17008 Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 8

[CGD 96–055]

RIN 2115–AF37

Streamlined Inspection Program

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish an optional Streamlined

Inspection Program (SIP) to provide

owners and operators of U.S.

documented or registered vessels an

alternative method of complying with

Coast Guard inspection requirements.

Vessel owners or operators would have

their own personnel periodically

perform many of the tests and

examinations conducted by Coast Guard

marine inspectors. Vessel owners and

operators opting to participate in the

program would maintain a vessel in

compliance with a Vessel Action Plan

(VAP). The Coast Guard expects that

participating vessels would

continuously meet a higher level of

safety and inspection readiness

throughout the inspection cycle.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to the

Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406) [CGD 96–055],

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or deliver them to room

3406 at the same address between 9:30

a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

Comments on collection-ofinformation requirements must be

mailed also to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th

Street NW., Washington, DC 20593,

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

The Executive Secretary maintains the

public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between

9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR

Mark D. Bobal, Vessel and Facility

Operating Standards Division (G–MSO–

2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street, SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, telephone (202) 267–1093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulem aking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

[CGD 96–055] and the specific section of

this proposal to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit two copies of

all comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose stamped, self-addressed

postcards or envelopes.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this proposal in

view of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the Marine Safety

Council at the address under

ADDRESSES. The request should include

the reason why a hearing would be

beneficial. If it determines that the

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard

will hold a public meeting at a time and

place announced by a later document in

the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

Title 46 U.S.C. 3306 authorizes the

Coast Guard to prescribe regulations

necessary to carry out the inspection of

vessels required to be inspected under

46 U.S.C. 3301. The inspection of

vessels identified in 46 U.S.C. 3301 is

required by statute; however, the

specific procedures for conducting

inspection are set out in Coast Guard

regulations.

In 1992, as part of an initiative known

as Maritime Regulatory Reform, the

Coast Guard considered a number of

alternatives for inspection of U.S.

documented or registered vessels. Two

of these alternatives are the Alternate

Compliance Program (ACP)(46 CFR part

8) and the proposed Streamlined

Inspection Program (SIP).

The SIP would be an optional

alternative inspection program for

owners and operators of U.S.

documented or registered vessels,. The

objective of the SIP would be to have

vessels participate in a constant state of

regulatory compliance rather than the

traditional cyclical readiness associated

with vessels that must undergo Coast

Guard periodic inspections. Under this

alternative, the vessel owner or operator

would work with a Coast Guard

representative to develop a Company

Action Plan (CAP) and a Vessel Action

Plan (VAP). A CAP describes the

company’s organization and its

commitment to the SIP. The CAP also

details how the company would train its

employees on their specific SIP

responsibilities. The VAP describes the

Coast Guard regulations that apply to

the vessel and the company’s tailored

plans for its employees to properly

examine vessel systems and ensure

these systems operate safely. To

simplify the CAP and the VAP and to

provide consistency throughout the

country, the Coast Guard would provide

specific guidance for prospective SIP

companies and Coast Guard personnel.

These guidance documents would be

published for each regulatory

subchapter applicable to particular

types of vessels (e.g., 46 CFR chapter I,

subchapters T, K, H, L, I, and D). Plans

would contain detailed procedures for

periodic examination and testing of

vessel equipment and systems by

company employees.

To provide flexibility and to

encourage greater participation in the

SIP, waiver provisions for the SIP

procedural requirements are included in

this proposed rule. A company could

request a waiver for any provision of the

proposed SIP regulations. After the

cognizant OCMI has reviewed the

request, waivers would be considered

on a case-by-case basis by the Coast

Guard District Commander. For

example, a waiver could be granted for

a company to allow enrollment of a

vessel that does not meet the 3-year

ownership rule prior to the date of

application as proposed in § 8.515. The

waiver provisions in this proposed rule

do not affect the equipment, operating,

or other requirements of the regulatory

subchapter applicable to the vessel.

The SIP would be premised on

responsible company personnel

performing vessel system examinations

at a frequency ordinarily greater than,

but at least equal to, examinations

conducted by Coast Guard marine

inspectors. The Coast Guard would

continue to certificate vessels enrolled

in the SIP and ensure that they meet

applicable safety requirements. Under

SIP, the company would have an

interactive role in ensuring compliance

with applicable laws and regulations.

By participating in the development of

a VAP with the Coast Guard, the

company has greater control of its

vessels’ operations and procedures, and

will be able to measure the success of

the SIP. The CAP and VAP are expected

to be dynamic working documents that

would require continuous maintenance

and periodic revision by the company to
Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17009

ensure proper administration of its SIP

as set forth in this proposed rule. A

vessel enrolled in the SIP and operating

under an approved VAP would still be

inspected by a Coast Guard marine

inspector, but the procedures for

inspection would be contained in the

VAP’s Inspection Criteria References

and the Inspection Schedule and

Verification. These documents

incorporate all inspection requirements

for the vessel and conform to the

inspection subchapters applicable to the

vessel.

