View Rule

Statement of Need: This rule implements the statutory requirement for an owner or operator of a self-propelled, nontank vessel of 400 gross tons or greater, which operates on the navigable waters of the United States, to prepare and submit an oil spill response plan to the Coast Guard. This rule specifies the content of a vessel response plan (VRP), including the requirement to plan for responding to a worst-case discharge (WCD) and a substantial threat of such a discharge as mandated in statute. The rule also specifies the procedures for submitting a VRP to the Coast Guard. This rule will improve our Nation's pollution response planning and preparedness posture, and help limit the environmental damage resulting from nontank vessel marine casualties.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)), as amended by section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat 484); the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 102); and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241, 120 Stat. 516) sets out the statutory mandate requiring tank and nontank vessel owners or operators to prepare and submit oil or hazardous substance discharge response plans for certain vessels operating on the navigable waters of the United States.

Alternatives: In the development of these regulations, the Coast Guard considered four alternatives: Three regulatory alternatives and one non-regulatory alternative. The alternatives are—(1) Establish regulations for the submission of NTVRPs to the USCG; (2) amend the tank vessel response plan (TVRP) regulations to incorporate NTVRPs; (3) acceptance of flag-approved SOPEPs; and (4) provide interpretive guidance through a USCG's Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC).

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: We are developing the cost and benefit estimates associated with this step of the rulemaking. The cost elements associated with this rule include: (1) Nontank vessel plan development, maintenance, and submission; (2) the service of an Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO); (3) the contract with a Qualified Individual (QI) along with a Spill Management Team; and (4) training and exercises. We expect this proposed rule to provide quantifiable benefits in the form of barrels of oil not spilled into the water in addition to qualitative benefits, which include improved preparedness and reaction to an incident, including a worst-case discharge and improved effectiveness of onboard and shore-side response activities. In the 2009 NPRM, we estimated that the rulemaking would affect about 2,951 U.S. flag vessels and 1,228 associated planholders. We estimated the total 10-year present value cost of the proposed rule to U.S. flag nontank vessel owners and operators to be about $111.4 million at a 7 percent discount rate and $134.8 million at a 3 percent discount rate. We found the training and exercise requirements to be the most costly element or over 90 percent of the total discounted cost of the proposed rule for vessel owners. We estimated the total U.S. annualized cost of the proposed rule over the 10-year period of analysis to be about $15.8 million at both 7 and 3 percent discount rates.

Risks: Response plans are required by statute. A response plan will not prevent a discharge of oil, but it may help minimize the discharge and resulting damage to the environment. We estimate the proposed rule would prevent between 2,014 and 2,446 barrels of oil from being spilled into the water during the 10-year period of analysis.