[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35822-35826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17267]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 155
[CGD 79-116]
RIN 2115-AA03
Qualifications for Tankermen and for Persons in Charge of
Transfers of Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied Gases
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; establishment of dates for compliance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard modifies the qualification requirements for
some Persons in Charge (PICs) of transfers of fuel oil and establish
the date for compliance with the modified requirements. This
modification is necessary to address public concern and implement the
Final Rule, which, in the part addressed here, reduces the risk and
severity of spillage from vessels involved in fuel-oil transfers. The
requirement that PICs obtain letters from their trainers stating that
the PICs have successfully completed certain training should ensure to
the greatest degree possible that crewmembers acting as PICs of fuel-
oil transfers get sufficient training to minimize the risks of water
pollution.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date for the amendments in this
rule is July 1, 1998.
Compliance dates:
(1) The compliance date for 33 CFR 155.710(e)(4) is July 1, 1998.
(2) The compliance date for 33 CFR 155.710(e) introductory text,
(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) and Sec. 155.715 is October 1, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Documents, as indicated in this preamble, are available for
inspection or copying at the office of the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA, 3406), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100
Second Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 20593-0001, between 9:30
a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark C. Gould, Project Manager,
Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division, (202) 267-6890 or 1-800-
842-8740, extension 7-6890.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On December 18, 1980, the Coast Guard published two Notices of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs): CGD 79-116, which proposed rules for
tankermen [45 FR 83290]; and CGD 79-116a, which proposed rules for
Persons in Charge (PIC) of transfers of oil [45 FR 83268].
On October 17, 1989, the Coast Guard published a Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), entitled, ``Tankerman
Requirements and Qualifications for Persons-in-Charge of Dangerous
Liquid and Liquefied Gas Transfer Operations'' [54 FR 42624], which
combined the original two rulemakings and officially closed CGD 79-116a
as a distinct rulemaking. The Coast Guard received 42 comments on that
SNPRM. No public meeting was requested, nor was one held.
On April 4, 1995, the Coast Guard published an Interim Rule
entitled ``Qualifications for Tankermen and for Persons in Charge of
Transfers of Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied Gases'' [60 FR 17134].
On March 26, 1996, the Coast Guard reopened the comment period [61
FR 13098]. No public meeting was requested, nor was one held.
On May 8, 1997, the Coast Guard published a Final Rule entitled
``Qualifications for Tankermen and for Persons in Charge of Transfers
of Dangerous Liquids and Liquefied Gases'' [62 FR 25115].
On September 17, 1997, the Coast Guard published a request for
comments to that portion of the Final Rule concerning the
qualifications for a PIC of transfer of fuel oil [62 FR 48769]. This
request for comments also delayed the compliance date until July 1,
1998, for 33 CFR 155.710 (e) introductory text and paragraphs (e)(1),
(e)(2), and (e)(3). Several comments requested a public meeting, but
none was held. This regulatory project has been in preparation since
1979. During the nineteen years of preparation, the Coast Guard
requested comments on the proposed rule no fewer than five times. In
the last request for comments, the focus was on a very narrow section
of the entire rule-qualification requirements for PICs of transfers of
fuel oil. The Coast Guard felt that all sides of this debate could be
adequately covered in writing; therefore, no public hearing was
necessary.
Background and Purpose
In the Interim Rule [60 FR 17134 (April 4, 1995)], Sec. 155.710(e)
of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which sets out
requirements for Tankermen-PICs, was written ambiguously. If
interpreted literally, the section stated that, on an uninspected
vessel required to have a licensed person aboard, either (a) the PIC of
a transfer of fuel oil must hold a license authorizing service as
master, mate, engineer, or operator aboard that vessel, or (b) that
person must have been instructed by the operator or agent of the vessel
both in his or her duties and in the Federal statutes and regulations
on water pollution that apply to the vessel.
In the Final Rule [62 FR 25115 (May 8, 1997)], the Coast Guard
corrected this ambiguity by revising the section. The Final Rule
required that, onboard one of these same uninspected vessels, the PIC
of a transfer of fuel oil hold either (a) a license authorizing service
as master, mate, engineer, or operator aboard that vessel, or (b) a
merchant mariner's document (MMD) endorsed as Tankerman-PIC.