To ensure the high standards of the

SIP are upheld, the Coast Guard is

proposing disenrollment criteria. Under

this proposal, the disenrollment of a

vessel from the SIP may take two

forms—voluntary and involuntary.

Voluntary disenrollment would be

granted at the company’s request.

Failure to maintain compliance with a

CAP or VAP may lead to involuntary

disenrollment of a company or a vessel.

Should this occur, the vessel would be

inspected under traditional inspection

methods or inspected under the ACP.

Disenrolled companies and vessels

would have to apply to the cognizant

Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection

(OCMI), if they wanted to participate in

the SIP again. Companies would have

the right to appeal the OCMI

determinations under this proposed SIP

as found in 46 CFR 1.03.

If vessels choose not to participate in

the SIP, these vessels would continue to

be inspected by the Coast Guard under

traditional procedures or, perhaps, opt

to be inspected by a Recognized

Classification Society under the ACP.

Discussion of Proposed Rules

The Coast Guard proposes to add the

SIP as an inspection alternative for

qualified U. S. documented or registered

vessels. The SIP would include

inspections for certification,

reinspections, and discrepancy followups. Dry-dock examinations would not

be included in the SIP. Dry-dock

examinations would be conducted as

prescribed by the operational inspection

subchapter in 46 CFR chapter I

applicable to each vessel. As SIP

performance data is collected and

evaluated by the Coast Guard, dry-dock

examinations may be added to this

program.

The Coast Guard’s proposed process

to consider a company and at least one

of its vessels for the SIP can be broken

down into four phases as described in

the following discussion.

Phase (1): Application

This phase would begin with a

company’s application submission to

the OCMI and end with the OCMI’s

acceptance or rejection of the applicant.

Illustration (1) shows the proposed

process and lists the proposed

regulatory sections for each step.

BILLING CODE 4910–14–P
17010 Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17011
17012 Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The applying company and at least

one of its vessels would have to meet

certain eligibility requirements to be

accepted in the SIP. The proposal

includes a requirement for the company

to operate the vessel for at least 3 years

prior to the SIP application. This

ensures that the Coast Guard would

have sufficient documentation on the

vessel’s operating history to properly

evaluate the company and vessel

application. The Coast Guard is

proposing other eligibility requirements

that would ensure that a vessel has been

operating in compliance with Coast

Guard regulations. For example, the

company would have to reconcile all

overdue civil penalties or user fees and

the vessel could not have documented

material deficiencies which indicate

operation outside the requirements

contained in the COI. These

documented deficiencies do not apply

to the provisions of deviations from

navigation safety rules (33 CFR 164.51

through 164.55) or sailing short (46 CFR

15.725).

Phase (2): Plan Development

During this phase, the company and

vessel personnel would work with a

Coast Guard SIP Advisor, who would be

a qualified Coast Guard marine

inspector assigned by the OCMI as

resources permit. Together they would

develop the CAP and the VAP(s), the

detailed documents that would govern

how company employees would be

trained and would test and examine the

vessel’s systems under the SIP.

Illustration (2) shows the proposed

process and lists the proposed

regulatory sections for each step.
Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17013
17014 Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The Coast Guard SIP Advisor would

initially help the company to develop

the CAP and first VAP. After OCMI

approval, additional VAPs would be

created addressing other company

vessel’s and their specific equipment

and systems. Development of the CAP

and VAP(s) is an iterative process. The

CAP and VAP may need to be revised

to address concerns such as vessel

specific equipment or personnel

training needs. This planning phase

would end with OCMI approval of all

VAP(s) and any vessels would then

enter the operational evaluation phase.

Phase (3): Operational Evaluation

During this phase, a participating

vessel would be operated under its VAP

and inspected by the Coast Guard SIP

Advisor in accordance with the VAP.

The company would train its employees

to follow procedures in the VAP.

Illustration (3) shows the proposed

process and lists the proposed

regulatory sections for each step.
Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17015
17016 Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

After OCMI approval of the CAP and

VAP(s), the company would begin

implementation of its SIP. This would

be a two-step process consisting of

employee training and a SIP trial period.

Company training would provide

company employees the skills they need

to perform their specific SIP

responsibilities.

When the training is completed, a

trial period of at least 3 months would

begin to test the effectiveness of the

VAP on each vessel. During the trial

period, problems would be documented

by company personnel and the Coast

Guard SIP Advisor. The company may

be required to modify its VAP

procedures, if necessary.

