MARPOL Annex I Amendments
Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)
Rules and Regulations
Pages 5922-5938
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office www.gpo.gov
FR Doc No: 2015-01925
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 151, 155, 156, and 157
Docket No. USCG-2010-0194
RIN 1625-AB57
MARPOL Annex I Amendments
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule the Coast Guard is updating our regulations to harmonize U.S. regulations with international conventions regarding oil pollution. We are amending the regulations covering Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters to align with recent amendments to Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, which were adopted by the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee during its 52nd, 54th, 55th, and 59th sessions. This final rule also amends sections of the Vessel Response Plan regulations to include the Safety of Life at Sea Material Safety Data Sheets as an equivalent hazardous communications standard.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 5, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on May 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-0194 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0194 in the ``Search'' box, and then clicking ``Search.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR William Nabach, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-
1386, email William.A.Nabach@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Background
-
MARPOL 73/78
-
SOLAS 1974
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
-
STS Operations
-
Oil Record Book
-
SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets
-
Other Issues Raised in Comments
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Analyses
-
Regulatory Planning and Review
-
Small Entities
-
Assistance for Small Entities
-
Collection of Information
-
Federalism
-
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
-
Taking of Private Property
-
Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
-
Indian Tribal Governments
-
Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
-
Environment
I. Abbreviations
APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COI Collection of Information
COTP Captain of the Port
FR Federal Register
GHS Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
HCS Hazard Communication Standard
IMO International Maritime Organization
MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating to that Convention
MSC IMO Maritime Safety Committee
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets
MEPC IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum
OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
OSHA Occupation Safety and Health Administration
POAC Person in Overall Advisory Control
PSC Port state control
Sec. Section symbol
SDS Safety Data Sheets
SOLAS 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974
STBL Ship to be Lightered
SS Service Ship
STS Ship-to-Ship transfer
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Regulatory History
On April 9, 2012, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled MARPOL Annex I Amendments in the Federal Register (77 FR 21360). The Coast Guard also published a notice on July 26, 2012 (77 FR 43741) extending the public comment period for an additional 60 days so that the public had time to review the Regulatory Assessment that was added to the docket shortly after the NPRM was published.
We received 12 comment letters with 31 discrete comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.
III. Background
Protection of the marine environment and maritime safety are two of the primary missions of the Coast Guard. Specific Coast Guard regulations are designed to minimize the amount of pollution produced by ships at sea and to protect mariners. Many of the Coast
Page 5923
Guard's pollution control regulations implement the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, relating to that Convention (MARPOL 73/78). Similarly, many mariner safety regulations incorporate provisions from the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as amended (SOLAS 1974), to which the U.S. is also a signatory nation.
-
MARPOL 73/78
MARPOL 73/78 is an international agreement prepared under the direction of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships. It is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from either operational or accidental causes.
MARPOL 73/78 is a combination of two international agreements adopted in 1973 and 1978 and revised by subsequent amendments. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, adopted on November 2, 1973 (1973 Convention), covered pollution by oil, chemicals, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage, and garbage. The Protocol of 1978, which amended the 1973 Convention, was adopted in February 1978, in response to a spate of tanker accidents that occurred in 1976 and 1977. MARPOL 73/78 entered into force on October 2, 1983. Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil (Annex I) contains provisions intended to minimize both operational and accidental oil pollution from vessels.
Annex I is implemented in U.S. law through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (Pub. L. 96-478, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2297), codified at 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Under 33 U.S.C. 1902, 1903, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast Guard has the authority to draft regulations to implement the MARPOL 73/78 and the amendments thereunder, with respect to U.S. vessels and foreign vessels within U.S. navigable waters or exclusive economic zone. The Coast Guard implements MARPOL 73/78 through regulations in 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 156, and 157.
Amendments to MARPOL 73/78 are made through the resolution drafting and adoption process within the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO. The United States takes part in revising and updating MARPOL 73/78 by sending delegates to MEPC. These delegates negotiate with delegates of other signatory nations to support the U.S. position regarding pollution from ships.
Since the last revision of Coast Guard regulations implementing Annex I in 2001, (66 FR 55571), there have been numerous amendments to the international standards. This means that the Coast Guard regulations in the CFR and the provisions of Annex I are not currently aligned. The MEPC revised Annex I in the following resolutions:
MEPC.117(52) (October 15, 2004): This resolution revised all of Annex I and adopted new Annex I Regulations 22 and 23. Regulation 22 requires that every tanker of 5,000 deadweight tons or more, constructed on or after January 1, 2007, meet minimum standards of pump-room bottom protection, while Regulation 23 requires that every tanker delivered on or after January 1, 2010, must meet the standard for accidental oil outflow performance. MEPC.117(52) became effective January 1, 2007.
MEPC.141(54) (March 24, 2006): This resolution adopted Annex I Regulation 12A, which contains requirements for the protected location of oil fuel tanks and performance standards for accidental oil fuel outflow for all ships delivered on or after August 1, 2010. This resolution became effective August 1, 2007.
MEPC.154(55) (October 13, 2006): In this resolution, the MEPC adopted the Southern South African Waters as a special area, which prohibits the discharge of bilge water and oil in the defined area. This resolution entered into force on March 4, 2008.
MEPC.186(59) (July 17, 2009): This resolution adopted a new Chapter 8 (consisting of Regulations 40, 41, and 42) to Annex I to prevent pollution during transfer of oil cargo between oil tankers at sea. In addition, it added a requirement for a Ship-to-Ship transfer (STS) operations plan. This entered into force on January 1, 2011, and applies to STS Operations in which at least one of the involved oil tankers is of 150 gross tons or more.
