28650 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Parts 2, 8, and 189 

[USCG–2004–19823] 

RIN 1625–AA92 

Alternate Compliance Program: Vessel 

Inspection Alternatives 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend the vessel inspection regulations 

to expand the Alternate Compliance 

Program (ACP). These amendments 

would update the list of certificates the 

Coast Guard issues, incorporate Coast 

Guard policy regarding eligibility 

requirements for classification societies 

participating in the ACP, recognize 

classification societies other than the 

American Bureau of Shipping, and 

expand the ACP to include 

oceanographic research vessels. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Docket Management 

Facility on or before July 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2004–19823 to the 

Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. Two 

different locations are listed under the 

mail and delivery options below 

because the Document Management 

Facility is moving May 30, 2007. Please 

note dates when certain submission 

options will not be available. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Note, 

however, that because the computers 

housing this electronic docket are being 

moved to a new location, this submittal 

option will not be available from 

Wednesday, June 13, 2007, through 

Sunday, June 17, 2007. 

(2) Mail: 

• Address mail to be delivered by 

May 24, 2007, as follows: Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Address mail to be delivered on or 

after May 25, 2007, as follows: Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. 

(3) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(4) Delivery: 

• Before 5 p.m., Thursday, May 24, 

2007, deliver comments to: Room PL–

401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• From Friday, May 25, through 

Tuesday, May 29, 2007, this delivery 

option will not be available. 

• On or after Wednesday, May 30, 

2007, deliver comments to: Room W12–

140 on the Ground Floor of the West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

At either location, deliveries may be 

made between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The telephone number is 202–

366–9329. 

(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Submissions you make through this 

Federal eRulemaking portal from June 

13 through 17, will not be received in 

the electronic docket until June 18. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, contact Mr. William Peters, U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Design and 

Engineering Standards, telephone 202–

372–1371, or e-mail address 

William.S.Peters@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

II. Public Meeting 

III. Acronyms 

IV. Background and Purpose 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

VI. Regulatory Evaluation 

A. Small Entities 

B. Assistance for Small Entities 

C. Collection of Information 

D. Federalism 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

F. Taking of Private Property 

G. Civil Justice Reform 

H. Protection of Children 

I. Indian Tribal Governments 

J. Energy Effects 

K. Technical Standards 

L. Environment 

List of Subjects 

Amendatory Text 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by reviewing the 

proposed rules and submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http://dms.dot.gov/ 

and will include any personal 

information you have provided. We 

have an agreement with the Department 

of Transportation (DOT) to use the 

Docket Management Facility. Please see 

DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. 

A. Submitting Comments: If you 

submit a comment, please include your 

name and address, identify the docket 

number for this rulemaking (USCG–

2004–19823), indicate the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and give the reason or 

justification for each comment. You may 

submit your comments and material by 

electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery 

to the Docket Management Facility at 

the address under ADDRESSES; but 

please submit each set of comments and 

material only once (e.g., mail, 

electronic, or fax). If you submit them 

by mail or delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Document Management 

Facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will 

consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

We may change this proposed rule in 

view of them. 

B. Viewing Comments and 

Documents: To view comments or 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov/ at any time and 

conduct a simple search using the last 

five digits of the docket number. You 

may also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in room PL–401 on the Plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

C. Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the Department of 

Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov/. 

II. Public Meeting 

We do not plan to hold a public 

meeting. You may submit a request for 

one to the Docket Management Facility 

at Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001 explaining why it would be 

beneficial. If we determine that a public 

meeting would aid this rulemaking, we 

will hold one at a time and place 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28651 

announced by a later notice in the 

Federal Register. 

III. Acronyms 

ACP Alternative Compliance Program 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland 

Security 

DMS Docket Management System 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FR Federal Register 

IMO International Maritime 

Organization 

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act 

PSSC Passenger Ship Safety Certificate 

HSC High-speed Craft 

RIN Regulation Identifier Number 

SOLAS International Convention for 

the Safety of Life at Sea 

US United States 

USC United States Code 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

IV. Background and Purpose 

This rulemaking would revise and 

update the regulations for the Alternate 

Compliance Program (ACP). 