Phase (4): Enrollment

Following a successful operational

evaluation phase, the cognizant OCMI

would enroll a vessel in the SIP and

authorize full implementation of the SIP

through a specific endorsement on the

vessel’s COI. Illustration (4) shows the

proposed process and lists the proposed

regulatory sections for each step.
Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17017

BILLING CODE 4910–14–C
17018 Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

that order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).

The Coast Guard expects the

economic impact of this proposal to be

so minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary. The Coast Guard

expects this proposal to provide an

economic benefit to the owners and

operators of U.S. documented or

registered vessels. Currently, 11,800

U.S. documented or registered vessels

may be eligible to participate in this

optional Streamlined Inspection

Program (SIP). Entrance into a SIP is

voluntary. Because the program is new,

it is difficult to estimate how many

vessel owners will choose to develop a

Vessel Action Plan (VAP) and seek

enrollment. Some Coast Guard offices

have been working with company

owners on prototype programs that are

similar to the proposed SIP.

Over the next 3 years, the Coast Guard

estimates that the following number of

vessels would voluntarily enroll in the

SIP:

• 274 small passenger vessels

(subchapter T).

• 78 small passenger vessels

(subchapter K).

• 48 large passenger vessels

(subchapter H).

• 131 offshore supply vessels

(subchapter L).

• 29 cargo vessels (subchapter I).

• 4 tank ships (subchapter D).

• 942 tank barges or oil spill response

vessels (OSRVs) (subchapter D or O).

These estimates of vessel enrollment

reflect both the number of vessels

presently in prototype programs similar

to the proposed SIP and the number of

vessels that could enter in the SIP

within the next 3 years.

Industry Cost

Cost estimates for the proposed SIP

were based on the incremental costs

company owners and operators have

incurred participating in prototype

programs similar to the proposed SIP.

Company owners and operators would

have different economic impacts from

this program depending on the number,

class, and size of the vessels that they

enter in the program. The time and

resources an owner or operator may

spend developing the VAP would vary

depending on the vessel’s system

complexity (simple tank barge systems

or multi-faceted large passenger vessel

systems), the current company

management infrastructure (availability

of support staff, system expertise and

strength of organizational policies), and

the number of crewmembers or

employees involved with the plan’s

implementation. The company time

spent developing and implementing the

VAP(s) is considered part of this

proposal’s collection-of-information

burden.

Under this proposal, vessel owners

and operators would incur some SIP

implementation training costs. These

costs reflect a slight increase in existing

crew or employee training costs to

ensure responsible personnel have the

skills needed to conduct maintenance

and examinations of vessel equipment

a′nd systems required by the VAP.

One small passenger vessel owner

(regulated under subchapter K),

currently in a prototype program

estimated that training on the VAP took

approximately 35 hours for four

employees required to properly conduct

and record the tests and examinations

under the VAP. Based on an hourly

salary of $16 for the trainer, and an

average hourly salary of $13 for each of

the four employees, a one-time training

cost is estimated to be $2,380 for a

similar passenger vessel.

A tank barge owner currently in a

prototype program estimated that

training on the VAP took approximately

40 days for 16 employees required to

conduct and record examinations under

the VAP. Based on an 8-hour training

day, an hourly salary of $33.65 for the

trainer, and an average hourly salary of

$25 for each of the employees, the

training cost is estimated to be $138,770

for a similar 200-barge fleet.

One-time training costs for vessels in

the SIP is estimated to range from $700

($138,770 divided by a 200-simplesystem fleet) to $3,000 (for one large

multi-system vessel) per vessel. Once

the VAP is approved and the vessel is

enrolled in the SIP, it was assumed that

any further training would be

incorporated into established company

training and vessel maintenance

programs at little or no additional cost.

Therefore, recurring training costs were

not included in the cost estimates for

this proposal.

Some owners and operators

participating in prototype programs

purchased computers and other

administrative items to assist in the

collation of plan information. While a

computer could reduce the

administrative time spent on developing

the VAP, a company would not be

required to have a computer in this

proposal. Because a company could

meet all of the SIP criteria without a

computer, no equipment costs were

included in the cost estimate for this

proposal. The Coast Guard specifically

solicits comments on potential training

costs or other costs companies may

incur if voluntarily enrolled in SIP.

Industry Benefits

Benefits from the proposed SIP are

expected to vary and are not currently

quantifiable. Participants in prototype

programs stated that the cost to

participate and maintain this type of

voluntary program has been partially

offset by an increased availability of

their vessels for profit-making ventures.