MEPC.187(59) (July 17, 2009): This resolution amended Annex I Regulations 1, 12, 13, 17, and 38 by altering definitions relating to oil residue, and by adding requirements to Regulation 12 that ships over 400 gross tons contain sludge tanks that meet certain specifications. It also amended International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate Forms A and B to include a section regarding the means for retention and disposal of oil residues, and added new recordkeeping requirements prescribing entries in the Oil Record Book for bunkering of fuel or bulk lubricating oil or any failure of oil filtering equipment. This resolution entered into force on January 1, 2011.
With this final rule, and as required by the APPS, the Coast Guard aligns our regulations in 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 156, and 157 with international standards in Annex I regarding oil pollution from ships. Aligning the U.S. domestic regulations with international standards decreases the risk that U.S. vessels will be subject to Port State Control (PSC) enforcement measures while engaged in international trade.
On August 27, 2007, we published a notice (72 FR 49013), announcing our policy for resolving conflicts between our regulations and the Annex I amendments. The policy remains in effect via 33 U.S.C. 1903 until our regulations are aligned with the amendments to MARPOL 73/78. Our goal in this rulemaking is to align the regulations in the CFR with those in Annex I, and thus promote consistent and homogenous enforcement of Annex I through revisions to 33 CFR parts 151, 155, 156, and 157.
-
SOLAS 1974
In addition to revisions to MARPOL 73/78, we have not yet integrated some revisions to the SOLAS 1974 agreement into 46 CFR part 197. The Coast Guard represents the United States as a signatory nation of SOLAS 1974, which specifies standards for the safe operation of ships at sea. Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, 46 U.S.C. 3703, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast Guard has authority to prescribe necessary rules and regulations to implement the provisions of SOLAS 1974. These sections include authority over the inspection of vessels and the carriage of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes. The Coast Guard implements SOLAS 1974, in part, through regulations in 46 CFR part 197.
Like MARPOL 73/78, SOLAS 1974 is amended by resolution of an IMO Committee, in this case the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). In resolution MSC.150(77), the 77th Session of the MSC urged that beginning in June 2003, governments ensure the supply and carriage of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for Annex I cargoes and marine fuels. The 83rd session of MSC amended SOLAS 1974 by adding Regulation 5-1 to Chapter VI, stating that ``Ships carrying Annex I cargoes, as defined in Appendix I to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, and marine fuel oils shall be provided with a MSDS prior to the loading of such cargoes based on the recommendations developed by IMO.''
Page 5924
The 86th session of the MSC further amended the SOLAS 1974 into clear and concise language to ensure a common understanding and unambiguous implementation of SOLAS Regulation VI/5-1. SOLAS Regulation VI/5-1 entered into force internationally on July 1, 2009.
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
As stated previously, the Coast Guard received 12 comment letters in response to the NPRM, consisting of 31 discrete comments. Those comments provided detailed and informative perspective on the proposed rule and the associated economic analysis, and have been instrumental in developing this final rule. In this section, we discuss the comments by grouping them generally into four categories: (a) The implementation of MARPOL Annex I Regulations 40-42 (STS Operations and Lightering); (b) The changes to the Oil Record Book; (c) The proposal to incorporate a requirement to carry MSDS on board; and (d) A general category for other comments. In each section, we describe the proposal from the NPRM, the comments received, and the changes, if any, made to the final rule in light of those comments.
-
STS Operations
One of the primary proposed actions in the NPRM was to incorporate the new regulations governing the STS of oil stored as cargo. The existing 33 CFR part 156 already contained regulatory requirements for lightering operations, but the scope of what is considered `lightering' under the current regulations in Part 156 and the scope of what is defined as `STS Operations' in MARPOL Annex I are slightly different. For that reason, as discussed extensively in the preamble to the NPRM, we proposed to include two sets of requirements in Part 156, one that would set out the requirements for STS Operations as described by MARPOL, and one that would cover the remaining lightering operations. To that end, we included requirements for both in Part 156.
We received several comment letters discussing the proposal to separate the two requirements. These letters contained a series of discrete comments on numerous aspects of the proposed changes. The Coast Guard appreciates these comments and has incorporated them into the finalized version of the rule where warranted. The specific issues addressed in the comments are laid out below.
-
Conforming Edits to Part 156, Subparts B and C
Several commenters stated that with the separation of what had previously been called lightering operations into two distinct categories, ``lightering'' and ``STS Operations,'' the proposed regulatory changes omitted some necessary conforming edits to subparts B and C. They made several recommendations intended to ensure that certain existing requirements that should apply to STS Operations are not inadvertently omitted. In response to those suggestions, we have reexamined the proposed text of Part 156 and made changes that we believe will accurately encompass the changes described in the NPRM.
The NPRM proposed to reorganize Part 156 slightly to reflect the dichotomy between lightering and STS Operations. The existing regulatory text contains Subpart B, ``Special Requirements for Lightering of Oil and Hazardous Material Cargoes,'' and subpart C, ``Lightering Zones and Operational Requirements for the Gulf of Mexico,'' both of which simply apply the current definition of lightering operations. However, as the comments pointed out, with the addition of STS Operations as a separate operation, certain conforming edits to the terminology and applicability in those sections need to be made to ensure the sections apply to the appropriate operations.
