Proposed USCG VOO / MSV Rulemaking: What You Need to Know
As part of its effort to modernize oil spill response policies, the U.S. Coast Guard has issued a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register (Docket No. USCG‑2023‑0697 / “2025‑19276”) to solicit industry comment on how Vessels of Opportunity (VOOs) should be regulated, certified, inspected, or otherwise integrated into response planning. The RFI signals a potential shift toward formalizing requirements for VOOs – or even creating a new class called “Multi‑Service Vessels” (MSVs).
Below is a summary of what is on the table and how WSMC views the proposals.
1. What the Coast Guard’s RFI Proposes
While the full text of the RFI should be consulted for specifics, the proposals and questions raised by the Coast Guard include:
Definitional clarification: The Coast Guard appears to consider distinguishing VOOs from dedicated spill response vessels by proposing criteria, roles, or certification pathways.
Pre‑qualification or inspection regimes: The RFI suggests that non‑dedicated vessels (i.e. VOOs) might be required to meet certain standards or undergo inspections to be eligible for response duties.
Introduction of “Multi‑Service Vessel” (MSV) concept: Some sections of the RFI and associated guidance draft (CG‑CVC‑WI‑032(1)) seem to consider establishing a new class of vessels that may perform both traditional maritime roles and spill response functions.
Equipment and safety standards: The Coast Guard is soliciting comments about what safety, communications, and lifesaving gear should be required for a vessel to be considered suitable as a VOO or MSV.
Regulatory oversight and enforcement: The RFI asks how oversight, compliance, and auditing might apply to such vessels during planning, mobilization, and incident operations.
In short, the Coast Guard is exploring a future in which VOOs are not purely ad hoc, loosely regulated participants, but may be subject to prequalification, certification, or regulatory oversight. The RFI is an early step to gather industry feedback before any formal rulemaking.
2. Why WSMC Opposes the MSV/Over‑Regulation Approach
WSMC has a strongly held position that the Coast Guard’s emerging approach is flawed in concept and in practice. Key points of our objection:
VOOs are a planning and response concept, not a vessel class. The very purpose of a Vessel of Opportunity is that it is auxiliary and non‑dedicated. Its deployment depends on availability, suitability, and timely evaluation. Redefining it as a vessel class undermines that flexibility.
MSV blurs the distinction between general-purpose vessels and response assets. Just because a tug could tow boom or a workboat could transport gear does not make it a spill response vessel. Labeling these as MSVs creates confusion and overly broad regulatory reach.
Pre-certification imposes heavy burden on vessel owners. Many potential VOOs are small commercial or private vessels not designed for constant response duty. Requiring inspections and compliance up front discourages participation, shrinking the pool of available assets.
State-level planning frameworks and authority may be undermined. Washington’s spill response framework (via WSMC umbrella plans, WAC 173-182, etc.) already integrates VOOs under state-approved authority. Imposing a federal overlay of inspection and certification may conflict with these existing structures.
Operational decision-making should remain incident specific. WSMC asserts that VOOs should be evaluated at the time of the spill for specific roles and environmental conditions, rather than being locked into pre-designated categories and regulatory constraints.
3. WSMC’s Refined Position & Suggested Approach
To counterbalance the Coast Guard’s push for more rigid regulations, WSMC advocates for a more flexible, realistic, and collaborative framework. Our recommendations include:
Reject the MSV concept. WSMC strongly urges the Coast Guard to drop the idea of a new Multi‑Service Vessel class, which conflates general purpose vessels with response assets.
Retain the current “suitability evaluation” model. In an actual spill, each potential VOO should be assessed for a specific mission and operating environment. If the vessel does not already have required safety or communications gear, that equipment should be supplied by the Responsible Party (with approval by the Unified Command) before deployment.
Respect state and local planning regimes. The Coast Guard should defer to existing state‑approved spill response plans (like those in Washington) and collaborate through Area Committees, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all federal standard.
Solicit meaningful feedback from plan holders and operators. If there are real gaps in vessel availability, capability, or safety, those need to be documented collaboratively—not assumed and over-regulated via RFI proposals.
Use unannounced exercises and real-world drills to test readiness. Instead of mandating upfront inspections, the Coast Guard should partner with WSMC, OSROs, and state agencies to conduct unannounced “surprise drills” that test whether VOOs can be safely integrated when needed.
4. What You Can Do
Review the RFI yourself and identify areas where the proposed definitions, inspection regimes, or equipment requirements could impose burdens on your vessel(s) or operations.
Provide feedback, either individually or through WSMC, before the RFI comment deadline.
Stay engaged as any follow-on rulemaking develops. WSMC will continue to monitor, contest, and propose alternative frameworks.
Share your real-world experience. Vessel owners, operators, and response teams can provide the practical perspective that regulators often lack.
WSMC will continue to oppose efforts to recast Vessels of Opportunity as a regulated vessel class and will advocate for a more flexible, operationally grounded approach that preserves the responsive nature of oil spill preparedness. We recognize that the Coast Guard’s proposals have far-reaching implications for vessel operators, plan holders, OSROs, and state-approved planning cooperatives alike. That’s why WSMC is actively coordinating with other affected organizations – including APICOM, industry partners, and state agencies – to ensure our collective voice is heard. Together, we aim to shape a regulatory framework that supports readiness without imposing unrealistic burdens on the maritime community. Stay tuned for updates as this issue develops.