The ACP was launched as a pilot 

program in 1995. A notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 3, 1995 and can be found at 60 

FR 6687. It was an element of a larger 

initiative to harmonize domestic and 

international marine safety and 

environmental protection standards. 

Other goals of the initiative were to 

reduce the regulatory burden on 

industry and improve the efficiency of 

the vessel plan review and inspection 

process. 

Under the ACP, owners and operators 

of eligible vessels were allowed to 

request inspection by an authorized 

classification society, as defined in 46 

CFR 8.100, using an equivalence to the 

requirements in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) comprising 

classification society rules, provisions of 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) treaties, and a supplementary list 

of requirements from the CFR that were 

not in IMO provisions or classification 

society rules. A classification society 

gained eligibility to participate in the 

ACP by meeting the standards described 

in the regulations and, as a result, was 

delegated authority to conduct plan 

review and inspections and issue, on 

the Coast Guard’s behalf, certain IMO 

certificates documenting compliance 

with IMO treaty provisions. An interim 

final rule establishing new 46 CFR part 

8, ‘‘Vessel Inspection Alternatives’’ was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Friday, December 27, 1996. This interim 

final rule can be found at 61 FR 68510. 

The pilot program was concluded in 

1997 and the ACP was fully 

implemented via the final rule 

published on Wednesday, December 24, 

1997. This final rule may be found at 62 

FR 67526. 

The ACP has proven to be extremely 

successful for both the Coast Guard and 

ship owners and operators. As expected, 

the program has evolved since 1997 and 

the lessons learned have typically been 

documented and implemented through 

Coast Guard policy decisions. This 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

describes the Coast Guard’s proposals to 

incorporate into the CFR those policy 

decisions as well as other revisions that 

expand the ACP. 

When the ACP was initiated, the 

Coast Guard chose to retain issuing 

authority for the SOLAS Passenger Ship 

Safety Certificate (PSSC). This decision 

was intentionally conservative, given 

the newness of the ACP, and was based 

on our experience with the complexities 

of the passenger vessel plan review, 

inspection, and certification process. 

Subsequent experience has shown that 

retaining this issuing authority creates 

confusion over the roles of the Coast 

Guard versus the authorized 

classification society under the ACP. 

Experience with the ACP has also 

allowed us to gain confidence with the 

ACP process and its undeniably 

successful results. Therefore, we feel 

granting authorized classification 

societies issuing authority for the PSSC 

is now appropriate. 

For similar reasons, we are also 

proposing to allow authorized 

classification societies to be delegated 

the authority to issue the High-Speed 

Craft (HSC) Safety Certificate. In May 

2000, we determined that the HSC Code 

is equivalent to the 46 CFR Subchapter 

H requirements for large passenger 

vessels. As the Coast Guard and several 

classification societies have now gained 

significant experience with the HSC 

Code, we feel it is logical that the ACP 

include this document. 

Our experience with the success of 

the ACP has also given us the flexibility 

to explore applying the program to other 

types of vessels that were originally 

excluded under our measured 

implementation approach. Positive 

feedback and recommendations from 

the U.S. maritime industry demonstrate 

broad support for this idea. As a result, 

we propose the ACP be expanded to 

encompass Oceanographic Research 

Vessels that engage on international 

voyages. 

Soon after the current rule went into 

effect, we recognized that a 

classification society needs 

authorization to issue five basic IMO 

certificates before it can 

comprehensively fulfill its role in the 

ACP, namely: 

• The Cargo Ship Safety Construction 

Certificate from the International 

Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 

1974; 

• The Cargo Ship Safety Equipment 

Certificate from the International 

Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 

1974; 

• The International Load Line 

Certificate from the International 

Convention on Load Lines; 

• The International Tonnage 

Certificate from the International 

Convention on Tonnage Measurement; 

and 

• The International Oil Pollution 

Prevention Certificate from the Protocol 

of 1978 relating to the International 

Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships, 1973. 