Some Coast Guard marine inspectors

have noted as much as a 50 percent

reduction in their onboard inspection

time on vessels participating in a

prototype program. Other benefits have

also been reported by prototype program

participants. These participants

reported that they have experienced the

following benefits:

• The vessel’s material condition was

kept at a consistently high level and

there were fewer major repairs.

• The company’s cost of maintaining

the vessel in regulatory compliance was

reduced and expenses were more evenly

distributed over time.

• The licensed mariners recognized

their role in regulatory compliance and

welcomed the empowerment to conduct

the procedures specified in the VAP.

• The unlicensed crew experienced

more rapid professional growth as they

were trained and became familiar with

conducting the step-by-step verification

procedures.

• The communication between the

company and the Coast Guard was open

and problem-solving.

• The vessel’s working environment

was better than it was under the

traditional inspection program.

• There were fewer insurance claims

and personnel injuries.

• The vessel’s maintenance records

provide more information and are better

than the records the company required

on its own.

There were no monetary estimates for

the value of these benefits. The Coast

Guard specifically seeks comments on

these potential benefits and their value

for this proposed program.

User Fees

The Coast Guard expects that once

implemented, the proposed SIP would

result in fewer onboard Coast Guard

inspection hours required to inspect and
Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17019

certify participating vessels. This

proposal, however, would not change

existing vessel inspection user fees.

When sufficient data exists regarding

the Coast Guard costs required to

administer the new program, the Coast

Guard plans to review the existing user

fee structure to determine if a reduction

in fees is warranted.

Government Costs

This proposal has short-term costs to

the Coast Guard but, in the long-term,

will save resources. In the initial

implementation of the proposed SIP,

Coast Guard inspectors would need to

review company applications, assist

companies in plan development, and

oversee the operational implementation

of the plan. The time required by this

program varies depending on the type of

vessel and the current company

management infrastructure. It may take

the Coast Guard as little as 3 hours to

verify a tank barge company’s eligibility,

18 hours to assist in developing and

reviewing its plan, and 8 hours to

oversee its operation prior to a favorable

assessment of the program by the Coast

Guard marine inspector. However, the

Coast Guard may take significantly more

time to assist in developing, reviewing,

and overseeing the plans and operation

of a large passenger vessel because of its

complex onboard systems and the large

number of company personnel involved

in managing the SIP. After the initial

investment of Coast Guard resources

(time and training) to assist vessel

personnel with their plans, the Coast

Guard expects to reduce the amount of

time taken to inspect and certify SIP

enrolled vessels.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ may include (1) small

businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields and (2)

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard expects this proposal

to have a positive economic impact for

owners and operators who choose to

participate in the SIP. Approximately

1,388 owners and operators may

volunteer for the proposed SIP within

the next 3 years. Of these, 334 small

passenger vessels, 52 offshore supply

vessels, and 94 tank barges or OSRV’s

are estimated to be owned by small

entities. Under Section 601 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Coast

Guard has provided a flexible approach

which meets the needs of each company

and its vessels and would benefit any

small businesses choosing to enter the

proposed program. This proposal would

have no impact on vessel owners who

do not choose to participate in the

program.

This proposal would provide an

optional way of complying with existing

inspection regulations and would only

have an economic impact if the vessel

owner chooses to use the SIP instead of

the existing Coast Guard scheduled

inspection program. For a small entity,

plan development may be too large an

initial investment recoverable after too

long a time for them to see the benefits.

To assist small entities in plan

development, the Coast Guard intends

to provide detailed guidance tailored to

the small passenger vessel operator and

to other small entities that operate other

vessel types. The Coast Guard proposal

also provides for one-on-one time with

Coast Guard inspectors to assist in plan

development. Benefits from the

proposed SIP are expected to be

especially positive to those small

entities with more than one vessel in the

program because after developing the

first CAP and VAP, costs would be

minimal for developing VAP(s) for the

remaining vessels.

Because this proposed program is

voluntary and provides benefits to small

entities willing to invest the time and

training needed for enrollment, the

Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this proposal, if adopted,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If however, you think that your

business or organization qualifies as a

small entity and that this proposal

would have a significant economic

impact on your business or

organization, please submit a comment

to the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why you think it qualifies

and in what way and to what degree this

proposal would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

In accordance with section 213(a) of

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub.

L. 104–121), the Coast Guard will

provide assistance to small entities to

determine how this proposed rule

applies to them. If you are a small

business and need assistance

understanding the provisions of this

proposed rule please contact CDR Mark

D. Bobal, Vessel and Facility Operating

Standards Division (G–MSO–2), U.S.

Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593–

0001, telephone (202) 267–1093.

Collection of Information

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) reviews

each rule that contains a collection-ofinformation requirement to determine

whether the practical value of the

information is worth the burden

imposed by its collection. Collection-ofinformation requirements include

reporting, recordkeeping, notification

and other similar requirements.

