would implement the 
statutory mandate (33 U.S.C. 1905(f)(2)) for placards at reception 
facilities under MARPOL 73/7 and allow the use of an optional type of 
shore connection equipment for domestic vessels discharging oily 
mixtures at shoreside facilities. This entire proposed rule falls 
within the preempted categories listed above, which, as we have long 
held, apply to both inspected vessels as well as tank vessels. For this 
reason, preemption is not an issue in this rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory 
actions not specifically required by law. In particular, the Act

[[Page 48559]]

addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, 
or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of 
$100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would 
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Environment

    We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and 
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) and (34)(e), of 
Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed rule is categorically 
excluded from further environmental documentation.
    The proposed rule would align U.S. regulations concerning IOPP 
Certificates, oily-water separators, operational discharge of oil, and 
damage and intact stability of tank vessels with the international 
standards, meeting the recent amendments to MARPOL 73/78. This 
rulemaking would also require vessels of 20,000 deadweight tons (DWT) 
and above to comply with the MARPOL 73/78 damage stability provisions 
and vessels of 5,000 DWT and above to comply with the MARPOL 73/78 
intact stability provisions. In addition, this rulemaking would amend 
requirements regarding the use of domestic shore connections, 
recordkeeping requirements for the discharge of garbage, and placards 
telling how to report deficiencies at reception facilities. This rule 
would only relax the reporting requirements on garbage disposal 
records. It does not relax the manner in which garbage is treated. 
Therefore this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' 
is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated 
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 151

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

33 CFR Part 155

    Hazardous substances, Incorporation by references, Oil pollution, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR Part 157

    Cargo vessels, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

33 CFR Part 158

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

46 CFR Part 172

    Cargo vessels, Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by 
reference, Marine safety.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 157, and 158 and 46 CFR part 172 as 
follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for part 151, subpart A, continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1903; Pub. L. 104-227 (110 Stat. 
3034), E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46.


Sec. 151.01  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 151.01, remove the note.
    3. In Sec. 151.05, revise the definition of the terms ``MARPOL 73/
78'', ``oil'', ``oily mixture'' and ``operational waste'' and add, in 
alphabetical order, the definitions of ``fuel oil'' ``oil cargo 
residue'' and ``oily rags'' to read as follows:


Sec. 151.05  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Fuel oil means any oil used to fuel the propulsion and auxiliary 
machinery of the ship carrying the fuel. The term ``fuel oil'' is also 
known as ``oil fuel.''
* * * * *
    MARPOL 73/78 means the International Convention for the Prevention 
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 
relating to that Convention. A copy of MARPOL 73/78 is available from 
the International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London, 
SE1 7SR, England.
* * * * *
    Oil means petroleum whether in solid, semi-solid, emulsified, or 
liquid form, including but not limited to, crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, 
oil refuse, oil residue, and refined products, and, without limiting 
the generality of the foregoing, includes the substances listed in 
Appendix I of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. ``Oil'' does not include animal 
and vegetable based oil or noxious liquid substances (NLS) designated 
under Annex II of MARPOL 73/78.
    Oil cargo residue means any residue of oil cargo whether in solid, 
semi-solid, emulsified, or liquid form from cargo tanks and cargo pump 
room bilges, including but not limited to, drainages, leakages, 
exhausted oil, muck, clingage, sludge, bottoms, paraffin (wax), and any 
constituent component of oil. The term ``oil cargo residue'' is also 
known as ``cargo oil residue.''
    Oil residue means--
    (1) Oil cargo residue; and
    (2) Other residue of oil whether in solid, semi-solid, emulsified, 
or liquid form, resulting from drainages, leakages, exhausted oil, and 
other similar occurrences from machinery spaces.
    Oily mixture means a mixture, in any form, with any oil content. 
``Oily mixture'' includes, but is not limited to--
    (1) Slops from bilges;
    (2) Slops from oil cargoes (such as cargo tank washings, oily 
waste, and oily refuse);
    (3) Oil residue; and
    (4) Oily ballast water from cargo or fuel oil tanks.
    Oily rags means rags soaked with oil.
    Operational waste means all cargo-associated waste, maintenance 
waste, and cargo residues other than oil residues and NLS cargo 
residues. ``Operational wastes'' includes ashes and clinkers (i.e., a 
mass of incombustible matter fused together by heat) from shipboard 
incinerators and coal burning boilers but does not include plastic 
clinkers, which are treated as an Annex V waste, or oily