While we have implemented this 

concept as part of our operating 

policies, it has not been incorporated 

into 46 CFR part 8. Therefore, this 

proposed rule would also accomplish 

this change. 

The initial version of the ACP only 

applied to the American Bureau of 

Shipping with whom the Coast Guard 

had collaborated to develop the first 

U.S. Supplement (the list of differences 

between the CFR and the combination 

of IMO treaty provisions and 

classification society rules). As the 

program has expanded, we have 

engaged in similar partnerships with 

other classification societies resulting in 

their approval to participate in the ACP. 

Consequently, our specific references to 

the American Bureau of Shipping in 46 

CFR part 2 are outdated. Therefore, we 

proposed to replace specific references 

to the American Bureau of Shipping 

with a more general reference to 

authorized classification societies. The 

term ‘‘authorized classification society’’

is already defined in 46 CFR 8.100. 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This NPRM proposes to amend 46 

CFR 2.01–25(a) to: 

• List all IMO certificates required to 

be maintained aboard ships; and 

• Update the lists of IMO certificates 

issued only by the USCG and those that 

may be issued by an authorized 

classification society on the Coast 

Guard’s behalf. 

In § 2.01–25, we would change the 

phrase ‘‘American Bureau of Shipping’’

to ‘‘authorized classification society.’’

In § 8.320(b), this NPRM would add 

the following IMO certificates to the list 

of those that can be issued by an 

authorized classification society: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
28652 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

• Passenger Ship Safety Certificate 

(PSSC) 

• High-Speed Craft (HSC) Safety 

Certificate 

This NPRM would also, in § 8.420(c), 

add to the list of conditions for 

eligibility to participate in the ACP, a 

requirement that a classification society 

must have been delegated issuing 

authority for the Cargo Ship Safety 

Construction Certificate, Cargo Ship 

Safety Equipment Certificate, 

International Load Line Certificate, 

International Tonnage Certificate, and 

International Oil Pollution Prevention 

Certificate. 

Finally, in new § 189.15–5, we would 

expand the ACP to include Subchapter 

U ‘‘Oceanographic Research Vessels.’’

VI. Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. It will not 

impose any mandatory costs on the 

public because it enables a voluntary 

alternative to the traditionally 

prescribed method of inspection. 

However, we anticipate that vessel 

owners and operators may realize an 

economic benefit in the form of cost 

savings as a result of this proposed rule 

as outlined in the final rule published 

December 24, 1997. See 62 FR 67525 

and 67530. We request comments from 

the public on how much they believe 

the proposed rule would save them. 

A. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

This rule does not change any 

requirements in the regulations. It 

simply updates and expands an existing 

voluntary program for alternate 

compliance with Coast Guard 

regulations. Therefore, the Coast Guard 

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment to the Docket 

Management Facility at Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. In 

your comment, explain why you think 

it qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

B. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult Mr. William 

Peters, U.S. Coast Guard Office of 

Design and Engineering Standards, 

telephone 202–372–1731. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this rule or any policy or action of the 

Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

F. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

G. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

H. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

I. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

J. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

K. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in lieu of 

government-unique standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

determines use of these standards 

would be inconsistent with law or are 

otherwise impractical. Agencies not 

using voluntary consensus standards in 

lieu of government-unique standards 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28653 

must provide Congress, through the 

Office of Management and Budget, with 

an explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g. specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standard bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

voluntary consensus standards as there 

are none that meet the objectives of this 

rulemaking, and, therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

L. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is not likely to have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

preamble. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to discovery 

of a significant environmental impact 

from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

46 CFR Part 2 

Marine safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Vessels. 

46 CFR Part 8 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Incorporation by reference, 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Vessels. 