Two commenters stated that the difference between lightering and STS Operations is confusing, and that the two terms had historically meant the same thing. While we sympathize with the confusion, MARPOL Annex I applies only to transfers of oil, and only when one of the vessels at issue is 150 GT or larger. While this definition is similar to lightering, it is not identical. We have endeavored to make the regulatory differences between lightering and STS Operations clear in this rule, and the commenters have proposed some ways in which we can do this, specifically by adjusting the language throughout subparts B and C of part 156 to specifically indicate where the sections apply to lightering and STS Operations. In this final rule, we have made numerous conforming edits in these parts to better indicate which requirements apply to the various types of operations. These edits make clear that the requirements of subpart C apply to STS Operations as well continue to apply to lightering.
Two commenters recommended that Sec. 156.225, ``Designation of Lightering Zones,'' be modified to refer to lightering and STS Operations. This section currently reads, ``when a lightering zone has been designated, lightering operations in a given geographic area may only be conducted within the designated lightering zone.'' However, the specific rules in effect in lightering zones and prohibited areas are not intended to be used in lightering operations only, but apply to STS Operations as well. For that reason, we are adopting the commenters' recommendation to include a reference to STS Operations in the text of Sec. 156.225.
Two commenters also recommended that an applicability section be added to Subpart C. Subpart C lists various geographic areas and accompanying lightering zones, as well as prohibited areas where lightering operations are forbidden due to environmental and safety concerns. In the NPRM, we inadvertently did not include an editorial change to Sec. 156.310, ``Prohibited areas,'' that would have included STS Operations in the list of prohibited operations. Thus, in response to the commenters, we are adding a reference to STS Operations in that section. As stated above, we have also made numerous edits throughout subpart C to make clear that the operational requirements apply to STS Operations as well as lightering operations.
-
Qualifications of the POAC--Sec. 156.410
One comment we received suggested that we alter the wording in paragraph 156.410(f), which relates to the responsibilities of the person in overall advisory control (POAC) of an STS Operation. The proposed text, based on MARPOL Annex I Regulation 41, paragraph 4, states that the POAC shall be qualified to perform all relevant duties, taking into account the qualifications found in the best practice guidelines from the IMO Manual on oil pollution. The commenter suggested that we add language emphasizing that the appointment of the POAC himself is equally important.
While we agree that it is important that a qualified POAC be appointed, the existing proposed regulatory text already requires this type of appointment. We do not agree that there is a reason to deviate from the existing text of the MARPOL Annex I language in this matter.
-
Notification Requirements for STS Operations--Sec. 156.415
Two commenters raised objections to a provision in Sec. 156.415(a) requiring a 48-hour advance notification of STS
Page 5925
Operations. The commenters stated that this is not current practice, and that such a notice period would be impracticable and/or could lead to very high additional costs associated with under-utilization of service ships (SS). One commenter stated that scheduling oil transfer operations requires absolute flexibility, and that as a result of weather conditions, logistical delays, channel closures, terminal delays, or other issues can require changing the identified SS at the last minute. The commenter also stated that it is common practice to nominate and clear at least three vessels for each STS Operation to ensure that a suitable vessel is available when the ship to be lightered (STBL) arrives at the designated STS Operation location. In light of these facts, the commenters recommended that the Coast Guard limit the advance notice required for the SS to 24 hours, while maintaining the 48-hour requirement for the STBL.
The requirement for a 48-hour advance notification derives specifically from the text of Regulation 42, ``Notification,'' of Annex I. Paragraph 1 of that regulation reads:
Each oil tanker subject to this chapter that plans STS operations within the territorial sea, or the exclusive economic zone of a Party to the present Convention shall notify that Party not less than 48 hours in advance of the scheduled STS operations. Where, in an exceptional case, all of the information specified in paragraph 2 is not available not less than 48 hours in advance, the oil tanker discharging the oil cargo shall notify the Party to the present Convention, not less than 48 hours in advance that an STS operation will occur and the information specified in paragraph 2 shall be provided to the Party at the earliest opportunity.
Given the unambiguous requirement of a 48-hour notice period in Annex I, we are maintaining that requirement.
However, we do realize that while Regulation 42 requires the 48-
hour period, it does provide for an exception for instances in which some details of the transfer, including information about the SS, are not available 48 hours in advance of the STS Operation. This exception was not reflected in the proposed regulatory text, but we are including it in the final rule as Sec. 156.415(f). That text will permit an oil tanker to delay transmitting the required information to the Captain of the Port (COTP) until the information is available, as long as the known information about the transfer is provided at least 48 hours in advance of the STS Operation.
This change will address the commenters' concerns regarding the flexibility required to conduct STS Operations without incurring supply chain interruptions, idle time, or compromising on-time performance. Instead, the STBL must transmit only as much information required by Sec. 156.415(a) as is known at least 48 hours before the scheduled STS Operation. The remaining information must be transmitted when the final details have been worked out in accordance with paragraph (f) of this Final Rule. While the text of Regulation 42 indicates that such subsequent notification would be used ``in an exceptional case,'' we expect that in some areas where oil cargo is frequently transferred, the use of this supplemental notification procedure would be used commonly.
One commenter stated that, because each SS needs to be reviewed by the customer for requisite approval under their vetting approval system before conducting an STS Operation, it is common practice to nominate at least three vessels for each STS Operation to ensure that a suitable, approved vessel will be available when the STLB arrives at the designated position for the STS Operation. In such a case, where details of multiple contingent operations need to be tentatively worked out, the Coast Guard would expect that these contingent details be transmitted to the COTP at least 48 hours prior to the STS Operation in accordance with paragraph (a). Once final details have been worked out, they must be transmitted to the COTP in accordance with paragraph (f) of this Final Rule.