[[Page 48560]]

rags, which are treated as an Annex I waste.
* * * * *


Sec. 151.08  [Amended]

    4. In Sec. 151.08(a), remove the words ``oil or oily residues and 
mixtures'' and add, in their place, the words ``oil, oil residue, or 
oily mixtures''.
    5. In Sec. 151.10-
    a. In paragraph (a)(5), remove the number ``100'' and add, in its 
place, the number ``15'';
    b. In the note at the end of paragraph (f)(2)(iii), remove the 
words ``the residues and mixtures containing oil'' and add, in their 
place, the words ``oil residues and oily mixtures''; and
    c. Revise paragraph (c), paragraph (f) introductory text, and 
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec. 151.10  Control of oil discharges.

* * * * *
    (c) The overboard discharge of any oil cargo residues and oily 
mixtures that include oil cargo residues from an oil tanker is 
prohibited, unless discharged in compliance with part 157 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    (f) The person in charge of an oceangoing ship that cannot 
discharge oily mixtures into the sea in compliance with paragraphs (a), 
(b), (c), or (d) of this section must ensure that those oily mixtures 
are--
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The estimated time of day the ship will discharge oily 
mixtures;
    (ii) The type of oily mixtures to be discharged; and
    (iii) The volume of oily mixtures to be discharged.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 151.13, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as set forth 
below and, in paragraph (f), remove the words ``oil residues'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``oily mixtures'':


Sec. 151.13  Special areas for Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) All ships operating in the Antarctic area must have on board a 
tank or tanks of sufficient capacity to retain all oily mixtures while 
operating in the area and arrangements made to discharge oily mixtures 
at a reception facility outside the Antarctic area.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec. 151.19, revise paragraph (e) introductory text to read 
as follows:


Sec. 151.19  International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) 
Certificates.

* * * * *
    (e) The IOPP Certificate for each inspected or uninspected ship is 
valid for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of issue, except as 
follows:
* * * * *


Sec. 151.25  [Amended]

    8. In Sec. 151.25--
    a. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the words ``dirty ballast'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``ballast containing an oily mixture'';
    b. In paragraph (d)(3), remove the words ``oily residues (sludge)'' 
and add, in their place, the words ``oil residue''; and
    c. In paragraph (e)(10), remove the word ``residues'' and add, in 
its place, the words ``oil residue''.


Sec. 151.26  [Amended]

    9. In Sec. 151.26--
    a. In paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) and (b)(3)(i)(B), after the words ``A 
discharge of oil'', add the words ``or oily mixture''; and
    b. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B), after the words ``For actual or 
probable discharges of oil'', add the words ``or oily mixtures''.
    10. In Sec. 151.55, revise paragraphs(a)(1) and (a)(2) and add a 
new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 151.55  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Every manned oceangoing ship (other than a fixed or floating 
platform) of 400 gross tons and above that is engaged in commerce and 
that is documented under the laws of the United States or numbered by a 
State.
    (2) Every manned fixed or floating platform subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States.
    (3) Every manned ship that is certified to carry 15 passengers or 
more engaged in international voyages.
* * * * *

PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION 
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

    11. The authority citation for part 155 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3715, 3719; sec. 
2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46, 
1.46(iii). Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 155.350 through 
155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), and 
155.1065(g) also issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); and Secs. 155.1110 
through 155.1150 also issued under 33 U.S.C. 2735.