46 CFR Part 189 

Marine safety, Oceanographic 

research vessels, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Amendatory Text 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 46 CFR parts 2, 8, and 189 as 

follows: 

PART 2—VESSEL INSPECTIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 

46 U.S.C. 2110, 3103, 3205, 3306, 3307, 3703; 

46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 

58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. Subpart 2.45 also issued under 

the Act Dec. 27, 1950, Ch. 1155, secs. 1, 2, 

64 Stat. 1120 (see 46 U.S.C. App. Note prec. 

1). 

§ 2.01–25 [Amended] 

2. In § 2.01–25—

a. Add a new paragraph (a)(1)(ix) to 

read as set forth below: 

b. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the 

words ‘‘the American Bureau of 

Shipping may issue the Cargo Ship 

Safety Construction Certificate to cargo 

and tankships which it classes.’’ and 

add, in their place, the words ‘‘an 

authorized classification society may 

issue international convention 

certificates as permitted under part 8, 

subpart C, of this title.’’ and; 

c. In paragraph (b)(1), after the word 

‘‘Cargoes),’’ remove the word ‘‘and’’, 

and after the words ‘‘Passenger 

Vessels)’’, add the words ‘‘and 

Subchapter U (Oceanographic Research 

Vessels),’’. 

§ 2.01–25 International Convention for the 

Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. 

(a)* * * 

(1) * * * 

(ix) High Speed Craft Safety 

Certificate 

* * * * * 

PART 8—VESSEL INSPECTION 

ALTERNATIVES 

3. The authority citation for part 8 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3103, 3306, 3316, 

3703; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 8.320 [Amended] 

4. In § 8.320, amend paragraph (b)—

a. In paragraph (b)(8), remove the 

word ‘‘and’’; 

b. In paragraph (b)(9), remove the 

period and add, in its place, a 

semicolon; and 

c. Add new paragraphs (b)(10) and 

(11) to read as follows: 

§ 8.320 Classification society authorization 

to issue international certificates. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(10) SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety 

Certificate; and 

(11) High-Speed Craft Safety 

Certificate. 

* * * * * 

§ 8.420 [Amended] 

5. In § 8.420, revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 8.420 Classification society authorization 

to participate in the Alternate Compliance 

Program. 

* * * * * 

(c) A recognized classification society: 

(1) Will be eligible to receive 

authorization to participate in the ACP 

only after the Coast Guard has delegated 

to it the authority to issue the following 

certificates: 

(i) International Load Line Certificate; 

(ii) International Tonnage Certificate; 

(iii) Cargo Ship Safety Construction 

Certificate; 

(iv) Cargo Ship Safety Equipment 

Certificate; and 

(v) International Oil Pollution 

Prevention Certificate; and 

(2) Must have performed a delegated 

function related to general vessel safety 

assessment, as defined in § 8.100 of this 

part, for a two-year period. 

* * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER U—OCEANOGRAPHIC 

RESEARCH VESSELS 

PART 189—INSPECTION AND 

CERTIFICATION 

6. The authority citation for Part 189 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 

2113, 3306, 3307; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 

3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 

FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 189.15–5 [Added] 

7. Add new § 189.15–5 to read as 

follows: 

§ 189.15–5 Alternate compliance. 

(a) In place of compliance with other 

applicable provisions of this subchapter, 

the owner or operator of a vessel subject 

to plan review and inspection under 

this subchapter for initial issuance or 

renewal of a Certificate of Inspection 

may comply with the Alternate 

Compliance Program provisions of 46 

CFR Part 8. 

(b) For the purposes of this section, a 

list of authorized classification societies, 

including information for ordering 

copies of approved classification society 

rules and supplements, is available from 

Commandant (CG–3PSE), 2100 Second 

St., SW., Washington, DC 20593–0001; 

telephone (202) 372–1371; or fax (202) 

372–1925. Approved classification 

society rules and supplements are 

incorporated by reference into 46 CFR 

8.110(b). 

Dated: May 11, 2007. 

Craig E. Bone, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention. 

[FR Doc. E7–9840 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS