Designation of Lightering Zones

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is designating four lightering zones in the

Gulf of Mexico, each more than 60 miles from the baseline from which

the territorial sea of the United States is measured. By using these

lightering zones, single hull tank vessels contracted for after June

30, 1990, and older single hull tank vessels phased out by the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990, will be permitted to offload oil in the U.S.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) until January 1, 2015 for transshipment

to U.S. ports. This rule establishes the first lightering zones

designated by the Coast Guard. It also establishes three areas in the

Gulf of Mexico where all lightering will be prohibited.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on August 29, 1995. The Director

of the Federal Register approves as of August 29, 1995, the

incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in

Sec. 156.111.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this

preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the

Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast

Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., room 3406, Washington, DC

20593-0001, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Stephen Kantz, Project Manager,

Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) Staff, (G-MS-A), (202) 267-6740. This

telephone is equipped to record messages on a 24-hour basis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in drafting this document are LCDR

Stephen Kantz, Project Manager, Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) Staff, and

C. G. Green, Project Counsel, Regulations and Administrative Law

Division (G-LRA).

Regulatory History

In November 1993, the Coast Guard received several requests to

establish lightering zones in the Gulf of Mexico. On December 2, 1993,

the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register a notice of these

petitions for rulemaking and request for comment (58 FR 63544).

The requests received by the Coast Guard for the designation of

lightering zones varied in their specifics. One requested that all U.S.

waters of the Gulf of Mexico more than 60 miles beyond the baseline

from which the territorial sea is measured be designated as a

lightering zone. Another sought a large lightering zone off the coast

of Texas and a smaller one off the coast of Louisiana. The third

request was for a lightering zone off the coast of Mississippi.

On December 16, 1993, the Coast Guard published in the Federal

Register a notice of public meeting to solicit opinions on whether

lightering zones should be established and, if so, where they should be

located and what operating conditions should be mandated (58 FR 65683).

A public meeting was held in Houston, Texas, on January 18, 1994.

Ninety-six people attended this meeting, representing industry,

environmental advocates, and government agencies.

On January 5, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Designation of Lightering Zones'' in the

Federal Register (60 FR 1958). The Coast Guard received 23 letters

commenting on the proposal.

On January 13, 1995, the Coast Guard published in the Federal

Register a notice of public meeting to solicit additional opinions on

the NPRM (60 FR 3185). A public meeting was held in Metairie,

Louisiana, on February 16, 1995. Fifty-five people attended this

meeting, representing tankship owners and operators, service and

support industries, and government agencies. Ten attendees made oral

presentations, and most of these individuals subsequently provided

written copies of their presentations for the docket. No additional

public meeting was requested and none was held.

Background and Purpose

Section 3703a of Title 46 of the United States Code establishes the

requirements for tank vessels eventually to be equipped with double

hulls, and includes a phaseout schedule for single hull tank vessels.

This section also provides exemptions from the double hull requirement.

Until January 1, 2015, a tank vessel need not comply with the double

hull requirement when it is offloading oil at a deepwater port licensed

under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1501, et

seq.) or within a lightering zone established under 46 U.S.C.

3715(b)(5), which is more than 60 miles from the baseline from which

the U.S. territorial sea is measured (46 U.S.C. 3703a(b)(3)).

Currently, only the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) has been

authorized under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974. No lightering zones

have previously been established under 46 U.S.C. 3715(b)(5).

By using designated lightering zones more than 60 miles from the

baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, single hull tank

vessels contracted for after June 30, 1990, and older single hull tank

vessels phased out by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L.

101-380), will be able to lighter until January 1, 2015. For

clarification, throughout the preamble discussion for this final rule,

the term ``double hull'' means a tank vessel meeting the requirements

of 33 CFR 157.10d, or an equivalent to the requirements of 33 CFR

157.10d. The term ``single hull'' tank vessel means any tank vessel

which does not conform to, or is not considered equivalent to, the

requirements of 33 CFR 157.10d.

Before proposing the zones designated by this rule, in accordance

with 33 CFR part 156, the Coast Guard considered the various factors in

designating lightering zones: Traditional use of the area for

lightering; weather and sea conditions; water depth; proximity to

shipping lanes, vessel traffic schemes, anchorages, fixed structures,

designated marine sanctuaries, fishing areas, and designated units of

the National Park System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System,

National Wilderness Preservation System, properties included on the

National Register of Historic Places and National Registry of Natural

Landmarks, and National Wildlife Refuge System; and other relevant

safety, environmental, and economic data (33 CFR 156.230). Current

regulations at 33 CFR 156.225 provide the District Commander the

authority to designate lightering zones. Due to the extensive

environmental and economic analysis required, and because this

rulemaking was determined to be a significant regulatory action under

Department of Transportation (DOT) policy, this rulemaking was prepared

by the Commandant of the Coast Guard. However, this rulemaking by the

Commandant will not affect the District Commander's authority under 33

CFR 156.225 to administer and modify these zones as appropriate or to

designate subsequent lightering zones.

[[Page 45007]]

Related Rulemakings

On September 15, 1993, the Coast Guard published a final rule (CGD

90-052) revising 33 CFR part 156, subpart B, to clarify that

regulations issued under section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) apply to offshore

lightering operations when conducted in the U.S. marine environment (58

FR 48436). Under that rulemaking, a Declaration of Inspection (as

required by 33 CFR 156.150) and a vessel response plan (if required

under part 155) serve as acceptable evidence of compliance with section

311(j) of the FWPCA. The vessel to be lightered and the service vessel,

as defined in 33 CFR 156.205, must both have such evidence of

compliance on board at the time of a transfer. The rule also amended 33

CFR 156.215, pre-arrival notice requirements, to include the number of

transfers expected and the amount of cargo expected to be transferred

during each lightering operation.

On July 1, 1994, the Coast Guard published an interim final rule

(CGD 91-005) implementing provisions concerning financial

responsibility for vessels under OPA 90 and the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as

amended. These provisions included expanding the applicability of the

financial responsibility requirements of 33 CFR part 130 to ``vessels

of any size using the waters of the exclusive economic zone to

transship or lighter oil'', specifically meaning both the delivering

and receiving vessels. Consequently, when lightering in the EEZ, both

vessels are required to possess valid Certificates of Financial

Responsibility (COFR) demonstrating evidence of insurance, or other

evidence of financial responsibility, sufficient to meet the vessels'

potential liability under OPA 90 and CERCLA for discharges or

threatened discharges of oil. This requirement went into effect July 1,

1994.

Effective Date

This rule is being made effective on August 29, 1995. Under 5

U.S.C. 553(d) a rule may be made effective less than 30 days after its

publication if it grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a

restriction. At the present time, single hull tank vessels contracted

for after June 30, 1990, and single hull tank vessels phased out by OPA

90 cannot offload oil destined for the U.S. in the U.S. Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ) except at a deepwater port or in a designated

lightering zone. The first single hull vessel phase out date went into

effect January 1, 1995. There is only one deepwater port (LOOP) and

this deepwater port does not provide oil to many of the refineries

along the Gulf Coast. This rule establishes the first designated

lightering zones for the United States. By using these lightering

zones, single hull tank vessels currently precluded from operating in

the EEZ may lighter their oil cargo closer to the U.S. ports for which

it is destined. For these reasons, the Coast Guard finds that this rule

should be made effective in less than 30 days after publication.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard has reviewed all of the comments received in

response to the NPRM and, in some instances, revised the final rule

language based on these comments. The comments have been grouped by

major issue or specific regulatory section and are discussed below.

General

Of the comments received in response to the NPRM, most generally

supported the designation of lightering zones in the Gulf of Mexico and

noted that the need for lightering was increasing.

An individual representing the American Institute of Merchant

Shipping (AIMS), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the

Industry Task Force on Offshore Lightering (ITOL) spoke at the public

meeting in New Orleans and also provided a letter to the docket, giving

a number of detailed reasons why these organizations all support this

rulemaking. Together these organizations represent over 300 companies

engaged in all aspects of the petroleum and marine transportation

industry. Since the comments, both at the public meeting and in a

letter to the docket, present the views of the majority of commercial

interests impacted by this rulemaking, they are identified as the

``industry comments'' throughout the remaining preamble discussion, and

the individual who spoke at the hearing is identified as the ``industry

representative''.