The modification of the strict 48-hour advance notice requirement also causes us to re-evaluate the provision, which in the NPRM was proposed Sec. 156.415(g), that required the master, owner, or agent of each oil tanker planning to conduct STS Operations in a designated lightering zone to provide 24 hours advance notice to the nearest COTP, rather than the 48-hour period for other U.S. waters. One commenter pointed out that only a very small percentage of STS Operations conducted in the U.S. is conducted in the designated lightering zones. Furthermore, the commenter noted that the lightering zones were intended to be used primarily by single-hulled vessels, and that most STS Operations are performed by double-hulled tankers that are not required to make use of lightering zones. Based on this information, as well as the reduced notification requirements with the addition of the new Sec. 156.415(f) we have re-evaluated whether the different notification standards for lightering zones and other zones within the U.S. are necessary.
Upon review, we also note that the basis for the 24-hour notification requirement in proposed paragraph (g) appears to be erroneous. In the NPRM, we stated that ``the proposed regulatory text in Sec. 156.415(g) differs from Regulation 42 for oil tankers planning to conduct STS Operations in designated lightering areas, where a 24-hour advance notice of STS Operations to the nearest COTP specified in the existing Sec. 156.215 would be used instead of the 48-hour notice specified in Regulation 42'' (77 FR at 21364). However, on a second look, Sec. 156.215, which governs pre-arrival notices for lightering operations, is not exclusive to lightering zones, but applies to arrival at a lightering location or zone. Nor do we see any reason to apply that lightering requirement to STS Operations in lieu of the 48-hour requirement in Annex I.
While several commenters supported the proposal to allow a 24-hour notification requirement, in lieu of a 48-hour one, in lightering zones, they requested that the 24-hour requirement be extended to all STS Operations in the U.S. While we agree with the commenter that there should be no difference in the notice requirements based on whether the STS Operation takes place in a lightering zone, we are obligated to implement the 48-hour requirement from Annex I. However, because we are adding the ability to provide information relating to the SS in a supplemental notification, in accordance with the new Sec. 156.415(f), we believe that this will provide even more flexibility than the proposed 24-hour notice requirement. For these reasons, we are not incorporating the proposed Sec. 156.415(g) into the final rule.
-
Reporting of Oil Discharges--Sec. 156.420
Two commenters discussed the Coast Guard's proposal, in Sec. 156.420(b), that would require the receiving vessel to report an incident of a discharge of oil during STS Operations. The commenters suggested that the Coast Guard instead require the responsible party, that is, the party that caused the discharge, to notify the Coast Guard of the event. One commenter also made an alternative suggestion, which is that either party sighting oil discharge in the water should report the sighting to the Coast Guard, although such a report would not constitute an assumption of responsibility for the incident.
In proposing the language for Sec. 156.420, the Coast Guard had used the language from Sec. 156.220 as a model. Section 156.220 requires that the ``service vessel,'' that is, the SS in a lightering operation, report the
Page 5926
discharge of oil or hazardous material. To maintain consistency, we proposed to require that the SS in an STS Operation be subject to the same requirement.
The objections to this proposal were based upon the concept that reporting the discharge would imply that the reporting party is responsible for the discharge, and therefore, a requirement to report the discharge is tantamount to an admission of responsibility for the incident. We note that because the responsibility for reporting was proposed to be placed on the SS at all times, it was not meant to assume that the receiving vessel would be responsible for all discharges. The purpose of the notification requirements in subparts B and D of part 156 is not to assign responsibility, but rather to ensure immediate notification to the Coast Guard of any discharges to allow us to provide a timely response. Nonetheless, we are modifying the language of this section to remove any indication that the notification implies responsibility for a discharge incident.
We believe that the alternative recommendation proposed by one commenter offers the best regulatory structure. This recommendation was that the Person in Overall Advisory Control (POAC) of the STS Operation should be required to make the report. Such a report would not constitute an admission of responsibility for the spill by either party involved. This requirement would ensure that a timely report is made and allow the Coast Guard to mount a rapid response to the incident if necessary.
Two alternative suggestions from commenters were not adopted for various reasons. One suggestion was that the responsible party would be required to report the discharge. This was rejected because delays in assigning responsibility could delay the reporting of the incident. Another suggestion was that both parties should be required to report the incident. This was rejected because the extra report is superfluous and the requirement could result in unnecessary burden from reporting. We believe that having the POAC report the incident, without assigning responsibility, is the best approach.
-
Editorial Changes to Subpart D of Part 156
In addition to the substantive changes, we are making some editorial changes to Subpart D of part 156. One commenter noted that proposed Sec. 156.415(a)(3) and (a)(6) are duplicative. We agree and are removing paragraph (a)(6). Additionally, we noticed that there was no paragraph (b) in Sec. 156.415, which we have corrected. That section has been renumbered accordingly.
-
Incorporation by Reference
Two commenters suggested that industry standards incorporated by reference should be incorporated without specific reference to the date and edition. They noted that some of the standards are updated regularly, and thus would become out of date if they were updated after publication of this final rule.
We are not accepting the commenters' proposals. The Administrative Procedure Act requires that the Coast Guard provide notice and solicit comments before substantively altering its regulation, a requirement that applies to the adoption of standards incorporated by reference (See 5 U.S.C. 553). While we will endeavor to promptly update the regulations if we determine that the incorporation of new standards will be beneficial, such actions will be undertaken in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.