Sec. 155.330  [Amended]

    12. In Sec. 155.330, in the section heading, remove the words 
``Bilge slops/fuel oil'' and add, in their place, the words ``Oily 
mixture (bilge slops)/fuel oil'' and, in paragraph (b), remove the 
words ``oily residue'' and add, in their place, the words ``oil 
residue''.
    13. In Sec. 155.350, revise the section heading and paragraph 
(a)(2) to read as follows and, in paragraph (b), remove the words 
``oily residue'' and add, in their place, the words ``oil residue'':


Sec. 155.350  Oily mixture (Bilge slops)/fuel oil tank ballast water 
discharges on oceangoing ships of less than 400 gross tons.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Has approved oily-water separating equipment for processing 
oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank ballast and discharges into 
the sea according to Sec. 151.10 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    14. In Sec. 155.360--
    a. In the section heading, remove the words ``Bilge slops'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``Oily mixture (Bilge slops)'';
    b. In paragraph (a), remove the number ``100'' and add, in its 
place, the number ``15'' and remove the words ``oily bilge slops or 
oily'' and add, in their place, the words ``oily mixtures from bilges 
or'';
    c. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``oily residues (sludges)'' 
and add, in their place, the words ``oil residue'';
    d. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the words ``oily wastes'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``oily mixtures''; and
    e. Revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 155.360  Oily Mixtures (Bilge slops) discharges on oceangoing 
ships of 400 gross tons and above but less than 10,000 gross tons, 
excluding ships that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks.

* * * * *
    (e) This section does not apply to a fixed or floating drilling rig 
or other platform, except as specified in Sec. 155.400(a)(2).
    15. In Sec. 155.370--
    a. Revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as set 
forth below;
    b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove the words ``oily 
residues (sludges)'' and add, in their place, the words ``oil 
residue'';
    c. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the words ``oily residues'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``oil residue'';
    d. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the words ``oily wastes'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``oily mixtures'';
    e. Remove paragraph (d);

[[Page 48561]]

    f. Redesignate paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e), 
respectively; and
    g. Revise new paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 155.370  Oily mixture (bilge slops)/fuel oil tank ballast water 
discharges on oceangoing ships of 10,000 gross tons and above and 
oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons and above that carry ballast water 
in their fuel oil tanks.

    (a) No person may operate an oceangoing ship of 10,000 gross tons 
and above, or any oceangoing ship of 400 gross tons and above, that 
carries ballast water in its fuel oil tanks, unless it has--
    (1) Approved 15 ppm oily-water separating equipment for the 
processing of oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank ballast;
    (2) A bilge alarm; and
    (3) A means for automatically stopping any discharge of oily 
mixture when the oil content in the effluent exceeds 15 ppm.
* * * * *
    (e) This section does not apply to a fixed or floating drilling rig 
or other platform, except as specified in Sec. 155.400(a)(2).


Sec. 155.380  [Amended]

    16. In Sec. 155.380, remove paragraph (c) and redesignate paragraph 
(d) as paragraph (c).
    17. In Sec. 155.410, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as set forth 
below and, in paragraph (b), remove the words ``oily bilge slops or 
oily'' and add, in their place, the words ``oily mixtures from bilges 
or'':


Sec. 155.410  Pumping, piping, and discharge requirements for non-
oceangoing ships of 100 gross tons and above.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Each outlet required by this section has a shore connection 
that is compatible with reception facilities in the ship's area of 
operation; and
* * * * *
    18. In Sec. 155.420--
    a. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the words ``The outlet'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``For a ship on an international voyage, the 
outlet'';
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) as paragraphs (a)(5) 
and (a)(6), respectively;
    c. Add new paragraph (a)(4) to read as set forth below;
    d. In newly designated paragraph (a)(5), remove the word ``wastes'' 
and add, in its place, the word ``mixtures''; and
    e. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``oily bilge slops or oily'' 
and add, in their place, the words ``oily mixtures from bilges or'':


Sec. 155.420  Pumping, piping, and discharge requirements for 
oceangoing ships of 100 gross tons and above but less than 400 gross 
tons.

    (a) * * *
    (4) For a ship not on an international voyage, the outlet required 
by this section has a shore connection that is compatible with 
reception facilities in the ship's area of operation;
* * * * *
    19. In Sec. 155.430, revise paragraph (a) introductory text to read 
as set forth below and, in paragraph (b), remove the word ``wastes'' 
and add, in its place, the word ``mixtures'':


Sec. 155.430  Standard discharge connections for oceangoing ships of 
400 gross tons and above.