At the public meeting the industry representative stated that

lightering has long been established as a safe and effective means of

transferring imported crude oil from tankers too large for shallow

water ports to small tankers that serve refineries ashore. He further

stated that 25 percent of U.S. crude oil imports are delivered this way

in the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of approximately 2 million barrels per

day. He asserted that the establishment of these zones is absolutely

critical to meet the supply requirements of U.S. refineries and noted

that lightering operations historically have been conducted in a safe

and environmentally sound manner. He cited the Coast Guard 1993

Deepwater Ports Study which stated that between 1986 and 1990 only 15

lightering casualties were reported for a total spillage of 45 barrels

and that the relative risk factor of lightering operations in zones 40

to 60 miles offshore was zero. The industry representative added that

factors which would benefit spill response and mitigation should be

considered in establishing lightering zones.

Two comments from organizations involved in the shipbuilding

industry generally opposed the proposed regulations. Both comments

stated that the designation of lightering zones would be a disincentive

to purchase new double hull tankers. They also stated that the

continued use of single hull tankers would increase the potential risks

of collisions and oil spills which OPA 90 was intended to prevent, and

that the proposed regulations would circumvent the transition to double

hull tankers.

The Coast Guard has determined that establishing lightering zones

will not encourage further single hull tanker construction. Such

construction is effectively barred by the International Maritime

Organization's (IMO) adoption of Regulation 13F of Annex I to the

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,

1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78) which requires

double hull or mid-deck construction of all new tankers for which

contracts are placed on or after July 6, 1993, or which are to be

completed after July 6, 1996. (It should be noted that mid-deck

construction is not an acceptable alternative to a double hull under 46

U.S.C. 3703a). Additionally, the IMO has adopted Regulation 13G in

Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. Regulation 13G subjects tank vessels to

increasingly rigorous hull surveys at 5-year intervals and is

practically certain to bring about the timely retirement of most aging

single hull tankers. This retirement of single hull tankers would

occur, notwithstanding the exemption under OPA 90 that permits single

hull tankers to operate in U.S. waters until the year 2015 by using a

designated lightering zone. It is the consensus of the worldwide

industry that a minority of crude oil tankers will survive the

prohibitively costly survey regimen that will begin at their 25th

anniversary survey. The international regulations, in conjunction with

the provisions of section 4115 of OPA 90, effectively

[[Page 45008]]

ensure that the day of the single hull tanker is ending. Available data

shows that many single hull tankers are being scrapped earlier than

required by either OPA 90 or MARPOL 73/78.

A letter from the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the

Department of the Interior expressed concern about establishing

lightering zones in active oil and gas development areas on the Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS). It was concerned with the safety of offshore

production facilities which could be at risk from vessels in the

proposed lightering zones. The comment urged that the Coast Guard work

together with MMS to monitor lightering zones to avoid use conflicts

and to promote safety, and suggested that the Coast Guard decrease the

size of the proposed zones or require permanent mooring buoys for use

by lightering vessels.

The Coast Guard is aware of the active mineral and oil industry on

the Gulf of Mexico's OCS and has historically been involved with the

safety of the offshore marine industry and environment. The reserves

and refineries of the western Gulf Coast region play a significant role

in the nation's energy needs. The development of the extensive refining

capacity which now exists along the Gulf Coast was a consequence of the

development of regional land-based oil and gas reserves as well as

those offshore. Due to the fluctuations in crude oil prices and the

variations in crude oil composition, these Gulf Coast refineries must

supplement their domestically produced sources with waterborne oil

imports. This rule will help to meet the regional needs of these

refiners for imported oil and provide stability to the nation's energy

supply and economy. The designated lightering zones and prohibited

areas in this rulemaking will only affect the lightering activities

within their geographical bounds and will not interfere with or

discourage the development of OCS oil and gas reserves.

Regarding the safety of offshore production facilities from vessel

activities in the lightering zones, only the South Sabine Point

lightering zone and the northern tip of the Southtex lightering zone

include waters where an appreciable number of production facilities

have been constructed. A significant factor favoring construction of

production platforms in these areas is the shallow water depths,

generally less than 200 meters (109 fathoms). The shallower areas of

the South Sabine Point and the northern tip of the Southtex lightering

zones allow lightering to be conducted while vessels are anchored.

During the last 15 years, offshore lightering in the vicinity of

the South Sabine Point transshipment area (TSA) and Offshore Galveston

No. 1 and No. 2 TSAs has not proven to be a safety hazard to the

production platforms in the areas, nor has it affected offshore oil and

gas development. It is anticipated that lightering will continue in

these locations even after designation of lightering zones. The

operational restrictions in this rule mirror several practices

currently used by many offshore lightering companies. One of these

industry practices is a 1-nautical mile minimum closest-point-of-

approach (CPA) to production platforms and drilling units. The

maintenance of a 1-nautical mile CPA by lighterers has thus far proven

adequate to provide for the safety of nearby offshore mineral, oil, and

gas development facilities. Formally requiring this minimum CPA and

other operating restrictions in the final rule enhances the safety of

production facilities in the designated lightering zones. The remaining

areas of the designated lightering zones, other than South Sabine Point

and the northern tip of Southtex zones, have undergone little

development and, therefore, provide expansive open waters to all users.

This rulemaking establishes the first lightering zones designated

by the Coast Guard. As discussed previously, the District Commander's

authority at 33 CFR 156.225 to designate lightering zones and their

operating requirements remains unaffected by this rulemaking. The

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, located in New Orleans,

Louisiana, will administer the lightering zones designated in this

rule. If experience indicates that a realistic threat to offshore

facilities exists or that additional safety criteria or procedures are

warranted to regulate activities in these zones, the District Commander

may revise these regulations as appropriate.

One comment suggested that the proposed regulations should also

authorize offloading of oil from deepwater production facilities

located inside lightering zones. These facilities would include tension

leg platforms, spars, semi-submersibles, and converted tankers.

The comment misunderstood the NPRM as limiting authorized

operations within lightering zones to lightering and bunkering

operations from oceangoing tankers. There are no generally authorized

or prohibited activities in designated lightering zones. Rather, this

rule regulates how lightering activities should be conducted within the

designated zones. Offloading of oil from deepwater production

facilities in designated lightering zones is not prohibited or

otherwise regulated by this rule. That activity continues to be subject

to the regulations in 33 CFR part 154 and subpart A of part 156,

whether the activity occurs inside or outside a designated lightering

zone.

Addition of Fourth Lightering Zone at South Sabine Point

In the NPRM for this rulemaking, the Coast Guard specifically

requested comments on whether an additional area off Galveston, Texas,

in the vicinity of South Sabine Point TSA, should be designated as a

fourth lightering zone. Twelve comments addressed this issue.

These comments supported designating the area as an additional

lightering zone. The comments indicated that this area is closest to

lightering support centers of Texas refining complexes and within range

of all support helicopters. The comments also indicated that the South

Sabine Zone would decrease congestion in the northwestern corner of the

Southtex zone by providing additional anchorage area for lightering

operations. Industry comments at the public meeting in New Orleans

detailed reasons why an additional zone at South Sabine Point should be

established. These reasons were stated as follows:

(1) The South Sabine Point zone is closest to shoreside responders

and response vessels pre-staged to respond to a pollution incident.

(2) In many environmental conditions, anchoring is the preferred

method of lightering. This procedure generally is not available to

tankers lightering in the other lightering zone off the coast of Texas

(Southtex), where the waters are largely too deep.

(3) Shallower water depths in the South Sabine Point zone

contribute to more moderate sea conditions than those generally found

in the Southtex zone.

(4) This area is currently being used for lightering and

historically has been so used for almost 20 years.

(5) It is the closest zone to the principal lightering support

centers of eastern Texas.

(6) This area is also within the range of most helicopters from the

Houston-Galveston-Port Arthur areas which can fly round trip, without

requiring refueling.