-
-
Oil Record Book
After publication of the NPRM, we included a proposed version of the Oil Record Book in the docket (USCG-2010-0194-0015) that would incorporate some of the changes to the Code of Federal Regulations proposed in this rule. One commenter provided a series of suggested changes to the proposed Oil Record Book. Additionally, since the publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard has considered how to integrate additional IMO guidance and policy considerations. Since these deliberations are still ongoing, we are not publishing an updated version of the Oil Record Book in conjunction with this rulemaking. The Coast Guard will consider comments received on the subject when deliberating future updates.
-
SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets
Several commenters raised a variety of issues relating to the Coast Guard's proposal to require vessels subject to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS) carry SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), as defined under MSC.286(86). MSDSs and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are a widely used system for cataloging information on chemicals, chemical compounds, and chemical mixtures. The data sheets include a variety of information about the physical characteristics of the substance, such as toxicity, flammability, and explosiveness. These documents may also include instructions for the safe use of and potential hazards associated with a particular material or product, such as specific firefighting measures to be used with the substance. Most data sheets are formatted as charts divided into sixteen sections that seek to provide the reader with quick access to information regarding the hazardous substance they might encounter. These data sheets are required by U.S. regulations and international conventions anywhere chemicals are being used or transported.
SOLAS was published in 1974 and entered into force with the United States as a party in 1980. This Convention sought to address a broad array of safety issues ranging from lifeboat requirements to safety of navigation schemes to be implemented by nations as port state control measures. Under SOLAS, amendments to the technical appendices are considered to be tacitly accepted by the parties to the convention if the amendment is adopted without sufficient objections from nations party to the convention, and the SOLAS MSDS recommendations are contained in one such appendix. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, serves to oversee and amend SOLAS as part of the IMO's mission to enhance the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships.
The Maritime Safety Committee, which is a sub-committee of the IMO, developed SOLAS MSDS provisions as an amendment to SOLAS. In 2009, the MSC adopted the amendments to chapter VI ``Carriage of Cargoes'' of SOLAS 1974 (MSC.239(83)). Those amendments included Regulation 5-1 requiring that vessels carrying oil or oil fuel, as defined in regulation 1 of MARPOL 73/78 be provided with a SOLAS MSDS. In June of 2009, the MSC adopted resolution MSC.286(86), which contains an appendix providing a model MSDS with requirements for each section entitled ``Recommendations for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for MARPOL Annex I Oil Cargo and Oil Fuel.'' These amendments became effective on January 1, 2011.
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed implementing the SOLAS MSDS requirements for Annex I cargoes and fuels for U.S. vessels and all vessels operating in the navigable waters of the U.S. to which the SOLAS requirements apply. We stated that by aligning the U.S. regulations with international standards, compliant U.S. vessels would encounter fewer difficulties when engaged in international trade. We also
Page 5927
proposed, in Appendices A and B of 46 CFR 197, Subpart D, a non-
mandatory example of an MSDS for marine use, taken from MSC.286(86). Because we proposed to apply a SOLAS requirement only to vessels to which SOLAS already applied, we did not believe that vessels would incur any additional costs as a result of these changes. This lack of anticipated costs was why this proposal was given brief treatment in the preliminary regulatory analysis.
Multiple commenters disputed this analysis, and suggested that we had erred in assuming that all vessels indicated would already comply with the proposed requirements. The commenters stated that the proposed requirements, including the items in the non-mandatory Appendices, differed from the standard SDSs used by many industries in the U.S. and around the world, and that compliance with the proposed Coast Guard regulations would be costly and redundant.
The commenters argued that the SOLAS MSDSs that were proposed in the NPRM are similar, but not identical to, widely-used SDSs promulgated by the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), as well as the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) regulations recently promulgated by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) of the Department of Labor under 29 CFR 1910.1200, and that a requirement to use SOLAS MSDSs would create an expensive, redundant requirement that offered little or no marginal safety benefit.\1\ In general, petroleum industry companies prepare SDSs to meet the legal requirements of the countries in which they market and distribute materials. According to the commenters, the legal requirements of such countries are moving toward an internationally harmonized system--the GHS, because uniform content is designed to improve effective hazard communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OSHA published a final rule on hazard communications in the Federal Register (77 FR 17574, March 6, 2012), which modified its Hazard Communication Standard to align with the GHS. It did so to enhance the effectiveness of the HCS which ensures that employees are apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, and to reduce the incidence of chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries. In addition to OSHA, several other agencies were active during the development of a harmonized SDS format for the GHS, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Department of Transportation. While the Coast Guard was not active in the GHS development process, we believe that the harmonized format still contains a highly effective means to reduce the incidence of chemical-related injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also raised concerns about the proposed requirement to post MSDSs in the working language of the crew, as translation of complex and highly technical MSDSs into various languages could have significant costs. Finally, one commenter suggested that the Coast Guard had not adequately justified the proposed requirement for MSDSs.
Based on these comments, we have reconsidered the proposed requirement to label harmful chemicals in this rulemaking. Considering the widespread use of the OSHA HCS and the GHS-standard SDSs, and the extensive guidance available regarding those formats, we have decided not to finalize the proposed requirement for an MSDS from MSC.286(86).