Before this clarification, the Captains of the Port (COTPs) in some
ports, particularly deepwater, were already interpreting the section in
this way. However, in other ports, particularly inland and river, the
COTPs were allowing the industry to comply with either the ambiguous
requirements stated in the Interim Rule or the intended requirements
stated in the Interim Rule as clarified in the Final Rule.
Many in the inland maritime industry were satisfied with the
wording of the Interim Rule and, not suspecting that the Final Rule
would change the qualification requirements, did not submit comments
until the Final Rule was published. Many of these comments claimed that
the Coast Guard had not provided the opportunity to comment on the
revised text of Sec. 155.710(e). As a result, the Coast Guard issued a
request for comment on Sec. 155.710(e) and delayed the compliance date
for this section except paragraph 4--whose compliance date already was
July 1, 1998--until July 1, 1998 [62 FR 48769 (September 17, 1997)].
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received a total of 96 written comments in response
to the
[[Page 35823]]
reopened comment period. All of these letters are available for
inspection in CGD 79-116 at the address listed under ADDRESSES.
Applicability
The Coast Guard received four written comments addressing the
applicability of this rule. One of the comments asked whether an
Uninspected Towing Vessel (UTV) with a 14,000-gallon fuel capacity
would have to comply with this rule if the transfer of fuel oil was
always accomplished by a shoreside fueling-company whose trucks have a
maximum capacity of 8,000 gallons.
Section 155.700 of title 33 CFR states that, if either vessel has a
capacity in excess of 250 barrels (or 10,500 gallons), then 33 CFR
155.710(e) applies.
A second comment questioned whether this rule would apply to Mobile
Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs). More specifically, it asked, ``What
must the PIC of a transfer of fuel on a MODU hold--a license, an
endorsed MMD, or neither?''
That person must hold a license or else hold an MMD endorsed as
Tankerman-PIC. 33 CFR Section 155.700 of 33 CFR, the applicability
section that covers 33 CFR 155.710(e), applies to each vessel with a
capacity of more than 250 barrels of fuel oil, cargo oil, or hazardous
materials. Therefore, the PIC of a transfer of fuel oil on a MODU
encompassed by 33 CFR 155.710 must comply with 33 CFR 155.710(e)(1);
that is, he or she must hold a valid license issued under 46 CFR part
10 authorizing service as a master, mate, pilot, engineer, or operator
aboard that vessel, or else hold an MMD endorsed as Tankerman-PIC.
The third comment expressed concern that the Coast Guard had stated
that crewmembers of Oil Spill Response Vessels (OSRVs) belong to a
category of person eligible to seek restricted Tankerman-PIC
endorsements in 46 CFR 13.111, though the Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 1996 stated that they are not subject to requirements of tankermen
for tank vessels as such.
The Coast Guard disagrees. It agrees that 46 U.S.C. 3702(f)
establishes that 46 U.S.C. Chapter 37, and statutes whose applicability
is based on 46 U.S.C. Chapter 37, do not apply to an OSRV. However, 46
U.S.C. 3302(a) makes clear that the designation of a vessel as an OSRV
does not preclude it from also being considered a tank vessel under
other laws and regulations. An OSRV is a tank vessel as defined by 46
U.S.C. 2101(39). 46 U.S.C. 3702(f) only states only that an OSRV will
not be subject to regulations promulgated under the authority in 46
U.S.C. Chapter 37. This does not affect the applicability to an OSRV of
other regulations for tank vessels, regulations not based on the
authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 37. The Ports and Waterways Safety
Program (33 U.S.C. Chapter 25, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et. seq.) and the Water
Pollution Prevention and Control Program (33 U.S.C. Chapter 26, 33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.) also apply to these types of operations conducted
by OSRVs. The purposes of Chapter 25 include the protection of the
marine environment and natural resources through, among other
functions, the regulation of vessel manning. The tankerman requirements
for OSRVs are based on these statutes and on 33 CFR part 155.
Therefore, under 33 CFR 155.710(a)(3), the PIC of a transfer of liquid
cargo in bulk or of cargo-tank cleaning on an OSRV shall hold a
Tankerman-PIC endorsement issued under 46 CFR part 13 that authorizes
the holder to supervise the transfer of fuel oil, the transfer of
liquid cargo in bulk, or cargo-tank cleaning, as appropriate to the
product. Note that 46 CFR 13.111(a) discusses the possibility of OSRVs'
crewmembers' obtaining a restricted Tankerman-PIC endorsements.