This proposal contains collection-ofinformation requirements in the

following sections: §§ 8.520, 8.530,

8.535, and 8.550. The following

particulars apply: DOT NO: 2115–AF37.

OMB Control No(S).: 2115–0578,

2115–0592, 2115–0071, 2115–0025.

Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.

Title: 2115–0578: Various forms and

posting requirements under 46 CFR

chapter I, subchapters K and T ‘‘Small

Passenger Vessels (under 100 gross

tons).’’

2115–0592: 46 CFR chapter I,

subchapter L—Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Marking

Requirements.

2115–0071: Official Logbook.

2115–0025: Oil Record Book for

Ships.

Need for Information: Vessel records

are needed to document the compliance

of a vessel with U.S. regulations and

law. Company owners or operators

wishing to enroll their vessel(s) in the

program must submit the application(s),

develop the Vessel Action Plan(s), and

keep records on plan activities

conducted by designated company

employees.

Proposed Use of Information: The

information would be used by the Coast

Guard during vessel inspections to help

determine if the vessel is in compliance

with the requirements necessary for

issuance of a certificate of inspection

(COI).

Frequency of Response: Records must

be kept and reports must be submitted

whenever the company representative

performs activities required by the VAP.

These activities generally include a

crew member or company employee

completing a checklist for each onboard

system on a monthly or quarterly basis,

depending on the system and the VAP.

Estimates of the increase in the

collection burden differ based on the

vessel’s type, the company’s existing

operational guides and internal

inspection documents (if any), and the

vessel system knowledge of those

company personnel assigned to write

the plan. The development of the VAP
17020 Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

would be a one-time collection burden.

Recurring collection burdens would be

created when company employees keep

records of their activities to ensure the

plan is being followed. Based on

prototype programs similar to the

proposed SIP, the following collection

burdens are estimated for each vessel

type:

• Small passenger vessel (subchapter

T): Vessel Action Plan development: 70

hours. Annual report time after plan

approval: 9 hours in addition to current

collections under 2115–0578.

• Small passenger vessel (subchapter

K): Vessel Action Plan development:

100 hours. Annual report time after plan

approval: 12 hours in addition to

current collections under 2115–0578.

• Large passenger vessel (subchapter

H):

Vessel Action Plan development: 100

hours.

Annual report time after plan

approval: 14 hours in addition to

current collections under 2115–0071.

• Offshore supply vessel (subchapter

L):

Vessel Action Plan development: 60

hours.

Annual report time after plan

approval: 18 hours in addition to

current collections under 2115–0592.

• Cargo vessel (subchapter I):

Vessel Action Plan development: 80

hours.

Annual report time after plan

approval: 14 hours in addition to

current collections under 2115–0071.

• Tank Ship (subchapter D):

Vessel Action Plan development: 100

hours.

Annual report time after plan

approval: 16 hours in addition to

current collections under 2115–0071.

• Tank Barge and Oil Spill Response

Vessel (subchapter D):

Vessel Action Plan development: 40

hours.

Annual report time after plan

approval: 3 hours in addition to current

collections under 2115–0025.

Burden Estimate: The Coast Guard is

seeking an authorized increase in the

collection-of-information burden for the

following existing OMB control

numbers:

2115–0578: From 405,608 burden

hours to 416,869 hours.

2115–0592: From 2,051 burden hours

to 51,467 hours.

2115–0071: From 1,750 burden hours

to 5,018 hours.

2115–0025: From 10,418 burden

hours to 49,559 hours.

Respondents: The number of

respondents for each collection will be

amended as follows:

2115–0578: Remains the same.

2115–0592: Increases from 45

respondents to 528 respondents.

2115–0071: Remains the same.

2115–0025: Increases from 586

respondents to 2,516 respondents.

Form(s): None.

Average Burden Hours per

Respondent: Those respondents

voluntarily enrolled in the SIP would

have an increased average burden hour

per respondent as follows:

From 41 hours to 76 hours per

respondent for 2115–0578.

From 46 hours to 78 hours per

respondent for 2115–0592.

From 5 hours to 46 hours per

respondent for 2115–0071.

From 18 hours to 33 hours per

respondent for 2115–0025.

The Coast Guard has submitted the

proposed requirements to the OMB for

review under section 3504(h) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). Persons submitting

comments on the requirements should

submit their comments both to OMB

and the Coast Guard where indicated

under ADDRESSES.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612 and

has determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant a Federalism Assessment.

The authority to regulate safety

requirements of U.S. vessels is delegated

to the Coast Guard by statute.