(7) The majority of oil lightered in the Gulf of Mexico is destined

for the Houston-Galveston-Port Arthur areas. If the Southtex zone were

the only one available for tankers with oil destined

[[Page 45009]]

for Houston, Galveston, or Port Arthur, the added costs for support and

transportation would create an additional economic burden for many

Texas refineries. This burden would not be shared by other refineries

on the Gulf Coast, placing them at an economic disadvantage.

(8) Because of proximity to ports and shallower water depths for

anchoring, the northwestern corner of the Southtex zone would get very

crowded if lightering were not allowed in the South Sabine Point zone.

(9) The extension of the logistics lines for lightering support is

a major safety and economic concern.

Unified comments from three international organizations heavily

involved in the tanker industry, Oil Companies International Marine

Forum (OCIMF), the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), and the

International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO),

expressed support for the designation of the proposed lightering zones.

These organizations also supported the designation of South Sabine

Point zone, citing many of the same reasons as in the industry

comments. The Texas GLO also supported the designation of the South

Sabine Point zone.

Data contained in the Regulatory Assessment on 1992 U.S. crude oil

imports by water show that all offshore lightering for the U.S. was

conducted in the Gulf of Mexico. The data further indicate that

lightered oil delivered to the Houston, Galveston, and Port Arthur

areas was approximately 50 percent of the total lightered oil,

averaging over 800,000 barrels per day. Similar import data for 1993

shows an increase to 900,400 barrels per day. This latter figure

represents 60 percent of the oil lightered in the Gulf of Mexico. Based

on the data, the industry comments expressed at the public meeting, and

comment letters to the docket, the Coast Guard has decided to designate

a fourth zone named ``South Sabine Point.'' The boundaries of the South

Sabine Point zone have been added to Sec. 156.300 as a new paragraph

(d). The same operational conditions and restrictions which apply in

the proposed three lightering zones will apply to this new zone.

Request for Comments on Additional Rulemaking

In response to the Coast Guard's request for comments on whether to

consider a rulemaking to change the traditional lightering areas into

formal lightering zones and whether any of the concepts contained in

the NPRM could be used in such a subsequent rulemaking, comments from

industry noted that lightering operations are highly professional cargo

transfer operations and that the industry's record for safety is

outstanding. The comments stated that the purpose of this rulemaking is

to implement the clear language of OPA 90 which allows single hull

vessels to continue to lighter in the Gulf of Mexico until January 1,

2015, and that there is no need for this rulemaking to regulate current

long-standing lightering operations being conducted elsewhere in the

Gulf of Mexico.

The Texas GLO stated that the proposed weather, operational, and

work hour limitations should apply to all vessels engaged in lightering

activities regardless of their location. The GLO also suggested that

lightering should be prohibited in all areas, except for the proposed

designated lightering zones, and that designation of lightering zones

would minimize the area which must be patrolled and inspected for

compliance with the Coast Guard's rule. It added that the ability to

plan for responses to offshore spills would be greatly enhanced by

allowing lightering only in specific areas, asserting that failure to

contain and remove oil from the offshore environment often results in

substantial impact to Texas shores. The GLO cited the recent spill from

the BERGE BANKER\1\ as an example of such impact, noting that most of

the fuel oil sank and that large tar mats and tar balls washed ashore

in Texas weeks after the spill, threatening recreational use of the

beaches.

\1\The collision between two Norwegian tankers, the BERGE BANKER

and the SKAUBAY, which were maneuvering in preparation for

lightering, occurred on February 5, 1995. The vessels collided in

the vicinity of the Offshore Galveston No. 2 transshipment area, 45

miles off the Texas coast. This incident constitutes the first

transit casualty related to offshore lightering, and, although no

cargo oil was spilled, nearly 900 barrels of heavy fuel oil spilled

into the Gulf, creating an oil sheen 3 miles long. This collision is

still under investigation.

The Coast Guard was the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for this

spill cleanup both offshore and later on shore when beach impact

occurred. The offshore cleanup of this spill was limited in its

effectiveness due to two related factors: the type of oil spilled, a

heavy bunker fuel oil, and the sea and weather conditions at the

time. Although two oil spill recovery vessels were used for a period

of 3 days, less than 5 barrels of oil was recovered. Due to

subsequent winds and currents, the weathered oil washed ashore 12

days later on Matagorda Island, predominantly in the form of tar

mats and balls.

The Coast Guard has decided to limit this rulemaking to designating

lightering zones and prescribing some restrictions on lightering

activities within the zones to implement the exceptions in OPA 90 to

the double hull standards. The rule does not affect existing

regulations concerning the response to and recovery of spilled oil.

Other than the prohibited areas designated in Sec. 156.310, the Coast

Guard is not restricting lightering activities elsewhere in the Gulf of

Mexico at this time, but it may do so in the future if circumstances

change. The final rule contains a new paragraph in Sec. 156.330 that

governs vessels maneuvering in preparation for mooring alongside. Like

the other operational restrictions in the final rule, it applies only

in the lightering zones and is intended to prevent the occurrence of

oil spills associated with that aspect of lightering activities in the

zones.

One comment from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) suggested moving the northernmost boundary of the Southtex

lightering zone 15 nautical miles to the south. This suggestion was

based upon spill trajectory data concerning the Flower Gardens

Sanctuary, which NOAA had obtained from the MMS. The suggested boundary

change would keep the zone outside a 10 percent contact probability

area over a 3-day period during the spring and summer seasons.

The Coast Guard has reviewed this trajectory information and has

decided to retain the boundaries of the Southtex lightering zone as

proposed in the NPRM. Accommodating the requested 3-day/10-percent

seasonal contact probability would remove from the zone some of the

area closer to shore where most users in this zone would operate. There

are already numerous oil and gas production platforms within an 8

nautical mile range of the sanctuary. Additionally, the main east-west

shipping fairway extends through the Flower Garden prohibited area

between the marine sanctuary and the northern edge of the Southtex

lightering zone. The Coast Guard believes that providing an 8 nautical

mile distance from the northernmost boundary of the Southtex zone

affords an adequate range of protection to the sanctuary against

surface spillage. In the event of an oil spill originating at or near

the water surface, the toxic effects of the soluble and lighter

aromatic components of crude oil (C-12 [crude oil with 12 carbon

molecules] or less) can reasonably be expected to be minimal after 24

hours of exposure to air, surface wave action, and the relatively warm

climatic conditions of the Gulf. As indicated in a 1987 MMS study,

small surface spills are unlikely to have any significant impact on the

health of Flower Garden Banks corals. Oil from surface spills, driven

into the water column to depths of 10 meters (33 feet), is found only

at concentrations several

[[Page 45010]]

orders of magnitude lower that those shown to have an effect on corals.

Oil released in surface spills and driven 15 meters (50 feet) deep to

the shallowest point on the Flower Garden Banks would be in such low

concentrations that, according to the study, it would have no

significant impact on these reefs.

Section 156.111 Incorporation by Reference

Five comments addressed this section of the NPRM. One comment

agreed with the inclusion of documents mentioned in this section. A

letter from the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)

provided an updated address for their organization as well as for the

International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). These two organizations are

the co-authors of the Ship to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum). This

section has been amended to reflect these new addresses.

Three of the comments suggested additional materials be included in

this section. One comment suggested incorporating by reference the

``Limitation/Obstruction Markings'' discussion in the American

Petroleum Institute publication, API Recommended Practice for Planning,

Designing, and Construction of Heliports for Fixed Offshore Platforms

in Sec. 156.330, arguing that such guidelines should be included

because markings benefit landing safety on shipboard helodecks. This

same comment suggested making the International Chamber of Shipping

(ICS) Guide to Helicopter/Ship Operations, Third Edition (1989), a

recommended rather than mandated reference for operations in these

lightering zones. Two comments suggested incorporation of two

additional standards in Sec. 156.330: the ITOL Guidelines for Offshore

Lightering (1994), and the Rubber Manufacturers Association

Specifications for Rubber Hose for Oil Suction and Discharge

Specification (1991).

Comments from the Texas General Land Office (GLO), although

generally supporting the rulemaking, stated that the goals of the

rulemaking could be better served by requiring that the practices in

the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) Ship to Ship

Transfer Guide (Petroleum), Second Edition, 1988, and in the

International Chamber of Shipping Guide to Helicopter/Ship Operations,

Third Edition, 1989, apply to all lightering in the Gulf of Mexico.