Individual companies should ask their Regional Examination Centers
(RECs) about establishing training programs and competency requirements
unique to their vessels' configurations and operations.
A fourth comment asked whether floating crane rigs or other
stevedoring equipment need to comply with this rule.
Again, 33 CFR 155.700, the applicability section that covers 33 CFR
155.710(e), applies to each vessel with a capacity of more than 250
barrels of fuel oil, cargo oil, or hazardous materials. Therefore, the
PIC of a transfer of fuel oil on any vessel encompassed by 33 CFR
155.710 must comply with 33 CFR 155.710--either (e)(1), if the vessel
is inspected, or (e)(2), if the vessel is uninspected.
Exemptions
One comment asked that this rule continue to exempt those vessels
with a fuel-oil capacity of less than 250 barrels.
The Coast Guard agrees and makes no changes to the applicability
under 33 CFR 155.700.
Comment Period
Several comments requested that the Coast Guard hold public
meetings before making a final decision on such an important issue.
The Coast Guard declines. The public has received more than
adequate opportunity to submit comments or ask questions on this issue.
General Comments
The comments received did not surprise the Coast Guard. Comments
from deepwater ports generally tended to favor the stricter
interpretation, since many uninspected vessels in those ports each
already carry several licensed persons aboard, as well as unlicensed
crewmembers documented as Tankermen-PICs. On the other hand, comments
from inland and river ports, where vessels usually each carry only one
licensed person onboard, generally tended to favor the wording of the
Interim Rule.
Two of the comments shared the opinion that the Coast Guard should
require the PIC to hold a valid MMD. One of these two recommended that
the PIC receive his or her vessel-specific training from the master of
the UTV or other licensed officer.
The Coast Guard disagrees. For previously mentioned reasons, and
because of the expense applicants would incur to complete the required
training, PICs on UTVs need not obtain MMDs.
Another comment stated that most spills caused by the human factor
are the result of attitude rather than ability. The PIC knows how to do
the job; he or she simply fails to execute.
The Coast Guard does not know whether this is true; however, the
first step is to require some minimal amount of training to maximize
the chances of a safe transfer of fuel oil. Besides, training can
improve attitude along with ability.
A recommendation in one comment stated that the Coast Guard needs
to understand the unique operating and regulatory environment of the
brown-water maritime fleet.
The Coast Guard agrees, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to
include the inland and river marine industry in this rulemaking. In
fact, it was mostly comments from the brown-water fleet of UTVs that
led the Coast Guard to the final amendments in this reconstitution of
the Final Rule.
The Coast Guard received eleven comments agreeing with the wording
as it appeared in the Final Rule [62 FR 25115 (May 8, 1997)]. These
comments stated that requiring a license or an MMD for transfers of
fuel oil on UTVs is good marine practice. One of the eleven stated that
the rule should require that the PIC of such transfers hold either a
license or an MMD.
Upon reviewing the public comments, the Coast Guard now disagrees.
Because it lacks firm statistical evidence that transfers of fuel oil
contribute to the amount of pollution from UTVs, the
[[Page 35824]]
Coast Guard lacks adequate reason to require a license or an MMD with
Tankerman-PIC endorsement.
Most comments agreed that the Coast Guard should require PICs of
transfers of fuel oil to obtain instruction by the operators or agents
of their vessels, both in their duties and in the Federal statutes and
regulations on water pollution that apply to their vessels. These
comments presented the following persuasive arguments:
Statistics
Many of the comments stated there are currently no statistics to
prove that spills from transfers of fuel oil contribute significantly
to the pollution of the marine environment.
Although the Coast Guard speculates, and has heard from reliable
sources off the record, that mid-stream transfers contribute
significantly to pollution of rivers, there are currently no supporting
statistics. However, the Coast Guard recently instituted new data-
gathering systems that in time will provide statistics one way or the
other.
Further, many of the comments stated that, factually, there are no
data to show that a reduction in oil spills would occur if the PIC of a
UTV transfer of fuel oil were required to hold a license or MMD and
that, therefore, no such requirement would be appropriate.
The Coast Guard agrees and, again, has dropped the requirement.