Furthermore, because these vessels tend

to move from port to port in the national

market place, these safety requirements

need to be national in scope to avoid

numerous, unreasonable and

burdensome variances. Therefore, this

action would preempt State action

addressing the same matter.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that under paragraph 2.B.2 of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

this rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

This rule is excluded based on its

inspection and equipment aspects. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination is

available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 8

Administrative practice and

procedures, Organization and functions

(Government agencies), Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Incorporation by reference.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 46 CFR part 8 as follows:

PART 8—VESSEL INSPECTION

ALTERNATIVES

1. The authority citation for part 8 is

revised to read as follows:

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

3316, 3703; 49 CFR 1.45.

2. Subpart E, consisting of §§ 8.500

through 8.570, is added to read as

follows:

Subpart E—Streamlined Inspection

Program

Sec.

8.500 Purpose.

8.505 Scope and applicability.

8.510 Definitions.

8.515 Eligibility.

8.520 Application.

8.525 OCMI review and action.

8.530 Plan development and approval.

8.535 Training and operational evaluation.

8.540 Enrollment in SIP.

8.545 Scope of inspection for enrolled

vessels.

8.550 Plan review and revisions.

8.555 Disenrollment.

8.560 Waiver.

8.565 Appeal.

8.570 Interim approval of prototype

company or vessel plans.

Subpart E—Streamlined Inspection

Program

§ 8.500 Purpose.

(a) This subpart establishes the

Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP)

which is an alternative inspection

program for U.S. documented or

registered vessels required to maintain a

valid certificate of inspection (COI).

(b) This subpart sets out the eligibility

and application requirements and the

plan development and approval

procedures for enrollment of companies

and their vessels in the SIP.

§ 8.505 Scope and applicability.

(a) This subpart applies to U.S.

documented or registered vessels that

have a valid COI.

(b) A vessel enrolled in the SIP will

be inspected in accordance with its

approved Vessel Action Plan (VAP).

(c) The SIP includes all inspections

required to renew and maintain a valid

COI. The SIP does not include dry-dock

examinations, unscheduled inspections

related to vessel casualties, equipment

repair or replacement, or vessel

modifications. Those inspections will be

conducted in accordance with the

subparts applicable to the vessel.

§ 8.510 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to

this subpart:
Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 17021

Civil penalty means a final assessment

under the provisions of 33 CFR part 1,

subpart 1.07 or part 20 of this chapter.

Coast Guard SIP Advisor means the

Coast Guard marine inspector assigned

by the Officer in Charge, Marine

Inspection (OCMI), to assist in the

development of an action plan.

Company means the owner of the

vessel or any other organization or

person, such as the manager or the

bareboat charterer, who operates a

vessel under the SIP.

Company Action Plan (CAP) means

the document describing a company’s

organization, policies, and

responsibilities required for

participation in the SIP.

Company SIP Agent means the

individual who is responsible for the

Company Action Plan and the Vessel

Action Plan development and

implementation and who has the

authority to bind the company to the

terms of these plans.

Correction Report means a document

which sets out specific vessel

deficiencies and is used to record their

correction by the company.

Documented deficiency means an

incident documented in a Coast Guard

record in which the condition of a

vessel, its equipment, or its operation

was not in compliance with Coast Guard

regulations.

Exam checklist means the form that is

used to record the periodic

examinations required by the VAP to be

conducted by company employees.

Inspection Criteria References (ICR)

means the individual pages in the VAP

that list each item on the vessel required

by regulation to be periodically

inspected.

Inspection Schedule and Verification

(ISV) means the document that lists the

items to be inspected and the intervals

for their inspection, and on which is

recorded the completion of required

examinations and tests conducted by

designated company employees.

Prototype vessel plan means the SIP

plan developed for a vessel participating

in a Coast Guard District- or OCMIendorsed SIP before [Date of publication

of the final rule in the Federal Register].

Reportable casualty means a marine

casualty or accident required to be

reported under 46 CFR part 4, subpart

4.05 of this chapter.

Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP)

means the alternative inspection

program set out in this subpart.

Vessel Action Plan (VAP) means the

document that prescribes procedures for

maintenance, examination, and

inspection of a vessel enrolled in the

SIP.

§ 8.515 Eligibility.

(a) The company must—

(1) Have owned or operated at least

one U.S. documented or registered

vessel for a minimum of 3 consecutive

years before the SIP application date;

and

(2) Have paid all civil penalties and

user fees.

(b) Each vessel must—

(1) Have been in operation with an

eligible owner or operator for at least 3

consecutive years before the SIP

application date;

(2) Have had no revocation of its COI

during the 3 years before the SIP

application date; and

(3) Have no documented deficiency

for the following in the 3 years before

the SIP application date:

(i) Any vessel operation inconsistent

with the operating details specified on

its COI.