However, we note that regulations requiring information on the ``name, description, physical and chemical characteristics, health and safety hazards, and spill and firefighting procedures for the oil cargo aboard the vessel'' are part of the existing Vessel Response Plan requirements in 33 CFR 155.1035(j)(10), 33 CFR 155.1040(k)(10), 33 CFR 155.1045(j)(6), and 33 CFR 155.5035(j)(10). Currently, we consider SDSs compliant with 29 CFR 1910.1200 (OSHA-compliant) to meet these requirements. In this final rule, we are adding language to sections 155.1035, 155.1040, 155.1045, and 155.5035 that shows we consider the SOLAS MSDS to meet the requirements found in the response plan regulations. Therefore, we are amending those documents mentioned as appropriate in meeting those regulations to include the SOLAS MSDS as defined by MSC.286(86). We note that this does not constitute a requirement to use SOLAS MSDSs, but does explicitly permit their use in providing the required information per the VRP regulations.
We believe that providing this option will give maximum flexibility to industry while making the hazard information available to maritime personnel. Furthermore, we consider the use of the SOLAS 74 MSC. 286(86) format, which contains low reporting threshold quantities of benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur, to provide maritime personnel with clear, concise and accurate information on the health and environmental effects of toxic substances carried on board.
Furthermore, we are removing the proposed requirement that the MSDS must be provided in English, as well as the working language of the crew. We believe that introducing a regulatory requirement that differs, even slightly, from the widely-used Safety Data Sheets could present unneeded difficulties with little safety benefits. While we still believe that we should incorporate a requirement for safety data sheets into our regulations, we will consult with OSHA and other agencies to integrate a standard for maritime SDSs in any future rulemakings.
We also received one comment that argued that the NPRM was procedurally flawed with regard to the proposed MSDS requirement, an argument that we believe is based on several misperceptions of the proposal. Specifically, the commenter argued that the proposal to require an MSDS was vague, unconstitutional, and would create uncertainties and liability if finalized. We disagree with the commenter's characterization of the proposal.
The vagueness argument was based on the idea that the information contained in MSC.286(86) did not provide guidance on what should be inserted into an MSDS for a topic on which no information is available. Thus, an operator might leave the space blank, insert a statement that no information is available, or perform certain research or chemical analysis. This uncertainty, according to the commenter, rendered the proposed section unconstitutionally vague, as it failed to give sufficient guidance to those subject to it and those who would enforce it. In response, we would note that while questions about the interpretation or enforcement of a proposal are appropriate to ask, the mere fact that questions exist does not constitute unconstitutional vagueness.
The commenter also argued that the proposed section is an ex post facto rule due to the July 1, 2011 date given with regard to carriage of MSDSs. We believe that the commenter has misinterpreted the proposal, and note that the proposal would not become effective until after publication of a final rule. We believe that the confusion may stem from the language in proposed Sec. 197.820(a), which read ``Each vessel subject to SOLAS 1974 must carry a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each Annex I cargo and ship fuel carried in bulk after January 1, 2011.'' While the date listed would have a delaying effect if the final rule had been made effective before January 1, 2011, it would not create a retroactive requirement.
Finally, the commenter also stated that the NPRM would unfairly expose shipping and transport interests to a significant risk of tort liability, as regulatory standards can be viewed as setting a minimum level of care, and that these uncertainties would be further exacerbated if the Coast Guard were to adopt the SDS requirements in proposed Sec. 197.820. It is unclear
Page 5928
specifically to what risk the commenter was referring. Regardless, we are aware of no basis to conclude that displaying a safety data sheet, whether or not it is required by regulation, negates the responsibility to exercise reasonable care.
-
Other Issues Raised in Comments
We received several additional comments to the NPRM that are discussed in this section. One commenter supported the proposed rule, stating that the harmonization of U.S. regulations and international conventions will hopefully prevent accidents such as oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. Another commenter supported the proposed rule, noting that increased fuel tank protection can help prevent oil spills. An additional commenter expressed support that the Oil Record Book requirements, fuel tank protection standards, STS Operations guidelines, pump room protections, and oil outflow performance requirements would all help to reduce pollution at sea. We appreciate these supportive comments and believe that the requirements implemented by this final rule will help to prevent oil pollution at sea.
In the NPRM, we included a discussion regarding the possibility of requiring non-oceangoing ships of 400 gross tons or larger to install oily bilge water holding tanks. We asked a series of questions regarding their use on vessels, costs, and alternatives to holding tanks. While we did not receive specific economic data, one commenter did include a discussion regarding the necessity of oily bilge water retention tanks and oily water separators and the effect on the maritime environment. The comment noted that in cases where bilge water is treated with an oily water separator, it can still contain other substances that are environmentally harmful if discharged overboard. These substances include volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organics, salts, and contaminants such as soaps, detergents, and degreasers that can bypass the oily water separator system. The commenter recommended that an emulsion breaking bilge water cleaning system can alleviate these problems, but would also require the use of a storage tank.
Given the lack of economic data regarding the bilge water holding systems, as well as the additional information regarding oily water separators, we are not including in this final rule a provision to require non-oceangoing ships to have oily bilge water holding tanks. However, we do intend to continue this research and may propose a more detailed program for handling bilge discharge depending on the information collected in the future.
V. Incorporation by Reference
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in Sec. Sec. 155.140, 156.111, and 157.02 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in that section.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
-
Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, 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 it under that Order. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of this final rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. This regulatory assessment (``Regulatory Analysis'') is available in the docket where indicated in section A of this preamble. A summary of the Regulatory Analysis follows:
The proposed rule contains provisions to codify the 2004, 2006 and 2009 Amendments to Annex I in the Code of Federal Regulations. These provisions are designed to harmonize U.S. regulations with international standards.