Industry comments at the public meeting in New Orleans encouraged

the Coast Guard to incorporate by reference industry standards and

operating practices wherever possible as this is the most cost-

effective and non-redundant method of establishing effective practical

standards. The industry representative noted that the ITOL Operating

Guidelines were developed specifically to address the conditions faced

by lighterers in the Gulf of Mexico and that it would be appropriate

that these guidelines be incorporated by reference into Sec. 156.330 of

the final regulations. He added that along these same lines, while the

ICS helicopter guide is an excellent reference, there are some sections

in the guide for which local conditions dictate a somewhat different

approach to lightering operations and that the local helicopter

guidelines should be incorporated by reference in Sec. 156.330 in the

regulations. Another comment from Gulf Coast helicopter operators also

urged that conformity with the ICS helicopter guide not be required,

citing the same reasons articulated by the industry representative.

The Coast Guard has reviewed both the OCIMF Guide and ICS Guide in

light of these comments. The Coast Guard's position is that the

authority and responsibility for the safety of a vessel, its crew, and

its cargo rests with the master of that vessel. Consequently, since the

practices and considerations presented in the OCIMF Guide, and the ICS

Guide, are generally procedural recommendations, the Coast Guard is not

making them mandatory in the lightering zones designated by this final

rule. Rather, they should be implemented to the maximum extent

practicable for vessels conducting lightering operations in these

zones. The recommended procedures and checkoff sheets in these guides,

along with the operational restrictions specified in this rulemaking,

provide for safe lightering practices while still providing the masters

of the respective vessels sufficient latitude to exercise their

responsibility for safe navigation and cargo operations. This allows

flexibility, for instance, in the use of peculiar fendering

arrangements based upon the general arrangement of the vessels involved

and the lighterers' preference based upon experience.

The Coast Guard is not incorporating by reference the ITOL

Guidelines for Offshore Lightering (1994). However, several pertinent

provisions of the ITOL Guidelines are reflected in Sec. 156.330 of this

final rule. Additionally, the Coast Guard agrees that the flow rates

used with certain cargo oil transfer hoses should be left up to the

lighterers' discretion based on the pumps and piping systems of the

vessels involved. The Coast Guard notes that hoses which comply with

the Rubber Manufacturers Association Specifications for Rubber Hose for

Oil Suction and Discharge Specification (1991) would satisfy the

requirements of 33 CFR 155.800. However, incorporation of a hose

standard that would affect vessels other than those in the designated

lightering zones is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Since the OCIMF Guide is not mandatory, the requirement for a radio

voice warning in Sec. 156.330(c) has been revised to require certain

information identified in section 5.6 of the OCIMF Guide. This specific

information includes:

--The names of the vessels involved;

--The vessels' geographical positions and general headings;

--A description of the operations;

--The expected time of commencement and duration of the operation; and

--Request for wide berth.

Section 156.205 Definitions

Three comments addressed this section. One comment stated that the

definition of lightering at 33 CFR 156.205(b) should clearly state that

oil spill response vessels (OSRVs), including barges, conducting ship

to ship transfers as part of oil spill response operations are exempt

from lightering regulations. This comment claimed that compliance with

the proposed regulations might interfere with response activities. The

Coast Guard agrees that operations related to the transfer of recovered

oil from OSRVs were not intended to fall within the scope of the OCIMF

Ship to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum).

Additionally, the equipment, arrangement, and construction

requirements for OSRVs are specifically addressed by other Coast Guard

requirements. Lightering conducted as a shipboard spill mitigation

procedure under a spill response plan approved under subpart D of 33

CFR part 155 already incorporates the use of the OCIMF Guide transfer

procedures. Consequently, the Coast Guard agrees that the lightering

regulations in subpart B of 33 CFR part 156 should not apply to OSRVs

or to vessels of opportunity in accordance with the National

Contingency Plan (40 CFR parts 9 and 300) when transferring oil during

oil spill response activities. In lieu of the requested revision to

Sec. 156.205, the Coast Guard is revising the applicability section for

subpart B, Sec. 156.200, to exclude such activity by these vessels from

the requirements of this subpart.

[[Page 45011]]

Section 156.210 General

Four comments were received in response to this section of the

NPRM. Two comments supported the proposed work hour limitations, while

another comment argued that the limitations should conform to the

stricter requirements proposed under the International Convention on

Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,

1978 (STCW Convention). Taking unilateral action to impose the proposed

STCW standards would be inappropriate. The Coast Guard will not

initiate a rulemaking on these requirements until the provisions of the

STCW Convention are finalized and adopted by the United States.

The fourth comment requested clarification as to whether the

proposed work hour limitations would apply to laden service vessels

actually located in designated lightering zones but not engaged in

cargo transfer activities or to service vessels located in designated

lightering zones but not carrying cargo. Industry generally supported

the application of work hour and rest period restrictions to lightering

operations, but recommended that the applicability of this requirement

be clarified in the final rule.

The Coast Guard has clarified this section in the final rule,

specifying the activity and the time period involved. When in the

designated zones, the crews of both the tank vessels to be lightered

and the crews of the service vessels are subject to the work hour

limitations throughout the duration of lightering operations, as

defined in 33 CFR 156.205(b). For these licensed individuals and seamen

to start work during lightering operations in a lightering zone, their

work hours during the last 24 and 72 hours prior to the commencement of

the lightering operation must be considered, and the individual must be

in compliance with this section. This section has been revised to

clarify these applications.

Section 156.310 Prohibited Areas

Four comments addressed this section. One comment argued that the

proposed prohibited areas were too extensive. Three comments suggested

that only vessels lightering at anchor should be barred from these

areas and not all lightering operations.

At the public meeting in Metairie, the industry representative

commented that it appeared that the prohibited areas would apply to all

lightering operations, not just those conducted by new or phased out

single hull tankers. Industry perceived that the Coast Guard's concern

with lightering in these areas comes principally from the potential for

seabed damage associated with anchoring, and stated that vessels

currently lightering in the proposed prohibited areas do not anchor in

these areas. However, lightering vessels do drift through these areas

if that is where the prevailing winds and currents take them. Industry

urged the Coast Guard to allow this practice to continue.

The Coast Guard disagrees. This rule does not prohibit anchoring

over or in the vicinity of the prohibited areas. This rulemaking

addresses lightering activities and only prohibits these operations.

While the Coast Guard acknowledges the detrimental effect anchoring may

have in these areas, this rulemaking will prevent anchoring in the

prohibited areas only to the extent that such anchoring would have

occurred for the purposes of lightering.

The definition of lightering in Sec. 156.205(b) includes all phases

of the operation from the beginning of the mooring operation to the

departure of the service vessel from the vessel to be lightered. Two

catastrophic events which could occur during offshore lightering

activities are transit casualties, such as collisions, and intrinsic

casualties, such as pump room explosions. Prohibiting lightering

activities over biologically active areas will help to prevent a worst

case scenario of one or more vessels engaged in lightering operations

sinking in these areas while laden with a large quantity of oil. Such

an occurrence would be a significant environmental hazard in the most

ecologically sensitive offshore regions of the Gulf of Mexico. Figure 1

is a pictorial representation of the lightering zones and prohibited

areas.

BILLING CODE 4910-14-P

[[Page 45012]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR29AU95.001

BILLING CODE 4910-14-C

[[Page 45013]]

Section 156.320 Minimum Operating Conditions

Six comments were received on this section. Three comments

supported the proposed prohibition on beginning lightering when there

are 30 knot winds and 10 foot seas in the same direction, but

recommended that the operating criteria prohibiting mooring when wind

and sea direction vary by 30 degrees be removed because the effects of

these factors could not be accurately predicted. Three comments opposed

the unmooring requirements, stating that it may be safer to remain

moored during some severe weather conditions. One of these comments

also noted that this section did not address the situation when the

current is counter to the wind, stating that such a condition may make

ship to ship transfer impossible even though the speed of the wind may

only measure a few knots.