(ii) Operating without the required

amount of lifesaving appliances on

board the vessel or with inoperable

survival craft.

(iii) Operating without the required

firefighting equipment on board the

vessel or with an inoperable fire

pump(s).

(iv) Unauthorized modifications to the

vessel’s approved systems or structure,

such as fixed firefighting systems,

pollution prevention arrangements,

overcurrent protection devices, or

watertight boundary arrangements.

(v) Operating without the required

navigation equipment on board the

vessel or with inoperable navigation

equipment.

§ 8.520 Application.

To apply for SIP enrollment, a

company will submit an application, in

writing, to the cognizant OCMI. The

application must contain the following:

(a) A statement that the company and

prospective vessel(s) meet the

requirements of § 8.515.

(b) A summation of the company’s

current status in relation to § 8.530(a).

(c) The name and official number of

the vessel(s) the company intends to

enroll in the SIP.

(d) The name and contact information

for the Company SIP Agent.

§ 8.525 OCMI review and action.

(a) The cognizant OCMI will review

Coast Guard records for the 3 years

before the SIP application date to verify

the eligibility of the company and each

vessel listed in the SIP application.

(b) If the company and one or more

of its vessels meets the eligibility

requirements contained in § 8.515, the

cognizant OCMI will notify the

company of its eligibility and assign a

Coast Guard SIP Advisor.

(c) If, according to Coast Guard

records, a company or vessel does not

meet the eligibility requirements

contained in § 8.515, the cognizant

OCMI will notify the company in

writing of its ineligibility with a list the

reasons for not accepting the company

or a vessel.

§ 8.530 Plan development and approval.

The Company SIP Agent will develop

the CAP and VAP with guidance from

the Coast Guard SIP Advisor for OCMI

approval.

(a) Company Action Plan. The CAP

shall include at least the following:

(1) A copy of the OCMI CAP approval

letter (once the CAP is approved).

(2) An organization commitment

statement.

(3) A company organization chart that

includes the name(s) of the designated

SIP support personnel who will be

responsible for implementation and

oversight of the approved CAP and

VAP(s).

(4) A statement describing the

responsibilities and authorities of

personnel involved in the examination

and maintenance of the vessel(s) for the

company.

(5) A description of the method the

company will use to integrate the

applicable subpart regulations into its

SIP and the method or system used to

initiate corrective action.

(6) A description of the company’s

safety program.

(7) A description of the company’s

environmental protection program.

(8) A description of the company’s

training infrastructure, the method used

to track and record training for

individual employees, and the training

required for the designated SIP support

personnel to implement the CAP and

the VAP.

(9) A master list of all SIP documents

and ICRs that the company intends to

use in its VAP(s).

(10) Appendices for each approved

VAP.

(b) Vessel Action Plan. Each VAP

shall include at least the following:

(1) A copy of the OCMI VAP approval

letter (once the VAP is approved).

(2) A description of the method that

will be used to integrate the VAP into

the vessel’s regular operations.

(3) Vessel-specific ICRs.

(4) Vessel-specific ISV forms.

(5) Vessel-specific exam checklists.

(6) Correction Reports.

(c) Plan Approval. The Company SIP

Agent will submit the CAP and each

VAP to the cognizant OCMI for

approval. Once approved, a copy of the

VAP shall be kept on board the vessel.
17022 Federal Register /Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

§ 8.535 Training and operational

evaluation.

When the CAP and VAP(s) have been

approved by the cognizant OCMI, the

company may begin training and

operating under the plans. This

evaluation phase includes the following:

(a) The company shall provide the

designated SIP support personnel with

training as required by the CAP.

(b) The vessel must operate and be

examined under the VAP for a period of

at least 3 months.

(c) During the operational periods, the

Coast Guard SIP Adviser will conduct

an ongoing evaluation of the vessel’s

operation, the training records, and the

ability of all designated persons to

perform their assigned functions under

the VAP. The Coast Guard SIP Advisor

will report periodically to the cognizant

OCMI and the Company SIP Agent on

the vessel’s performance, and make

recommendations, if needed.

(e) Revisions recommended under

paragraph (c) of this section, or any

additional operational periods under a

revised CAP or VAP as may be required

by the cognizant OCMI must be

completed prior to enrollment.

§ 8.540 Enrollment in SIP.

Upon recommendation of the Coast

Guard SIP Advisor, the OCMI may issue

an enrollment letter to a vessel and

endorse the vessel’s COI to reflect SIP

enrollment. Subsequent inspections

covered under this subpart will be

conducted in accordance with the

approved VAP.

§ 8.545 Scope of inspection for enrolled

vessels.

