Vessels Carrying Oil News

The United Nations Security Council Libya sanctions committee blacklisted on Wednesday an Indian-flagged tanker carrying crude oil shipped by the rival eastern Libya government, said diplomats, which would prevent it from entering any ports. Libyan U.N. Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi wrote to the 15-member sanctions committee on Monday asking for the Distya Ameya tanker to be blacklisted, according to a letter seen by Reuters. The ship left Marsa el-Hariga port late on Monday. Diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the sanctions committee chair had informed them that there were no objections to the Dabbashi's request before a 3 p.m. (1900 GMT) Wednesday deadline so the ship was added to the sanctions list.

The U.S. Coast Guard has finalized an interim rule that requires vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo to carry discharge removal equipment, install spill prevention coamings and install emergency towing arrangements.   The rule, due to take effect May 9, 2016, also requires that these vessels to have prearranged capability to calculate damage stability in the event of a casualty.   The Coast Guard said this rulemaking aims to help reduce the risk of oil spills, improving vessel oil spill response capabilities and minimizing the impact of oil spills on the environment.

The history of marine safety is soaked in water and written in blood. “I think that most people will tell you that changes in marine safety are almost exclusively disaster-driven,” agrees Dr. Josh Smith, a professor at Kings Point and interim director of the American Merchant Marine Museum. It hasn’t always been that way. Actually, it’s been worse. Despite some efforts early on to exert some control over shipping practices, going to sea has been accepted as a risky undertaking as long as man has floated vessels.

The U.S. Coast Guard announced publication of the final rule to increase pollution response preparedness for nontank vessels carrying oil in U.S. waters. The final rule establishes the content of oil discharge response plans so nontank vessel owners and operators understand how to comply with the preparation and submission requirements of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Acts of 2004 and 2006. The CGMTAs amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, requiring owners and operators of nontank vessels to prepare and submit oil spill response plans. The final rule also updates the International Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan requirements that apply to all nontank vessels and certain tank vessels.

American P&I Club advises the US Coast Guard (USCG) will require compliance with new Alternative Planning Criteria (APC) for certain vessels operating in Western Alaska. Last year the Alaska Marine Exchange published proposals for new Alternative Planning Criteri which have now been finalized. Historically, it has not been possible for tank owners operating in Western Alaska carrying oil to comply fully with the vessel response planning requirements of the Oil Pollution Act 1990. In consequence, the USCG allowed waivers in respect of these requirements. That has now changed: with effect from May 14, 2012, oil tank vessel owners and owners…

The United States Coast Guard issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 31, 2009 on long-awaited new regulations concerning the following: (i) requiring owners and operators of nontank vessels to prepare and submit oil spill nontank vessel response plans (NTVRPs); (ii) updating the international Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) requirements; and (iii) requiring owners and operators to submit their vessel response plan control numbers with their notice of arrival information. Comments are due on or before November 30, 2009. As explained in a previous Blank Rome advisory available at http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm? contentID=37&itemID=82, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub.

The U.S. Coast Guard announced the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking designed to increase pollution response preparedness for non-tank vessels carrying oil as fuel upon U.S. waters. The proposed rule, entitled "Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Vessel Response Plan Requirements," would establish the content of response plans for oil discharges, helping non-tank vessel owners and operators understand how to comply with preparation and submission requirements for response plans under the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. A non-tank vessel is defined as a self-propelled vessel of 400 gross tons or greater that is not a tank vessel, which operates on U.S. navigable waters carrying oil of any kind as fuel for main propulsion.

The US Coast Guard issued a final rule removing its regulations for tank level or pressure monitoring devices on single-hull tank vessels carrying oil or oil residue as cargo.  This rulemaking has had a long history.  Such devices were originally required by the original version of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) and resulted in litigation when it was determined that no device capable of accomplishing its purpose on a ship at sea had been developed.  Congress eventually revised the statutory provision to allow the Coast Guard some discretion in this matter, which has now been exercised.  73 Fed. Reg. 79314 (December 29, 2008). (Holland & Knight)

Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the Oil Spill Prevention Act of 2008 (S. 2699) to require new vessels carrying oil fuel to have double hulls, and for other purposes. This bill, if enacted into law, would require new vessels with an aggregate capacity to 600 cubic meters or more of oil fuel to comply with MARPOL requirements relating to protective location of the fuel tanks and would provide for establishment of a merchant marine medical program. Source:  HK Law

The U.S. Coast Guard issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would, if implemented, revise vessel response plan (VRP) salvage and marine firefighting requirements for tank vessels carrying oil. The proposal would clarify salvage and firefighting services that must be identified in the VRP. The resource providers must be specifically identified and must be integrated into the response organization. The NPRM includes tables indicating how soon various activities are to occur, based on the location of the incident. Firefighting equipment and other resources identified must be compatible with the vessel and its cargo. Comments on the proposal should be submitted by July 9, 2002. The Coast Guard plans to hold several public meetings in conjunction with this NPRM.

Closer cooperation between flag states and class societies will help to minimize casualty damage to people, property and the marine environment and result in better casualty reports, Dr Hans Payer, chief executive of Germanischer Lloyd told top level representatives of the world maritime industry and flag states at the Mare Forum conference on Flag State Quality and Regulatory Governance in Athens on September 20, 2002. "I urge flag states with ships involved in accidents to work closely with the class societies, especially when they operate Emergency Response Services (ERS) for the vessels in trouble", Dr Payer said. "ERS schemes have proven their value in many cases, in keeping damage to ships and the environment to a minimum and in optimizing salvage operations.

Salvage response in the United States, and to a considerable degree throughout the world, has evolved to become essentially a new industry as measured by historical precedent. There are five principal factors, which have forever changed maritime casualty response to the point where it will never again rely on risk and compensation based solely on the value of property saved. Little needs to be said about the impact of the environment. We have all been aware of the increasing, persuasive impact of environmental factors for years. Simply put, it permeates and drives every emergency solution. In its infancy, and even today, environmental considerations can stall and complicate an effective, prompt salvage by extending the beginning of performance beyond a reasonable timetable.

The U.S. Coast Guard issued a Notice stating that on February 12, 2002, the U.S. Embassy in London deposited a declaration with IMO stating that the express approval of the U.S. Government will be necessary before the revised Regulation 13G of MARPOL 73/78 would enter into force for the United States. In this declaration, the U.S. Government cited specific technical differences between the revised MARPOL Regulation for new and existing tankers and OPA 90. Source: HK Law