Industry comments questioned the Coast Guard's determination of the

weather parameters set in Sec. 156.320. They stated that the proposed

conditions exceed those contained in the operating manuals of different

lightering companies. This comment stated that Sec. 156.320 should be

revised to either eliminate the requirement to unmoor or to increase

the proposed operating criteria, noting that it may be dangerous for

some vessels to unmoor in the weather conditions proposed and that,

except for the most severe weather conditions, it often may be safer to

stay moored until the weather abates. They stated that ultimately it

should be the decision of the masters of the service vessel and the

vessel to be lightered to remain moored or to unmoor, based upon their

evaluation of the weather conditions in the operating area and the

handling characteristics of their vessels. Industry added that if the

Coast Guard is convinced that maximum criteria are necessary, then it

should be absolutely certain that it is not asking ships' masters to

perform maneuvers that may endanger crew and cargo.

Comments from industry and those from the OCIMF, ICS, and

INTERTANKO stated that the lightering provisions regarding hurricanes

were too restrictive. They argued that lightering operations can be

discontinued quickly, lightering vessels can be disconnected quickly,

and lightering personnel should be responsible for monitoring reports

from the National Weather Service to determine if lightering operations

should proceed.

The Coast Guard has reviewed the provisions of several lightering

manuals regarding weather restrictions and the Coast Guard agrees that

the decision to unmoor should rest with the masters of the respective

vessels. Factors such as stability and structural limitations must be

considered in tank vessel loading and ballasting operations.

Consequently, to mandate an unmooring criteria for all vessels based

solely on factors external to the vessel, such as weather and sea state

conditions, would not be prudent. The Coast Guard also agrees that

simplifying the weather conditions to consideration of only wind

velocity and wave height adequately addresses the weather and sea state

conditions which are significant to lightering and are parameters which

can be more definitively observed by mariners. Additionally, the Coast

Guard has determined that stipulating the maximum criteria under which

cargo transfers may be safely conducted is a better approach for

environmental and occupational safety reasons. The Coast Guard also

agrees that lightering vessels can disconnect relatively quickly and

unmoor. Having a maximum wave height and wind speed criteria makes it

unnecessary to specifically address hurricane evasion. As previously

stated, the master of a vessel is ultimately responsible for the safety

of the ship, its crew, and its cargo. Therefore, Sec. 156.320 has been

renamed as ``Maximum operating conditions'' and has been revised to

remove the proposed restrictions of lightering operations based on

relative wind and wave directions and on swell heights, to remove the

proposed hurricane restrictions, and to specify a maximum wind velocity

and wave height for cargo transfers. Nothing prohibits terminating

lightering operations under less severe conditions, and the Coast Guard

encourages the development of conservative company policies in this

regard.

Section 156.330 Operational Restrictions

Several comments responded to this section of the NPRM. Two comment

writers noted that the definition of ``bunkering'' was excluded. Two

other commenters also addressed the issue of bunkering. Comments from

industry cautioned the Coast Guard against using the rulemaking as a

basis for limiting other operations, such as bunkering, which can

safely occur during lightering operations, and that any interpretation

of the rulemaking which could ban bunkering operations would be

unnecessary and unwarranted. The Texas GLO pointed out that the

explosion and resultant spill from the tankship FLORIDA EXPRESS in the

Gulf of Mexico on February 27, 1995, indicates the need for expanding

the scope of the rulemaking to include bunkering activities. It argued

that the difference in the threat of an oil spill from bunkering and

from lightering is really not distinguishable and that both should be

subject to weather, operation, and work hour limitations. It suggested

that the Coast Guard propose a rule in the near future to correct this.

Bunkering a large (VLCC or ULCC) crude carrier from another

tankship in the offshore environment is not categorized as lightering

under current regulations. The definition of lightering in 33 CFR

156.205(b) specifically excludes cargo which is intended only for use

as a fuel or lubricant aboard the receiving vessel. The FLORIDA EXPRESS

incident is still under investigation, but it is noted that the vessel

was not involved in bunkering when the incident occurred. Should a

safety issue be identified by the investigation, the Coast Guard may

consider regulations specifically for ship to ship bunkering in the

future. One primary safety concern when bunkering while also conducting

cargo transfer operations is in providing adequate personnel for both

operations. Under Coast Guard regulations, tankships are not prohibited

from bunkering while also transferring cargo. It would be inconsistent

to restrict this activity in offshore lightering zones while allowing

its occurrence elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico and on the inland waters

of coastal ports which are in areas much more likely to be affected by

oil spills. Paragraph (g) in Sec. 156.330 has been revised to more

clearly state that bunkering is not within the definition of

lightering.

Five comments at the public meeting recommended that the proposed

operational restrictions in paragraphs (h) and (i) of Sec. 156.330,

which refer to minimum distances to offshore structures and mobile

offshore drilling units (MODUs), be consistent. They noted that the

proposed Sec. 156.330(i) requires that lightering operations not be

conducted while underway within 3 miles of an offshore structure or

MODU, while Sec. 156.330(h) allows lightering operations to be

conducted while anchored up to 1 mile from an offshore structure or

MODU. They stated that vessels lightering underway maintain a

navigation watch and can maneuver, and that there is no compromise to

safety by allowing both anchored lightering vessels and vessels

lightering underway to operate subject to the 1-mile restriction. They

stated that a 1-mile buffer provides adequate protection under present

operating

[[Page 45014]]

conditions and should be permitted to continue.

The Coast Guard has considered these comments and agrees that the

requirement of Sec. 156.330(i) prohibiting underway lightering

operations within 3 nautical miles of an offshore structure or MODU is

inconsistent with the 1-mile range given in Sec. 156.330(h) for

lightering at anchor. The definition for lightering operations in

Sec. 156.205(b) includes both drifting and transiting under power while

moored alongside. The Coast Guard agrees that the current practice of

using 1 nautical mile clearance from offshore structures and MODUs when

involved in lightering as defined under Sec. 156.205(b) has provided an

adequate margin of safety in the past and agrees that there is

insufficient justification to further expand this range. The Coast

Guard also acknowledges that, when moored alongside, these vessels

typically advance at speeds of less than 4 knots and can adequately

maneuver around stationary objects such as production platforms.

Therefore, Sec. 156.330(i) has been modified to reflect a 1 nautical

mile range for all modes of lightering.

MMS generally supported the provisions of this section, but

suggested that it also address pipelines because anchors could rupture

a pipeline when the vessels are setting the anchor or dragging the

anchor during rough weather. MMS also indicated that the largest spills

in the Gulf of Mexico have been from pipelines that were ruptured by

anchors.

With reference to pipeline safety, the Coast Guard notes that,

since 1992, offshore pipelines have been required to be surveyed

annually and reports submitted to the Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA) by the pipeline operators (49 CFR 195.413). Under

current regulations (49 CFR part 190), an offshore pipeline is

considered a hazard to navigation only when the top of the pipeline is

closer than 12 inches to the seabed in waters less than 15 feet deep.

Regardless of whether a pipeline is officially considered a hazard to

navigation, the Coast Guard agrees that mariners should not anchor over

such structures when their location is known. In order to avoid

pipeline damage when anchoring in designated lightering zones, the

mariner must rely on charts depicting pipeline locations. Therefore,

Sec. 156.330(j) has been revised to provide that, during lightering

operations, vessels may not anchor over charted pipelines, artificial

reefs, or historical resources.

Additionally, the Norwegian Maritime Administration provided to the

Coast Guard preliminary statements which were taken during the

investigation of the BERGE BANKER and SKAUBAY collision. These

statements indicate that the BERGE BANKER, the vessel to be lightered,

and the SKAUBAY, the service vessel, were on nearly reciprocal courses

when the collision occurred. Normal practice in the industry is for the

vessel to be lightered to maintain a constant heading during the

approach by the service ship immediately prior to mooring alongside.

The service vessel approaches from astern, generally broad on the

quarter, which means that the service ship is aft of the vessel to be

lightered on a heading within 45 degrees to port, or 45 degrees to

starboard, of the course maintained by the vessel to be lightered. This

industry practice is recognized in the Oil Companies International

Marine Forum (OCIMF) Ship to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum), Second

Edition, 1988, as the best approach when preparing to moor alongside.