In the NPRM (77 FR 21360, April 9, 2012), detailed descriptions of the proposed CFR changes are described in Section V. Discussion of Comments and Changes of this preamble. A summary of the regulatory analysis is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Summary of the Regulatory Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary (harmonization)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Affected Population *....... ~4,029 current and future U.S. flag
ships with 1,768 U.S. current
owners or operators.
Costs (7% discount rate).......... $2.9 mil (annualized), $20.3 mil (10-
year).
Unquantified Benefits............. Compliance with internationally
enforced standards where non-
compliance could result in Port
State Control interventions and
detentions or delays.
General reduction of the risk of oil
discharges in the marine
environment.
33 CFR 151.25 improves the
availability of information on
certain processes and equipment.
33 CFR 151.360-370 prevents the
direct discharge of oily sludge
residue and indirect discharge
through oily bilge water.
33 CFR 151.400-420 helps to ensure
STS Operations are conducted safely
and that an apparatus is in place
to mitigate environmental damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total affected population shown in this table refers to the sum of
the affected population for each individual requirement. An individual
ship may be subject to multiple requirements. If there is no overlap
of requirements, the affected population would be a maximum of 4,029
new and existing ships. If there is overlap of requirements, the total
affected population could be less.
Page 5929
-
The Affected Population
The individual provisions of the proposed rule affect different populations of U.S. flag ships. A summary of the affected population is shown in Table 2.
Table 2--Affected Populations U.S. Flag Ships
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New ships
Current delivered
Provision Population affected affected during the 10- Total number
population year period of of ships
analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Oil Record Book entry All inspected ships 1,672 273 1,945
requirements. bunkering fuel or
lubricating oil.
Valve separating the sludge tank Oceangoing Ships 400 1,044 225 1,269
drains from the bilge system. gross tons and over.
Preparation of STS Operations Plans Tankers and Tank ships.. 512 303 815
and STS Reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCG MISLE database.
-
Costs
While some of the provisions in this final rule reflect existing industry standards that have been implemented in advance of internationally agreed upon dates, the remaining provisions will generate costs for owners and operators of affected ships.
The recurring costs represent additional operating expenses for required Oil Record Book entries and recordkeeping; for the continuing costs of plan revisions, training, and notifications associated with Ship-to-Ship (STS) oil-transfer operations plans (STS Operations Plans).
The non-recurring costs are of two types: The cost of required equipment and its installation, including various valves and drain modifications; and the cost of the initial preparation and training required to implement STS Operations Plans.
The primary cost estimate of the proposed rule is displayed in Table 3 and results in a total cost of $24.2 million (undiscounted) for the ten year period of analysis. This cost estimate was prepared assuming no ships currently comply with any of the provisions of the proposed rule. In present value terms, the total cost estimate is $19.8 million using a 3-percent discount rate and $20.3 million using a 7-
percent discount rate. Annualized costs are $2.3 million per year at 3 percent and $2.9 million per year at 7 percent.
Table 3--Costs Summary by Year ($ Millions) to U.S. Flag Ships
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted
Undiscounted -----------------------------------
7 percent 3 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.................................................... $10.1 $9.6 $9.8
Year 2.................................................... 1.3 1.2 1.2
Year 3.................................................... 1.4 1.2 1.2
Year 4.................................................... 1.5 1.2 1.1
Year 5.................................................... 1.5 1.2 1.1
Year 6.................................................... 1.6 1.2 1.1
Year 7.................................................... 1.6 1.2 1.1
Year 8.................................................... 1.7 1.2 1.1
Year 9.................................................... 1.7 1.2 1.1
Year 10................................................... 1.8 1.2 1.0
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 24.2 20.3 19.8
Annualized................................................ ................ 2.9 2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please refer to Appendices B through E in the Regulatory Analysis for the annual costs. Costs are broken out by section and by population.
Table 4 displays the unit costs per vessel and outlines the per vessel costs for the provisions.
Table 4--Unit Costs (undiscounted) for U.S. Flag Ships
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description Per ship costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR 151.25.................. Oil Recordkeeping books $443
33 CFR 155.360................. Oceangoing Ships 400 GT 5,400
to 10,000 Gross Tons--
Valves.
33 CFR 155.370................. Oceangoing Ships above 7,549
10,000 Gross Tons--
Valves.
33 CFR 155.400-420............. STS Operations Plans... 5,409
STS Training........... 2,148
STS Notifications...... 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5930
-
Benefits
The benefits of the proposed rule include harmonization and compliance with internationally enforced standards and the reduction of risks of oil pollution, as well as improved mariner safety.
Functional benefits of each provision of the proposed rule are shown in Table 5.
Table 5--Functional Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial impact on oil spill
Provision risk reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR 151.25--This provision would This provision will reduce the
establish new recordkeeping risk of oil spills by
requirements for the Oil Record Book: improving the availability of
A requirement to make an entry for the information on certain
bunkering of fuel or bulk lubricating processes and equipment. For
oil; a requirement to make an entry example, the additional entry
for any failure of oil filtering for the bunkering of fuel or
equipment; and a requirement to make bulk lubricating oil would
an entry for any failure of the oil help to track the use and
discharge monitoring and control disposal of oil and oil
system. residues. The other two
additional entries would
capture equipment failures for
all ships with an Oil Record
Book.
33 CFR 155.360-370 This provision This provision will reduce the
requires that these ships have a risk of oil spills by ensuring
separate designated pump for the oil segregation of oily sludge
residue tank (sludge tank) and that residue from the bilge system.
this sludge disposal system (pump and These measures prevent the
tank) must be segregated from the direct discharge of oily
bilge system except for manually sludge residue and the
operated drains with visual monitoring indirect discharge through
of settled water that lead to an oily oily bilge water.
bilge water tank or a bilge well. Any
nonconformity would require a ship in
this group to purchase and install
appropriate equipment.