    (a) All oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons and above must have a 
standard shore connection for reception facilities to discharge oily 
mixtures from machinery space bilges or ballast water containing an 
oily mixture from fuel oil tanks. The discharge connection must have 
the following dimensions:
* * * * *


Sec. 155.440  [Amended]

    20. In Sec. 155.440, in the section heading, remove the words 
``water ballast'' and add, in their place, the words ``ballast water''.
    21. Revise Sec. 155.810 to read as follows:


Sec. 155.810  Tank vessel security.

    Operators of tank vessels carrying more oil cargo residue than 
normal in any cargo tank must assign a surveillance person or persons 
responsible for maintaining standard vessel security.


Sec. 155.1015  [Amended]

    22. In Sec. 155.1015, in paragraphs (a) introductory text and 
(c)(2), before the words ``cargo residue'', add the word ``oil''.
    23. In Sec. 155.1020, revise the definition of ``petroleum oil'' to 
read as follows:


Sec. 155.1020  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Petroleum oil means petroleum in any form including, but not 
limited to, crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil residue, and refined 
products.
* * * * *

PART 157--RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 
RELATING TO TANK VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK

    24. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703, 3703a (note); 49 CFR 
1.46. Subparts G, H, and I are also issued under section 4115(b), 
Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 520; Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat. 546.

    25. In Sec. 157.03:
    a. In the definitions of ``lightweight'', ``oil fuel'', and 
``segregated ballast'' remove the words ``oil fuel'' and add, in their 
place, the words ``fuel oil'';
    b. In the definition of ``slop tank'', remove the words ``oil 
mixtures'' and add, in their place, the words ``oily mixtures'';
    c. Add, in alphabetical order, the definitions of the terms 
``MARPOL 73/78'', ``oil cargo residue'', and ``oil residue'';
    d. Remove the definition of ``MARPOL Protocol''; and
    e. Revise the definitions of ``oily mixture'' and ``petroleum oil'' 
to read as follows:


Sec. 157.03  Definitions.

* * * * *
    MARPOL 73/78 means the International Convention for the Prevention 
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 
relating to that Convention. A copy of MARPOL 73/78 is available from 
the International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London, 
SE1 7SR, England.
* * * * *
    Oil cargo residue means any residue of oil cargo whether in solid, 
semi-solid, emulsified, or liquid form from cargo tanks and cargo pump 
room bilges, including but not limited to, drainages, leakages, 
exhausted oil, muck, clingage, sludge, bottoms, paraffin (wax), and any 
constituent component of oil. The term ``oil cargo residue'' is also 
known as ``cargo oil residue.''
    Oil residue means--
    (1) Oil cargo residue; and
    (2) Other residue of oil whether in solid, semi-solid, emulsified, 
or liquid form, resulting from drainages, leakages, exhausted oil, and 
other similar occurrences from machinery spaces.
    Oily mixture means a mixture, in any form, with any oil content. 
``Oily mixture'' includes, but is not limited to--
    (1) Slops from bilges;
    (2) Slops from oil cargoes (such as cargo tank washings, oily 
waste, and oily refuse);
    (3) Oil residue; and
    (4) Oily ballast water from cargo or fuel oil tanks, including any 
oil cargo residue.
* * * * *
    Petroleum oil means petroleum in any form including, but not 
limited to, crude

[[Page 48562]]

oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil residue, and refined products.
* * * * *


Sec. 157.04  [Amended]

    26. In Sec. 157.04(b), remove the words ``MARPOL Protocol'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/78''.


Sec. 157.07  [Amended]

    27. In Sec. 157.07, remove the words ``MARPOL Protocol'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/78''.


Sec. 157.11  [Amended]

    28. In Sec. 157.11(a), remove the words ``cargo residues and 
other''.


Sec. 157.12  [Amended]

    29. In Sec. 157.12(b)(2), remove the words ``MARPOL Protocol'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/78''.
    30. Revise Sec. 157.15(b) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec. 157.15  Slop tanks in tank vessels.

* * * * *
    (b) Capacity. Slop tanks must have the total capacity to retain 
oily mixtures from cargo tank washings, oil residue, and ballast water 
containing an oily mixture of 3 percent or more of the oil carrying 
capacity. Two percent capacity is allowed if there are--
* * * * *


Sec. 157.17  [Amended]

    31. In Sec. 157.17--
    a. In the section heading and in paragraphs (b) and (c), remove the 
words ``oily residue'' and add, in their place, the words ``oil residue 
(sludge)''; and
    b. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``oily residue'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``oil residue''.
    32. Add Sec. 157.22 to read as follows:


Sec. 157.22  Intact stability requirements.