In order to reduce the risk of a similar collision, paragraph (k) has

been added to Sec. 156.330 in the final rule mandating this approach

and requiring a minimum safe distance of 1000 meters between the two

vessels prior to the service vessel being positioned broad on the

quarter of the ship to be lightered. The Coast Guard has renamed this

section in the final rule as ``Operations''.

Incorporation by Reference

The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in

Sec. 156.111 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1

CFR part 51. The material is available as indicated in that section.

Assessment

A draft Regulatory Assessment was prepared in support of the NPRM

for the designation of lightering zones, which was published in the

Federal Register on January 5, 1995 (60 FR 1958). An Addendum to that

Assessment has been prepared to update statistical data and other

information since the publication of the NPRM.

The Addendum indicates that changes which have occurred since the

publication of the NPRM do not materially alter the findings and

conclusions of the draft Regulatory Assessment which, as amended, are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Final Regulatory

Assessment.

This Final Regulatory Assessment was prepared in accordance with

Executive Order 12866. Under the criteria of Executive Order 12866, the

designation of lightering zones in the Gulf of Mexico is not a

significant regulatory action and will not have a significant economic

impact on the maritime industry. However, this rulemaking is

significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the

Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979) and has

been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The

Regulatory Assessment is available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Small Entities

Adoption of this final rule will avert adverse small entity impacts

and preserve the current revenues derived by small entities from tanker

lightering in the Gulf of Mexico, and the adverse impact of this final

rule on small business is expected to be minimal. Therefore, the Coast

Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no new collection-of-information requirements or

additions to currently approved information collections under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections in this

rule that contain collection-of-information requirements are

Secs. 156.110 and 156.215 which are approved under OMB Control Numbers

2115-0096 and 2115-0539 respectively.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that

this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant

the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule

and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is

not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No

Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection or

copying as indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Environmental Assessment considered, among other things, the

factors set out in 33 CFR 156.230: traditional use of the area for

lightering; weather and sea conditions; water depth; proximity to

shipping lanes, vessel traffic schemes, anchorages, fixed structures,

designated marine sanctuaries, fishing areas, and designated units of

the National Park

[[Page 45015]]

System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wilderness

Preservation System, properties included on the National Register of

Historic Places and National Registry of Natural Landmarks, and

National Wildlife Refuge System; and other relevant safety,

environmental, and economic data. The Coast Guard also specifically

looked at wildlife and marine habitats and topographic features in the

proposed lightering zones.

The topographic features of the Gulf of Mexico considered during

this rulemaking include areas on the offshore banks where reef-building

activity occurs. These reefs support diverse communities of marine

plant and animal species in large numbers. The following areas are of

particular concern: the East and West Flower Gardens, 32 Fathom Bank,

Coffee Lump, Claypile Bank, Stetson Bank, Hospital Bank, North Hospital

Bank, Sackett Bank, Diaphus Bank, Fishnet Bank, and Sweet Bank. These

areas are charted and are considered sensitive ecosystems. These areas

are particularly vulnerable to damage from anchoring and, to a lesser

extent, from oil spills. While oil spills on the surface of these areas

are not expected to have a significant effect on the biota of concern,

the Coast Guard is establishing three ``prohibited areas'' where

lightering will not be permitted. Establishment of ``prohibited areas''

over these features will further ensure protection of these vital

ecosystems. Operational restrictions for designated lightering zones

would also reduce the likelihood of spillage from the tank vessels

utilizing these zones. Although the likelihood is remote, the Coast

Guard is also concerned with catastrophic casualties which could result

in the sinking of a tanker. The potential sinking of a very large or

ultra large crude carrier as a result of a collision or intrinsic

casualty, with millions of barrels of oil on board or as cargo, could

pose a serious long term environmental hazard to these ecosystems.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 through 1543),

as amended, seeks to protect endangered and threatened species and the

ecosystems on which they depend. The Act is administered by the Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS). Several protected marine species (e.g., Right whales, Kemp's

Ridley sea turtles, and hawksbill turtles) are located throughout the

Gulf region.

The Coast Guard consulted with the regional NMFS office in St.

Petersburg, Florida, and the FWS regional offices in Alberquerque, New

Mexico, and Atlanta, Georgia, regarding the effect of the proposed

regulations on endangered and threatened species as well as on

sensitive environmental areas such as wildlife refuges. Both the NMFS

and FWS have issued a written concurrence with the Coast Guard's

finding that the proposed rule, including the designation of the South

Sabine Point lightering zone discussed in the preamble of the NPRM,

will not have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened species.

``Historic property'' or ``historic resources'' are defined under

the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470w) as prehistoric

or historic sites, buildings, structures, or objects. This definition

includes shipwrecks registered with the National Register of Historic

Places. There are no known historical properties or resources in the

lightering zones.

Military warning areas are located throughout the Gulf of Mexico

and are clearly demarcated. The coordinates of the designated

lightering zones will overlap Eglin Water Test Areas One and Three

(EWTA 1, EWTA 3), and Military Warning Areas 92, 228, and 602 (W-92, W-

228, W-602). Military operations are undertaken in each of these zones

and have been considered in this rulemaking. Lightering operations have

been conducted throughout the Gulf of Mexico for many years, often

within these designated military zones. Lightering industry

spokespersons report that they have never been asked by a military

department to divert operations due to military exercises.

Announcements for most military exercises are published in notices to

mariners. The Department of Defense commands responsible for these

warning areas were advised of the proposed rulemaking and have

expressed no opposition to the establishment of these lightering zones.

The Coast Guard does not expect the missions of these military warning

areas to be adversely impacted by this rulemaking.

The Coast Guard has considered the implications of the Coastal Zone

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.) with regard to this

rulemaking. Under this Act, the Coast Guard must determine whether the

activities proposed by it are consistent with activities covered by a

federally approved coastal zone management plan for each state which

may be affected by this federal action. The States of Louisiana,

Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama have federally approved coastal zone

management plans. The Governor of the State of Texas has withdrawn its

submission of the proposed Texas Coastal Management Plan to NOAA.

The Coast Guard has determined that the designation of lightering

zones, as provided in this rulemaking, will have no effect on the

coastal zones of Mississippi, Alabama, or Florida. Designation of the

lightering zones has the potential of an indirect effect on the coastal

zones of Louisiana and Texas.

The approved plan for Louisiana regulates a number of listed uses

which ``directly and substantially affect coastal waters and which are

in need of coastal management, and which have impacts of greater than

local significance or which significantly affect interests of regional,

state, or national concerns.'' (La. Rev. Stat. 49:213.5(A)(1)).

Louisiana has not listed the designation of offshore lightering zones

as an activity subject to state review, and research and review of

environmental effects indicate only a slight chance that these

regulations would indirectly affect the coastal zone of Louisiana.

The Coast Guard consulted with the State of Louisiana after it had

an opportunity to review the NPRM, Environmental Assessment, and draft

Regulatory Assessment. The Administrator of the State Coast Management

Division for Louisiana responded by a letter in which the Administrator

stated that this rulemaking may affect the Louisiana coastal zone and

requested that the Coast Guard make a consistency determination. The

Coast Guard found that the regulations in the NPRM were consistent, to

the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the

federally approved coastal zone management plan and submitted a

consistency determination to that effect. The State Administrator

responded, concurring with the Coast Guard consistency determination

that establishing lightering zones would be consistent with the

Louisiana Coastal Resource Program.

Also, during the preparation of this assessment, the Coast Guard

informally contacted the Environmental Section of the Texas GLO's Legal

Services Division, providing the NPRM, Environmental Assessment, and

draft Regulatory Assessment for review. The State had recently approved

a Coastal Management Plan and had submitted the Plan for federal

approval. The Oil Spill Prevention and Response Division of the Texas

GLO responded, informing the Coast Guard that it supports the Coast

Guard's plan to establish four lightering zones and that the Governor

of Texas has withdrawn the submission of the Texas Coastal Management

Plan

[[Page 45016]]

to NOAA. It presently is unclear whether Texas will participate in the

federal coastal zone management program. The Coast Guard's research and

review of environmental effects indicate only a low probability that

these regulations would indirectly affect the coastal zone of Texas.