Training
Several comments stated that the key to the safe transfer of fuel
oil to UTVs is training. They suggested that the Coast Guard and
industry jointly develop and adopt a training program that specifically
addresses transfers.
The Coast Guard agrees--in part. For now, the new requirement for a
letter of training from the operator or agent of a vessel will satisfy
the training requirements. However, if it later turns out that this
training is not having the desired effect, the Coast Guard will ask the
industry to help it develop and adopt more formal training.
Several comments felt that simple possession of a license does not
endow an Operator of Uninspected Towing Vessels (OUTV) with sufficient
knowledge of transfers of fuel oil. In addition, the OUTV often is not
physically present where the transfer takes place. Therefore, it is
unfair to make the OUTV legally responsible for the transfer.
The Coast Guard agrees. The person legally responsible for the
transfer of fuel oil to the UTV, if not from the barge, is the PIC
aboard the UTV.
Five comments recommended that the Coast Guard create a new UTV
license that specifically certifies an individual for transfers of fuel
oil. The industry and Coast Guard would jointly develop qualifications
and training procedures for this license.
Currently, the Coast Guard disagrees. For now, a letter of training
from the operator or agent of a vessel will satisfy the training
requirements. However, if it later turns out that this training is not
having the desired effect, the Coast Guard will consider strengthening
the requirements in a further rulemaking.
Courses in Firefighting
Four of the comments addressed the requirements for the successful
completion of approved courses in firefighting. The comments stated
that these courses do not apply to operations on UTVs.
The Coast Guard agrees that most existing, approved courses in
firefighting contain more-detailed training than personnel aboard UTVs
need. However, the Coast Guard no longer requires approved courses in
firefighting for PICs of uninspected vessels involved in transfers of
fuel oil. The Coast Guard remains willing, should the need arise, to
work with industry in designing the proper curriculum for a course in
firefighting applicable to UTVs.
Training in Preventing Pollution
Some of the comments stated that significant training in preventing
pollution is not now required to obtain a license as OUTV. Therefore,
mere possession of a license, as required in the Final Rule, will not
ensure that a transfer of fuel oil is safely conducted.
The Coast Guard agrees that there is insufficient stress put on
environmental protection to ensure that the bare fact of holding an
OUTV license marks a PIC as sufficiently trained in preventing water
pollution.
A letter from the operator or agent of a vessel, stating that the
PIC has been instructed both in his or her duties and in the Federal
statutes and regulations on water pollution that apply to the vessel,
will satisfy the training requirements.
Voluntary Industry Standards
Several of the comments mentioned the existence of voluntary
industry standards. They stated that the American Waterways Operators
(AWO) carries out a Responsible Carrier Program with the Coast Guard.
Many of the comments urged that this Program, as well as other
voluntary industry initiatives, should improve marine safety and
environmental protection without this new rule.
The Coast Guard agrees that the Responsible Carrier Program is
indeed an exemplary initiative for volunteer companies to help reduce
pollution and improve marine safety. However, the volunteer companies
participating in the various initiatives are not, nor have they ever
been, the companies with which the Coast Guard is concerned. The Coast
Guard is concerned with companies that do not belong to any of these
initiatives. What incentive do they have to implement new programs to
help improve marine safety and reduce pollution? Therefore, the new
requirement, for an operator or agent of a vessel to sign a letter
stating that the crewmember acting as PIC in a transfer of fuel oil has
received the proper training, significantly increases the chances that
the training has, in fact, been conducted. Only time will tell the
significance of the impact these voluntary initiatives will have on
marine safety and environmental protection.
In addition, the Coast Guard received one comment stating that the
towing industry has chosen to turn its back on this issue in the past
because it carries unlicensed engineers on its UTVs.
The Coast Guard partially agrees. However, with AWO's Responsible
Carrier Program and similar initiatives now in place, the Coast Guard
feels that the industry is trying to address the problem without added
regulation.
Regional Examination Centers
Two comments stated that RECs of the Coast Guard are already
inundated with licensing and documentation. The advent of the estimated
3,000-4,000 applicants required to obtain the MMD endorsed as
Tankerman-PIC would place the RECs in an untenable position.
The Coast Guard recognized that the initial impact on the RECs
would have been significant. That is why the plan staggered the date of
compliance to correspond with renewal of MMDs, normally accomplished
every 5 years. This Final Rule renders this issue irrelevant: It lifts
the burden from the RECs and, to some extent, from the mariners while
it shifts it in kind though not in amount for the operators and agents.