    All tank ships of 5,000 DWT and above contracted after [Insert the 
effective date of this rulemaking] must comply with the intact 
stability requirements of Regulation 25A, Annex I MARPOL 73/78.


Sec. 157.24  [Amended]

    33. In Sec. 157.24(c)(2), remove the words ``MARPOL Protocol'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/78''.


Sec. 157.24a  [Amended]

    34. In Sec. 157.24a(b)(2), remove the words ``MARPOL Protocol'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/78''.


Sec. 157.33  [Amended]

    35. In Sec. 157.33, remove the words ``oil fuel'' and add, in their 
place, the words ``fuel oil''.
    36. In Sec. 157.37--
    a. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the number ``60'' and add, in its 
place, the number ``30'';
    b. In paragraph (a)(7), remove the words ``MARPOL Protocol'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/78'';
    c. In paragraph (b), remove the word ``residues'' and add, in its 
place, the words ``oil cargo residues''; and
    d. Revise the section heading and paragraph (e) introductory text 
to read as follows:


Sec. 157.37  Discharge of oily mixtures from oil cargoes.

* * * * *
    (e) Ballast water containing an oily mixture may be discharged 
below the waterline at sea by gravity if--
* * * * *


Sec. 157.39  [Amended]

    37. In Sec. 157.39--
    a. In paragraph (a) and the introductory text of paragraph (b), 
remove the words ``oil cargo mixture'' and add, in their place, the 
words ``oil cargo residue'';
    b. Remove paragraph (b)(1);
    c. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) as paragraphs 
(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3), respectively;
    d. In newly designated paragraph (b)(2), remove the number ``100'' 
and add, in its place, the number ``15''.


Sec. 157.43  [Amended]

    38. In Sec. 157.43(b) introductory text, remove the words ``oil 
mixture'' and add, in their place, the words ``oily mixture''.


Sec. 157.118  [Amended]

    39. In Sec. 157.118(a) (1)(ii) and (a)(2)(i), remove the words 
``MARPOL Protocol'' and add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/
78''.


Sec. 157.138  [Amended]

    40. In Sec. 157.138(a)(1), remove the words ``MARPOL Protocol'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/78''.


Sec. 157.140  [Amended]

    41. In Sec. 157.140(a)(1), remove the words ``oil clingage or 
deposits of oil, or both'' and add, in their place, the words ``oil 
residues''.


Sec. 157.160  [Amended]

    42. In Sec. 157.160 (a)(2) and (b)(3), remove the word ``sludge'' 
and add, in its place, the words ``oil cargo residue''.


Sec. 157.216  [Amended]

    43. In Sec. 157.216 (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(i), remove the words 
``MARPOL Protocol'' and add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/
78''.


Sec. 157.224  [Amended]

    44. In Sec. 157.224(a), remove the words ``MARPOL Protocol'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``MARPOL 73/78''.


Sec. 157.302  [Amended]

    45. In Sec. 157.302, paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(6), remove the words 
``cargo residues'' and add, in their place, the words ``oil cargo 
residues''.


Sec. 157.304  [Amended]

    46. In Sec. 157.304(a), remove the words ``cargo residues'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``oil cargo residues''.


Sec. 157.310  [Amended]

    47. In Sec. 157.310(c), remove the words ``cargo residues'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``oil cargo residues''.


Sec. 157.400  [Amended]

    48. In Sec. 157.400(b)(2), remove the words ``cargo residue'' and 
add, in their place, the words ``oil cargo residue''.
    49. In part 157, appendix B, add paragraph 3(f) to read as follows:

Appendix B--Subdivision and Stability Assumptions

* * * * *
    3. * * *
    (f) For oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above, the 
damage assumptions must be supplemented by the following assumed 
bottom raking damage:
    (1) Longitudinal extent:
    (i) For ships of 75,000 tons deadweight and above, 0.6L measured 
from the forward perpendicular.
    (ii) For ships of less than 75,000 tons deadweight, 0.4L 
measured from the forward perpendicular.
    (2) Transverse extent: B/3 anywhere in the bottom.
    (3) Vertical extent: Breach of the outer hull.
* * * * *

Appendix D--[Amended]

    50. In part 157, appendix D, paragraph 2(a)(1), remove the word 
``slop'' and add, in its place, the words ``oily mixtures''.