Five comments specifically addressed items in the Environmental

Assessment. The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that the South

Sabine Point and Southtex lightering zones are not likely to have a

negative impact on marine species (sea turtles and coastal birds that

use the Texas coastline) for which it is responsible. Another comment

argued that the Environmental Assessment and the text of the NPRM do

not substantiate the need for the proposed extensive prohibited areas.

Two comments agreed with the Environmental Assessment's discussion of

the dangers of anchoring. However, these comments also stated that

section 5.5 of the Environmental Assessment, ``Endangered and

Threatened Species'', needs clarification. The comments contend that

this section indicates that there is an extremely low probability that

spillage would contact an environmental resource, yet upon reviewing

the Environmental Assessment, the commenter reasons that spills making

land impact would cross over the prohibited areas. For clarification,

the reference to contact with environmental resources used in the

Environmental Assessment has been revised to specify land-based

environmental resources in that particular section.

A fifth comment stated that the Environmental Assessment appeared

to be based on crude oil demand and imports remaining constant.

Instead, the Environmental Assessment should assume at least a 4

percent per annum increase in crude oil imports with a concomitant

increase in transfer by lightering.

The Environmental Assessment for this rulemaking addressed the

environmental considerations required under National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). The Environmental Assessment discussed the

environmental effects of creating these lightering zones versus taking

a no action alternative and not designating these lightering zones. The

Environmental Assessment also states that this rulemaking alone is not

expected to significantly effect the volume of oil lightered. The

Environmental Assessment supports a Finding of No Significant Impact

and shows that, by establishing these lightering zones, there exists a

possibility that a portion of current and future lightering activity

could be conducted at locations further offshore that pose less of an

environmental threat than would otherwise occur.

Also, the Final Regulatory Assessment for this rulemaking

considered 1994 waterborne oil import data. This data reflected an

increase in U.S. oil imports from 6.8 million barrels per day (BPD) in

1993 to 7.0 million BPD in 1994. Yet, in contrast to this 0.2 million

BPD increase in importation, offshore lightering's share of imports by

water in the Gulf of Mexico declined from 32.0 percent in 1993 to 28.5

percent in 1994. In terms of volume, this corresponded to a decrease

from 1.48 million BPD to 1.30 million BPD in 1994. This decline in

demand for lightering was due to shifts from Arabian Gulf and West

African supplies to closer Caribbean supplies. These closer supplies

are generally transported in smaller tankers which are able to make

direct deliveries, negating the need for lightering. The Regulatory

Assessment shows that the small shifts in sources of origin which

occurred in 1994 entailed a significant reduction in the distance

transported, and consequently, the type of tanker used for its

conveyance. This one example of cause and effect illustrates that the

demand for offshore lightering is driven by many market factors which

are unrelated to this rulemaking.

Clean Air Act

As stated in the NPRM, volatile organic compound (VOC) air

emissions result from the operation of ship engines and from oil

transfers, such as the lightering of oil from one vessel to another.

Also, nitrogen oxides (NOX) are produced by ship engines. Both VOC and

NOX are precursors of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards'

(NAAQS) criteria pollutant ozone. However, since this rulemaking is not

expected to materially affect the frequency or volume of oil currently

transferred in the Gulf of Mexico, the designation of lightering zones

should not lead to a net increase in air emissions.

The NPRM also noted that the NAAQS, promulgated by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Clean Air Act

(CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), provide benchmarks against which air

quality is gauged. Those areas within a state's borders which do not

attain the NAAQS (nonattainment areas) are subject to controls aimed at

improving the air quality. Federal agencies taking actions in

nonattainment or maintenance areas which would result in air emissions

must make determinations of conformity with the applicable controls,

usually a State Implementation Plan (SIP), before acting. However, the

lightering zones created by this rule are well outside the boundaries

of the coastal states (more than 60 nautical miles from the baseline

for the territorial sea) and, therefore, are outside any nonattainment

or maintenance areas. Thus, by the terms of 40 CFR part 51, the

conformity rule is not applicable to this rulemaking.

The Breton Wilderness Area is 112 nautical miles north of the

Gulfmex No. 2 lightering zone and 67 nautical miles northwest of the

Offshore Pascagoula No. 2 lightering zone. Between the two lightering

zones and the Breton Wilderness Area are two transshipment areas

(TSAs). Offshore Pascagoula TSA (39 nautical miles south of Mobile

Point, Alabama) is located midway between the Breton Wilderness Area

and the Offshore Pascagoula No. 2 lightering zone. Gulfmex No. 1 TSA

(105 nautical miles south of Breton Wilderness Area) is located 7

nautical miles northeast of the Gulfmex No. 2 lightering zone. Both of

these TSAs are sites of ongoing lightering operations.

Lightering is a traditional, well-established activity which occurs

in a variety of near shore areas in the Gulf of Mexico. This rulemaking

is not expected to materially affect the frequency or volume of oil

transferred in the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, the designated lightering

zones will not lead to a net increase in emissions. Moreover, to the

extent that these lightering zones are used for oil transfer

operations, it is expected that the practical effects of this

rulemaking will be to facilitate transfers farther offshore than would

otherwise occur. Since transfer operations are not practical nor

economical outside 200 nautical miles, tankers limited to using these

lightering zones would be expected to effectively reduce the lightering

activity that would otherwise occur at the closer near shore areas

currently used for lightering.

The Coast Guard considered the FWS comments regarding air quality

and, for the reasons noted above, has concluded that the impact of

these regulations, if any, will be to increase, on average, the

separation between the location of lightering transfers and the Brenton

Wilderness Area.

The Coast Guard also notes that its authority does not include the

regulation of vessel air emissions for the purposes of improving air

quality. Furthermore, in its NPRM proposing Federal Standards for

Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading (59 FR 25004, May 13, 1994),

EPA stated that those proposed regulations would not

[[Page 45017]]

apply to offshore lightering but that EPA might consider addressing

offshore lightering operations as a separate source category in the

future.

As discussed in the Environmental Assessment, this rulemaking is

expected to have no significant effect on any State's attainment of air

quality standards.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 156

Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 156 as follows:

PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 156 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j)(1) (C) and (D); 46 U.S.C.

3703a. Subparts B and C are also issued under 46 U.S.C. 3715.

2. In Sec. 156.110, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 156.110 Exemptions.

(a) The Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental

Protection, acting for the Commandant, may grant an exemption or

partial exemption from compliance with any requirement in this part,

and the District Commander may grant an exemption or partial exemption

from compliance with any operating condition or requirement in subpart

C of this part, if:

* * * * *

3. Section 156.111 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 156.111 Incorporation by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part

with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that

specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must

publish notice of the change in the Federal Register; and the material

must be available to the public. All approved material is available for

inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard,

Marine Environmental Protection Division (G-MEP), room 2100, 2100

Second Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001 and is available from the

sources indicated in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this

part and the sections affected are as follows:

Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)

15th Floor, 96 Victoria Street, London SW1E 5JW, England.

Ship to Ship Transfer Guide (Petroleum), Second Edition, 1988--

156.330.

International Chamber of Shipping

12 Carthusian Street, London EC1M 6EB, England.

Guide to Helicopter/Ship Operations, Third Edition, 1989--

156.330.

4. Section 156.200 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 156.200 Applicability.

This subpart applies to each vessel to be lightered and each

service vessel engaged in a lightering operation in the marine

environment beyond the baseline from which the territorial sea is

measured when the oil or hazardous material lightered is destined for a

port or place subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. This subpart does

not apply to lightering operations involving public vessels, or to the

dedicated response vessels and vessels of opportunity in accordance

with the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR parts 9 and 300) when

conducting response activities. These rules are in addition to the

rules of subpart A of this part, as well as the rules in the applicable

sections of parts 151, 153, 155, 156, and 157 of this chapter.

5. In Sec. 156.205, paragraph (a) and the introductory text to

paragraph (b) are revised, and the definition of ``work'' is added in

alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 156.205 Definitions.

(a) In addition to the terms defined in this section, the

definitions in Sec. 154.105 of this chapter apply to this subpart and

to subpart C.

(b) As used in this subpart and subpart C:

* * * * *

Work includes any administrative duties associated with the vessel

whether performed on board the vessel or onshore.