(a) A Coast Guard marine inspector

will conduct required annual and

follow-on inspections necessary to

ensure compliance with Coast Guard

regulations.

(b) A Coast Guard marine inspector

will conduct the inspections in

paragraph (a) of this section in

accordance with the procedures set out

in the VAP. These inspections will

normally include the following:

(1) Administrative review. This

portion of the inspection consists of a

review of prior Coast Guard SIP

inspection forms, review of the contents

of the VAP, and review of other

certifications of equipment and vessel

systems.

(2) SIP performance review. This

portion of the inspection consists of a

review of vessel SIP documentation and

records, review of the SIP procedures,

and a company evaluation of their SIP.

(3) Materiel review. This portion of

the inspection consists of a general

examination of the vessel, witnessing

the examination of selected items under

the VAP by company designated SIP

support personnel, inspection of

selected items, and witnessing of crew

participation in drills by the Coast

Guard marine inspector.

(4) Conclusion and recommendations.

This portion of the inspection contains

the Coast Guard marine inspector’s

evaluation of regulatory compliance of

the vessel under its VAP.

(c) A Coast Guard marine inspector

may conduct any additional tests or

examinations of vessel equipment or

systems necessary to ensure compliance

with Coast Guard regulations during an

inspection covered in paragraph (a) of

this section.

§ 8.550 Plan review and revisions.

(a) Mandatory reviews and revisions.

The CAP and VAP(s) must be reviewed

and revised as follows:

(1) Every 2 years after the plan

approval date, the company shall review

the CAP and update all information

required by § 8.530.

(2) Every 5 years after the plan

approval date, the Coast Guard SIP

Advisor and the Company SIP Agent

will review the VAP.

(3) If a reportable casualty occurs, the

cognizant OCMI will review the

portions of the VAP related to

equipment, training, personnel, and

systems involved in the casualty and

determine whether revisions to the VAP

are appropriate.

(4) When statutes or regulations

change, the appropriate sections of the

CAP and VAP(s) will be revised.

(b) Discretionary reviews and

revisions. The CAP and VAP(s) may be

reviewed and revised by the company at

any time. The revisions must be

submitted to the cognizant OCMI for

approval.

§ 8.555 Disenrollment.

(a) Voluntary disenrollment. A

company may request SIP disenrollment

(which includes all of its vessels) or

may request disenrollment of a specific

vessel from the SIP by writing to the

cognizant OCMI. The OCMI will then

issue a letter disenrolling the vessel or

company. Disenrolled vessels will be

inspected in accordance with the

requirements of 46 CFR part 2, subpart

2.01 of this chapter.

(b) Company disenrollment. The

OCMI may issue a letter disenrolling the

company if the company no longer has

at least one enrolled vessel or if the

company fails to continuously meet the

eligibility requirements in § 8.515.

(c) Vessel disenrollment. The OCMI

may issue a letter disenrolling a vessel

if any one or more of the following

occurs:

(1) The sale of the vessel.

(2) A finalized letter of warning or

assessment of a civil penalty for—

(i) Operating outside the scope of the

vessel’s COI or Stability Letter;

(ii) Not reporting a personnel or

material casualty required to be reported

under 46 CFR part 4; or

(iii) A material deficiency listed in

§ 8.515(b)(3).

§ 8.560 Waiver.

(a) A Coast Guard District Commander

may waive any requirement of this

subpart—

(1) If good cause exists for granting a

waiver; and

(2) If the safety of the vessel and those

on board will not be adversely affected.

(b) Requests for waiver of any

requirement of this subpart must be

submitted in writing to the cognizant

OCMI for review before forwarding to

the Coast Guard District Commander for

action.

(c) A copy of each waiver under this

section shall be maintained at all times

in the VAP.

§ 8.565 Appeal.

A company may appeal any decision

or action taken under this subpart in

accordance with 46 CFR part 1, subpart

1.03 of this chapter.

§ 8.570 Interim approval of prototype

company or vessel plans.

(a) A company operating under an

approved prototype company or vessel

plan must apply, in writing by [Date 3

months after the effective date of the

final rule], to the cognizant OCMI for

approval to continue operating under

the plans while revisions are developed

to bring the prototype company or

vessel plan into conformance with this

subpart. The OCMI may approve the

request for a period of up to 3 years.

(b) A company that does not request

approval as required by paragraph (a) of

this section or does not obtain approval

to continue operating under a prototype

company or vessel plan by [Date 6

months after the effective date of the

final rule], may no longer operate under

the plans and will be inspected in

accordance with the requirements of 46

CFR part 2, subpart 2.01 of this chapter.

Dated: March 21, 1997.

J.C. Card,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 97–8509 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M