PART 158--RECEPTION FACILITIES FOR OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, 
AND GARBAGE

    51. The authority citation for part 158 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); 49 CFR 1.46.


Sec. 158.100  [Amended]

    52. In Sec. 158.100(b)(1), remove the words ``Residues and mixtures

[[Page 48563]]

containing oil'' and add, in their place, the words ``Oily mixtures''.


Sec. 158.110  [Amended]

    53. In Sec. 158.110(a)(1), remove the words ``residues and mixtures 
containing oil'' and add, in their place, the words ``oily mixtures''.
    54. In Sec. 158.120--
    a. Revise the section heading;
    b. Remove the definition of ``MARPOL Protocol'';
    c. Revise the definition of ``oil'';
    d. In the definition of ``reception facility'', remove the words 
``residues and mixtures containing oil'' and add, in their place, the 
words ``oily mixtures''; and
    e. Add, in alphabetical order, the definitions of the terms 
``MARPOL 73/78'', ``oil cargo residue'', ``oil residue'', and ``oily 
mixtures'' to read as follows:


Sec. 158.120  Definitions.

* * * * *
    MARPOL 73/78 means the International Convention for the Prevention 
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 
relating to that Convention. A copy of MARPOL 73/78 is available from 
the International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London, 
SE1 7SR, England.
* * * * *
    Oil means petroleum whether in solid, semi-solid, emulsified, or 
liquid form, including but not limited to, crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, 
oil refuse, oil residue, and refined products, and, without limiting 
the generality of the foregoing, includes the substances listed in 
Appendix I of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. ``Oil'' does not include animal 
and vegetable based oil or noxious liquid substances (NLS) designated 
under Annex II of MARPOL 73/78.
    Oil cargo residue means any residue of oil cargo whether in solid, 
semi-solid, emulsified, or liquid form from cargo tanks and cargo pump 
room bilges, including but not limited to, drainages, leakages, 
exhausted oil, muck, clingage, sludge, bottoms, paraffin (wax), and any 
constituent component of oil. The term ``oil cargo residue'' is also 
known as ``cargo oil residue.''
    Oil residue means--
    (1) Oil cargo residue; and
    (2) Other residue of oil resulting from drainages, leakages, 
exhausted oil, and other similar occurrences from machinery spaces.
    Oily mixture means a mixture, in any form, with any oil content. 
``Oily mixture'' includes, but is not limited to--
    (1) Slops from bilges;
    (2) Slops from oil cargoes (such as cargo tank washings, oily 
waste, and oily refuse);
    (3) Oil residue; and
    (4) Oily ballast water from cargo or fuel oil tanks.
* * * * *


Sec. 158.133  [Amended]

    55. In Sec. 158.133(a), remove the words ``residues and mixtures 
containing oil'' and add, in their place, the words ``oily mixtures''.


Sec. 158.135  [Amended]

    56. In Sec. 158.135(a), remove the words ``residues and mixtures 
containing oil'' and add, in their place, the words ``oily mixtures''.

Subpart B--[Amended]

    57. Revise the heading of subpart B to read as follows:

Subpart B--Criteria for Reception Facilities: Oily Mixtures


Sec. 158.200  [Amended]

    58. In Sec. 158.200(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(iii), and (b), remove 
the words ``residues and mixtures containing oil'' and add, in their 
place, the words ``oily mixtures''; and, in (a)(3)(ii), remove the 
words ``oily ballast'' and add, in their place, the words ``ballast 
water containing oily mixtures''.


Sec. 158.210  [Amended]

    59. In Sec. 158.210--
    a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``Sludge'' and add, in its 
place, the words ``Oil residue'';
    b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``Oily bilge water'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``Bilge water containing oily mixtures''; and
    c. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``Oily ballast'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``Ballast water containing oily mixtures''.


