COMDTINST 16450.32A
for certification or mid-period inspections, as appropriate. Field offices should not make a
special examination to check for the presence of a SOPEP.
c.
As was mentioned earlier, an approved plan is required for the issuance of an IOPP
Certificate. Evidence of a valid IOPP in MSIS can be considered satisfactory evidence
that a vessel's SOPEP has been approved. While MSIS may indicate the vessel has a valid
IOPP, field units should check that the vessel has an approved SOPEP on board during a
vessel boarding. (NOTE: SOPEPs are in the working language of the master and officers
of the vessel).
d.
Enforcement for situations where a vessel does not have a copy of the approved SOPEP on
board should mirror those followed for a vessel which fails to have adequate oil transfer
procedures.
e.
Vessels which have not submitted or do not yet have an approved SOPEP should be
treated in the same manner as those without an approved vessel response plan and the
same conditions for allowing a transfer apply. An ROV shall be processed against U.S.
flag vessels for failure to have a SOPEP. For foreign flag vessels, an ROV shall be
processed and notification of the deficiency shall be made to the flag state.
13. CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ORDERS. The Coast Guard will generally not issue COTP orders
under 33 CFR 160.111 or 33 CFR 160.113 to vessels and facilities solely for being out of
compliance with the response plan requirements. Rather, COTP units should take the
appropriate enforcement action for vessels and facilities without response plans and should
pursue Class I administrative civil penalties, prescribed in COMDTINST 16200.3A.
J.C. CARD
REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. COAST GUARD
CHIEF, OFFICE OF MARINE SAFETY,
SECURITY & ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Encl: (1) Commandant letter 19471 to Distribution dtd 11 Apr 94
14
Previous Page