6. In Sec. 156.210, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 156.210 General.

* * * * *

(d) On vessels conducting lightering operations in a designated

lightering zone, a licensed individual or seaman may not work, except

in an emergency or a drill, more than 15 hours in any 24-hour period,

or more than 36 hours in any 72-hour period, including the 24-hour and

72-hour periods prior to commencing lightering operations.

7. In Sec. 156.215, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 156.215 Pre-arrival notices.

* * * * *

(d) In addition to the other requirements in this section, the

master, owner, or agent of a vessel that requires a Tank Vessel

Examination (TVE) or other special Coast Guard inspection in order to

lighter in a designated lightering zone must request the TVE or other

inspection from the cognizant Captain of the Port at least 72 hours

prior to commencement of lightering operations.

8. In part 156, a new subpart C is added to read as follows:

Subpart C--Lightering Zones and Operational Requirements for the Gulf

of Mexico

Sec.

156.300 Designated lightering zones.

156.310 Prohibited areas.

156.320 Maximum operating conditions.

156.330 Operations.

Sec. 156.300 Designated lightering zones.

The following lightering zones are designated in the Gulf of Mexico

and are more than 60 miles from the baseline from which the territorial

sea is measured:

(a) Southtex--lightering zone. This lightering zone and the

geographic area for this zone are coterminous and consist of the waters

bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

Latitude N. Longitude W.

27 deg.40'00'', 93 deg.00'00'', thence to

27 deg.40'00'', 94 deg.35'00'', thence to

28 deg.06'30'', 94 deg.35'00'', thence to

27 deg.21'00'', 96 deg.00'00'', thence to

26 deg.30'00'', 96 deg.00'00'', thence to

26 deg.30'00'', 93 deg.00'00'', and thence to the

point of beginning.

(NAD 83)

(b) Gulfmex No. 2--lightering zone. This lightering zone and the

geographic area for this zone are coterminous and consist of the waters

bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

Latitude N. Longitude W.

27 deg.53'00'', 89 deg.00'00'', thence to

27 deg.53'00'', 91 deg.30'00'', thence to

26 deg.30'00'', 91 deg.30'00'', thence to

26 deg.30'00'', 89 deg.00'00'', and thence to the

point of beginning.

(NAD 83)

(c) Offshore Pascagoula No. 2--lightering zone. This lightering

zone and the geographic area for this zone are coterminous and consist

of the waters bounded by a line connecting the following points

beginning at:

[[Page 45018]]

Latitude N. Longitude W.

29 deg.20'00'', 87 deg.00'00'', thence to

29 deg.12'00'', 87 deg.45'00'', thence to

28 deg.39'00'', 88 deg.00'00'', thence to

28 deg.00'00'', 88 deg.00'00'', thence to

28 deg.00'00'', 87 deg.00'00'', and thence to the

point of beginning.

(NAD 83)

(d) South Sabine Point--lightering zone. This lightering zone and

the geographic area for this zone are coterminous and consist of the

waters bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

Latitude N. Longitude W.

28 deg.30'00'', 92 deg.38'00'', thence to

28 deg.44'00'', 93 deg.24'00'', thence to

28 deg.33'00'', 94 deg.00'00'', thence to

28 deg.18'00'', 94 deg.00'00'', thence to

28 deg.18'00'', 92 deg.38'00'', and thence to the

point of beginning.

(NAD 83)

Sec. 156.310 Prohibited areas.

Lightering operations are prohibited within the following areas in

the Gulf of Mexico:

(a) Claypile--prohibited area. This prohibited area consists of the

waters bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

Latitude N. Longitude W.

28 deg.15'00'', 94 deg.35'00'', thence to

27 deg.40'00'', 94 deg.35'00'', thence to

27 deg.40'00'', 94 deg.00'00'', thence to

28 deg.33'00'', 94 deg.00'00'', and thence to the

point of beginning.

(NAD 83)

(b) Flower Garden--prohibited area. This prohibited area consists

of the waters bounded by a line connecting the following points

beginning at:

Latitude N. Longitude W.

27 deg.40'00'', 94 deg.00'00'', thence to

28 deg.18'00'', 94 deg.00'00'', thence to

28 deg.18'00'', 92 deg.38'00'', thence to

28 deg.30'00'', 92 deg.38'00'', thence to

28 deg.15'00'', 91 deg.30'00'', thence to

27 deg.40'00'', 91 deg.30'00'', and thence to the

point of beginning.

(NAD 83)

(c) Ewing--prohibited area. This prohibited area consists of the

waters bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

Latitude N. Longitude W.

27 deg.53'00'', 91 deg.30'00'', thence to

28 deg.15'00'', 91 deg.30'00'', thence to

28 deg.15'00'', 90 deg.10'00'', thence to

27 deg.53'00'', 90 deg.10'00'', and thence to the

point of beginning.

(NAD 83)

Sec. 156.320 Maximum operating conditions.

Unless otherwise specified, the maximum operating conditions in

this section apply to tank vessels operating within the lightering

zones designated in this subpart.

(a) A tank vessel shall not attempt to moor alongside another

vessel when either of the following conditions exist:

(1) The wind velocity is 56 km/hr (30 knots) or more; or

(2) The wave height is 3 meters (10 feet) or more.

(b) Cargo transfer operations shall cease and transfer hoses shall

be drained when--

(1) The wind velocity exceeds 82 km/hr (44 knots); or

(2) Wave heights exceed 5 meters (16 feet).

Sec. 156.330 Operations.

(a) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, or when otherwise

authorized by the cognizant Captain of the Port (COTP) or District

Commander, the master of a vessel lightering in a zone designated in

this subpart shall ensure that all officers and appropriate members of

the crew are familiar with the guidelines in paragraphs (b) and (c) of

this section and that the requirements of paragraphs (d) through (l) of

this section are complied with.

(b) Lightering operations should be conducted in accordance with

the Oil Companies International Marine Forum Ship to Ship Transfer

Guide (Petroleum), Second Edition, 1988, to the maximum extent

practicable.

(c) Helicopter operations should be conducted in accordance with

the International Chamber of Shipping Guide to Helicopter/Ship

Operations, Third Edition, 1989, to the maximum extent practicable.

(d) The vessel to be lightered shall make a voice warning prior to

the commencement of lightering activities via channel 13 VHF and 2182

Khz. The voice warning shall include:

(1) The names of the vessels involved;

(2) The vessels' geographical positions and general headings;

(3) A description of the operations;

(4) The expected time of commencement and duration of the

operation; and

(5) Request for wide berth.

(e) In the event of a communications failure between the lightering

vessels or the respective persons-in-charge of the transfer, or an

equipment failure affecting the vessel's cargo handling capability or

ship's maneuverability, the affected vessel shall suspend lightering

activities and shall sound at least five short, rapid blasts on the

vessel's whistle. Lightering activities shall remain suspended until

corrective action has been completed.

(f) No vessel involved in a lightering operation may open its cargo

system until the servicing vessel is securely moored alongside the

vessel to be lightered.

(g) If any vessel not involved in the lightering operation or

support activities approaches within 100 meters of vessels engaged in

lightering, the vessel engaged in lightering shall warn the approaching

vessel by sounding a loud hailer, ship's whistle, or any other

appropriate means.

(h) Only a lightering tender, a supply boat, or a crew boat,

equipped with a spark arrestor on its exhaust, or a tank vessel

providing bunkers, may moor alongside a vessel engaged in lightering

operations.

(i) Lightering operations shall not be conducted within 1 nautical

mile of offshore structures or mobile offshore drilling units.

(j) No vessel engaged in lightering activities may anchor over

charted pipelines, artificial reefs, or historical resources.

(k) All vessels engaged in lightering activities shall be able to

immediately maneuver at all times while inside a designated lightering

zone. The main propulsion system must not be disabled at any time.

(l) In preparing to moor alongside the vessel to be lightered, a

service vessel shall not approach the vessel to be lightered closer

than 1000 meters unless the service vessel is positioned broad on the

quarter of the vessel to be lightered. The service vessel must

transition to a nearly parallel heading prior to closing to within 50

meters of the vessel to be lightered.

Dated: August 22, 1995.

A.E. Henn,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.

[FR Doc. 95-21292 Filed 8-28-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-14-P