Cost
Several comments felt that the cost of hiring a licensed tankerman
for each transfer of fuel oil to a UTV would be staggering.
The Coast Guard disagrees, but the point is moot. No vessel will
have to hire a licensed tankerman for each
[[Page 35825]]
transfer, or to incur fees transfer by transfer. The PIC of each
transfer will be an onboard crewmember who has received in-house
training from the vessel's operator or agent.
Use of Other Trained Personnel on a Vessel
Two comments recommended that the expertise of a driver required to
hold a commercial driver's license at the shoreside fueling-company
suffice for a transfer of fuel oil to a UTV.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The PIC onboard the UTV must have some
minimal training to ensure that he or she is aware of the rules
peculiar to the vessel and of the law that governs the prevention of
pollution.
Another comment stated that the Tankerman-PIC onboard the barge
supplying the fuel oil should be responsible for the entire transfer to
the UTV.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The PIC on the barge is, in all
probability, unfamiliar with the loading characteristics of the
receiving UTV. The PIC onboard the UTV must have some minimal training
to ensure that he or she is aware of the rules for the vessel and of
the laws that govern the prevention of pollution.
Many of the comments recommended that companies, rather than their
PICs aboard UTVs, be responsible for the safe completion of transfers
of fuel oil to the UTVs.
The Coast Guard agrees in part. Each company is responsible for the
proper training of its PICs and is accountable to its underwriters and
the law for unsafe practices. However, the PIC is the logical person to
be responsible for the safe completion of a transfer of fuel oil to the
UTV.
One comment asked whether the Tankerman-PIC on the fueling barge
bears any responsibility for ensuring compliance by the UTV. The PIC on
the barge is responsible for satisfying requirements for the safe
transfer of fuel oil from the barge, though not to the vessel. The PIC
on the UTV is responsible for satisfying them for the safe transfer of
it to the UTV, though not from the barge. Several comments stated that
possession of a license or MMD will not ensure that the transfer of
fuel oil to a UTV is conducted safely. Therefore, they could not
understand the logic behind the insistence by the Coast Guard that the
requirement is ``good marine practice.''
The Coast Guard now agrees. A letter from the operator or agent of
a vessel, stating that the PIC has been instructed both in his or her
duties and in the Federal statutes and regulations on water pollution
that apply to the vessel, will satisfy the training requirements.
One comment stated that the most appropriate option might be to
require the PIC on a UTV to obtain a restricted Tankerman-PIC (Barge)
endorsement.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The PIC on a UTV must have received
training peculiar to his or her UTV to minimize the chances of a
polluting spill. The transfer procedures on a tank barge may be vastly
different from those on any UTV.
Inapplicable Comments
Six comments suggested that in-house training is sufficient for the
safe loading and unloading of chemical barges dockside. The loading or
unloading of chemical cargo is not the subject of this request for
comments. The Coast Guard will answer these comments by letter.
The Coast Guard will also answer by letter another comment, which
asked about the applicability of the Final Rule to vessels loading or
unloading chlorine. Qualifications for persons loading and unloading
chemical cargoes are not the subject of this request for comments.
One comment stateds that the Coast Guard should exempt or
grandfather from the rules those who can show prior experience in
loading and unloading cargo.
The loading and unloading of cargo (other than fuel oil) by
Tankerman-PICs are not proper subjects of this comment period. The
Coast Guard will answer this comment by letter, too.
Although the Coast Guard will allow those who wish to act as PICs
of transfers of fuel oil to so act after obtaining instruction by the
operators or agents of their vessels both in their duties and in the
Federal statutes and regulations on water pollution that apply to the
vessels, it is still concerned that some may not receive the proper
training necessary to minimize the chances of water pollution.
Therefore, after receiving proper instruction from the operator or
agent of a vessel, each trainee will have to receive a letter of
instruction. The letter must come from the party providing the
training. The training need occur only once, unless there is some
unique characteristic about a particular vessel that would necessitate
later, vessel-specific training. No person changing his or her place of
employment need retake the training, unless there is something unique
about the new vessel. The letter of instruction must stay either with
the person, on the vessel, or in the office of the operator or agent of
the vessel. It must be readily available to Coast Guard boarding
officers.