Sec. 158.220  [Amended]

    60. In Sec. 158.220--
    a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``Sludge'' and add, in its 
place, the words ``Oil residue'';
    b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``Oily bilge water'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``Bilge water containing oily mixtures'';
    c. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``Oily ballast'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``Ballast water containing oily mixtures''; and
    d. In paragraph (d), remove the words ``Cargo residue'' and add, in 
their place, the words ``Oil cargo residue''.


Sec. 158.230  [Amended]

    61. In Sec. 158.230--
    a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``Sludge'' and add, in its 
place, the words ``Oil residue''; and
    b. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``Oily bilge water'' and add, 
in their place, the words ``Bilge water containing oily mixtures''.
    62. In Sec. 158.240, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) and the 
introductory text to paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 158.240  Ship repair yards.

* * * * *
    (a) An amount of ballast from bunker tanks, and the wash water and 
oil residue from the cleaning of bunker tanks and oil residue (sludge) 
tanks, equal to 8% of the bunker capacity of the largest oceangoing 
ship serviced;
    (b) An amount of solid oil cargo residues from cargo tanks equal to 
0.1% of the deadweight tonnage of the largest oceangoing tanker 
serviced;
    (c) An amount of ballast water containing oily mixtures and wash 
water from in-port tank washing equal to--
* * * * *
    (d) An amount of liquid oil cargo residue based on the following 
percentages of deadweight tonnage of the largest oceangoing tanker 
serviced:
* * * * *


Sec. 158.250  [Amended]

    63. In Sec. 158.250, remove the words ``oily bilge water'' wherever 
they appear and add, in their place, the words ``bilge water containing 
oily mixtures''.
    64. Add Sec. 158.415 to read as follows:


Sec. 158.415  Placards for waste reception facilities.

    (a) A person in charge of a port or terminal must post one or more 
placards in prominent locations and in sufficient numbers so that port 
and terminal users can read them. The locations of placards may include 
entranceways, site of reception facility, and along the pier or wharf. 
If the Captain of the Port determines that the number or location of 
the placards is insufficient, he or she may require additional placards 
and specify their locations.
    (b) The placard must include at least the following words:
    (1) ``Waste Reception Facility--which receives (Insert type of 
waste) under the requirements of Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, 
Part 158. Please report any reception facility inadequacy to the local 
U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port at (Insert the local Captain of 
Port's phone number).''
    (2) In paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the words ``Waste 
Reception Facility'' must appear in at least 1 inch letters and all 
other words in this paragraph must appear in at least \1/2\ inch 
letters.

[[Page 48564]]

    (3) Each placard must be at least 12 inches high and 11 inches wide 
and made of durable material.

46 CFR PART 172--SPECIAL RULES PERTAINING TO BULK CARGOES

    65. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C 3306, 3703, 5115; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 
CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.

    66. Add Sec. 172.048 to read as follows:


Sec. 172.048  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart--
    MARPOL 73/38 means the International Convention for the Prevention 
of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 
relating to that Convention. A copy of MARPOL 73/78 is available from 
the International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London, 
SE1 7SR, England.
    67. In Sec. 172.065, in table 172.065(a), at the end of the table 
before note 1, add a new entry to read as follows:


Sec. 172.065  Damage stability.

* * * * *

                   Table 172.065(a)--Extent of Damage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 *                  *                  *                  *
                   *                  *                  *
                 GROUNDING PENETRATION FOR RAKING DAMAGE
For tank vessels of 20,000 tons deadweight and above, the following
 assumed bottom raking damage must supplement the damage assumptions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Longitudinal extent......  For vessels of 75,000 tons deadweight and
                                above, 0.6L measured from the forward
                                perpendicular.
                               For vessels of less than 75,000 tons
                                deadweight, 0.4L measured from the
                                forward perpendicular.
    Transverse extent........  B/3 anywhere in the bottom.
    Vertical extent..........  Breach of the outer hull.
 
 *                  *                  *                  *
                   *                  *                  *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. Add Sec. 172.070 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec. 172.070  Intact stability.

    All tank vessels of 5,000 DWT and above contracted after the 
effective date of this rulemaking must comply with the intact stability 
requirements of Regulation 25A, Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.

    Dated: July 14, 2000.
R.C. North,
Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Safety 
Protection.
[FR Doc. 00-19219 Filed 8-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P