33 CFR 156.400-420 This provision This provision will reduce the
requires that oil tankers transferring risk of oil spills by
oil cargoes between ships at sea (Ship- requiring that oil tankers
to-Ship (STS) transfers of oil) have engaging in STS Operations
an STS Operations Plan meeting provide the relevant MARPOL 73/
specific IMO standards. 78 party with 48 hours' notice
of STS Operations. This
includes information regarding
the location, time, and
duration of the STS
Operations, oil type and
quantity, identification of
the STS Operations service
provider, and confirmation
that there is a compliant STS
Operations Plan. Providing
this information helps to
ensure that STS Operations are
conducted safely and that an
apparatus is in place to
mitigate environmental damage
should a spill occur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the proposed rule is to harmonize Coast Guard regulations with new provisions of MARPOL 73/78 to which the United States is a signatory. Compliance with these Conventions is, in itself, a benefit to all ships on international routes because the failure to comply with these international standards for pollution prevention and safety would subject the non-compliant ship to PSCs. Coast Guard incorporation of these provisions is also a requirement of U.S. law, APPS 33 U.S.C. 1901-1915 (2002), which implements and codifies the MARPOL agreements into U.S. law. Thus, this rulemaking seeks to reduce regulatory uncertainty.
Port State Controls may include detention of a ship in a foreign port until the identified deficiencies are rectified. Delays of this type can be costly to the owner/operator of a ship. For example, the Paris Memorandum on Port State Control Annual Report (Paris Memorandum) for 2009 indicated that 27 oil tankers were detained worldwide under PSCs; 17 of these tankers (63 percent) were detained for violations of Annex I. With charter rates for oil tankers averaging $31,700 per day, even short delays under PSCs can result in substantial costs. None of these deficient ships were U.S. flag vessels because of the adherence to international standards enforced by the Coast Guard. With this proposed rule the Coast Guard intends to ensure that no ambiguities exist between MARPOL 73/78 and the regulatory requirements of the CFR.
The Paris Memorandum for 2009, the latest year for which there are data, also indicated that 3,764 ships that were inspected worldwide under PSCs had deficiencies regarding Annex I requirements. Additionally, 15,800 ships were found deficient regarding safety and firefighting standards (SOLAS requirements). As with oil tankers (noted above) none of these deficient ships were U.S. flag vessels because of the adherence to international standards enforced by the Coast Guard.
We examined the risk reduction using a break even analysis of the oil spill amount that would need to be prevented in order for the benefits to equal the total regulatory cost of this rule. From historical data,\2\ we determined there was an average of 5,583 barrels of oil spilled annually from U.S. flagged SOLAS ships over the 2001-
2010 period. To calculate the annual monetary value of remediating damages from oil spills, we used a cost of $10,700 per barrel of oil based on an analysis of expenditures from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Consequently, the costs of oil spill damages averaged $59.7 million per year (undiscounted) over the 2001-2010 period. Please refer to the Regulatory Analysis for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Coast Guard MISLE data, 2001 to 2010, oil spilled from U.S. flagged, SOLAS vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 7 percent annualized cost of this rule is $2.89 million. With average annual costs of oil spill damages of $59.7 million (undiscounted), the provisions would have to reduce the volume of oil spills by 4.85 percent ($2.89 million/$59.7 million) in order to achieve a breakeven.
-
-
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this 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 owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discussing the impact of this proposed rule on small entities is available in the docket by following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. There are an estimated 1,768 U.S. entities that would be affected by this proposed rule and these entities operate a maximum of 3,228 existing ships. We chose a random sample of 296 entities and evaluated these against the applicable standard for determining whether the entity was
Page 5931
small (i.e., SBA size standards for businesses and RFA standards for governments and not-for-profits). Table 6 provides the size determinations of the sample population.
Table 6--Number of Entities Impacted by the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entities below the threshold............................ 113
Entities above the threshold............................ 78
Government below the threshold.......................... 1
Government above the threshold.......................... 4
N/A..................................................... 100
---------------
Total............................................... 296
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We analyzed revenue impacts for the implementation year as that is the highest impact on small entities. First year costs include costs for additional required Oil Record Book entries, equipment purchase and installation costs, costs associated with the STS Operations Plan preparation and crew training, and the additional notification to the Coast Guard that an STS Operation will occur.
This proposed rule has many provisions that would affect different types of vessels and therefore, businesses' revenue impacts would vary according to the number and type of vessel owned. Table 7 provides the list of per vessel cost by provision.
Table 7--Potential Vessel Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description Per ship costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 CFR 151.25.................. Oil Recordkeeping Books $443
33 CFR 155.360................. Oceangoing Ships 400 GT 5,400
to 10,000 Gross Tons--
Valves.
33 CFR 155.370................. Oceangoing Ships above 7,549
10,000 Gross Tons--
Valves.
33 CFR 155.400-420............. STS Plans.............. 5,409
STS Training........... 2,148
STS Notifications...... 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To measure the impact on small entities we distinguished which provision each entities subscribed to and then attributed the per company costs based on those provisions. In other words, the per ship cost ranged from $443 (recordkeeping costs only) to $8,016 (recordkeeping and STS Operation costs) depending on which provision(s) the entity fell under. Table 8 provides the percent impacts on revenue that the provision(s) will have on entities.
Table 8--Estimated Percent of the Revenue Impact of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Impact range entities Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