Collection of Information
This reconstitution of a final rule provides for a collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information''
includes reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and
other, similar actions.
The information collections associated with this rule concern the
letter of instruction described in 33 CFR Secs. 155.710(e)(2) and
155.715. The Coast Guard sought authority for the collection from the
OMB, asking emergency processing of the request for authority by July
15, 1998. The title and description of the collection, a description of
the respondents, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The
new request has been submitted and is pending approval. A copy of the
request is available for review in the docket.
The Coast Guard estimates that the letter of instruction will
impose an annual burden of 153 hours' information collection. The
burden comprises all time for both gathering and maintaining the
information.
Title: Letter of Instruction for Persons -In-Charge (PICs) on
Uninspected Vessels.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This Final Rule contains
collection-of-information requirements in 33 CFR 155.710(e)(2) and
155.715.
Need for Information: The U. S. Coast Guard administers and
enforces the laws and regulations promoting the safety of life and
property in marine transportation. It establishes Standards of training
for mariners to ensure their ability to safely and adequately carry out
duties and responsibilities that promote safety on vessels. To ensure
that training standards are complied with, each PIC on an uninspected
vessel must carry a letter of instruction. The letter's contents should
verify the PIC's credentials, stating that the holder has received
sufficient formal instruction from the owner, operator, or agent of the
vessel, as required by 33 CFR 155.710(e)(2).
Proposed Use of Information: Carriage of a letter of instruction
will verify the credentials of the PIC, and expedite verification of
compliance by the Captain of the Port (COTP).
Description of the Respondents: Respondents include the operator,
agent, or PIC involved in a transfer described in 33 CFR 155.700.
Number of Respondents: According to data from the Coast Guard
Marine Safety Management System, there are approximately 1380 vessels
that are
[[Page 35826]]
classified as uninspected vessels and are required to have PICs for
transfers. The total population count [2760] represents the number of
vessels [1380] multiplied by the number of PICs aperper vessel [2].
Frequency of Response: The Coast Guard expects that each PIC will
receive the recognized training once.
Burden of Response: 10 minutes annually per respondent.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: An annual burden of 153 hours'
information collection.
Persons submitting comments on the collection of information should
submit the comments both to OMB and to the Coast Guard where indicated
under ADDRESSES by the date under DATES.
No person need to respond to a request for collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number from
OMB.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 155
Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
amending 33 CFR part 155 as follows:
TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
1. The authority citation for part 155 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3715; Sec. 2, E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46. 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 sections 155.1110 and 155.1150 also issued under
33 U.S.C. 2735.
2. Revise paragraphs (e) introductory text, (e)(1), (2) and (e)(3)
of Sec. 155.710 to read as follows:
Sec. 155.710 Qualifications of person in charge.
* * * * *
(e) The operator or agent of each vessel to which this section
applies shall verify to his or her satisfaction that the PIC of any
transfer of fuel oil requiring a Declaration of Inspection--
(1) On each inspected vessel required by 46 CFR chapter I to have a
licensed person aboard, holds a valid license issued under 46 CFR part
10 authorizing service as a master, mate, pilot, engineer, or operator
aboard that vessel, or holds a valid merchant mariner's document
endorsed as Tankerman-PIC;
(2) On each uninspected vessel, either complies with the
requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section or carries a letter
satisfying the requirements of Sec. 155.715 and designating him or her
as a PIC, unless equivalent evidence is immediately available aboard
the vessel or at his or her place of employment.
(3) On each tank barge, for its own engine-driven pumps, either
complies with paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section or has been
instructed by the operator or agent of the vessel both in his or her
duties and in the Federal statutes and regulations on water pollution
that apply to the vessel; or
* * * * *
3. Add a new Sec. 155.715 to read as follows:
Sec. 155.715 Contents of letter of designation as a person-in-charge
of the transfer of fuel oil.
The letter of instruction required in Sec. 155.710(e)(2) must
designate the holder as a person-in-charge of the transfer of fuel oil
and state that the holder has received sufficient formal instruction
from the operator or agent of the vessel to ensure his or her ability
to safely and adequately carry out the duties and responsibilities of
the PIC described in 33 CFR 156.120 and 156.150.
Dated: June 23, 1998.
J. P. High,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 98-17267 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P
