[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44346-44356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21549]
[[Page 44345]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Part 8
Streamlined Inspection Program; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 44346]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 8
[CGD 96-055]
RIN 2115-AF37
Streamlined Inspection Program
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing 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 and operators
opting to participate in the program will maintain a vessel in
compliance with a Vessel Action Plan (VAP) and have their own personnel
periodically perform many of the tests and examinations conducted by
Coast Guard marine inspectors. Coast Guard inspectors will conduct
inspections in accordance with the approved VAP. The Coast Guard
expects that participating vessels will continuously meet a higher
level of safety and inspection readiness throughout the inspection
cycle.
DATES: This final rule is effective September 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for
inspection or copying at the office of the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 20593-0001, between 9:30 a.m. and
2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Paul Arnett, Vessel Compliance
Division (G-MOC-2), telephone 202-267-0498, fax 202-267-4394.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On April 8, 1997, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled, ``Streamlined Inspection Program'' in the Federal
Register (62 FR 17008). The Coast Guard received 27 letters commenting
on the proposed rulemaking. No public meeting was requested, and none
was held.
Background and Purpose
Section 3306 of title 46 U.S. Code 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 inspections are set out in Coast
Guard regulations.
In 1992, as part of its Maritime Regulatory Reform initiative, 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 Streamlined
Inspection Program (SIP).
The SIP is an optional, alternative inspection program for owners
and operators of U.S. documented or registered vessels. The objective
of the SIP is 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 works
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 will train its employees on their specific SIP
responsibilities. The VAP describes the Coast Guard regulations that
apply to the vessel and the company's detailed procedures for its
employees to maintain and examine vessel systems to ensure these
systems operate safely. To simplify the CAP and the VAP and to provide
consistency throughout the country, the Coast Guard will provide
specific guidance for prospective SIP participants and Coast Guard
personnel for each regulatory subchapter applicable to particular types
of vessels (e.g., 46 CFR chapter I, subchapters D, H, I, K, L, O, R, T,
and U).
Vessel owners or operators who do not elect to participate in the
SIP will continue to have their vessels inspected by the Coast Guard
under traditional procedures or, if eligible, may choose to be
inspected by a recognized classification society under the ACP.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received 27 letters commenting on the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Fifteen comments generally supported the
proposed SIP. The following paragraphs contain a discussion of comments
received and an explanation of changes, if any, made to the proposed
regulations. General comments on the rulemaking project are discussed
first, followed by comments on specific sections of the regulation.
Other changes to the proposed rule, not based on comments, are
discussed last.
General Comments
Several comments noted that vessels enrolled in the SIP
should have their user fees reduced as an incentive to encourage vessel
operators to enroll.
As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, the Coast Guard will
consider a regulatory project to revise user fees for enrolled vessels
when sufficient cost data is available. Prototype programs have had
varying degrees of Coast Guard involvement and therefore cannot be a
basis for determining the overall costs or savings of the SIP.
A number of comments discussed the relationship between
the SIP and the ACP. The comments suggested combining the provisions of
the two programs and allowing vessels enrolled in the ACP to also
enroll in the SIP.
The SIP and the ACP are two separate inspection programs available
to vessel owners. The SIP and the ACP are mutually exclusive programs.
The SIP is an alternative method for meeting Coast Guard inspection
requirements, but all inspections are still done by Coast Guard marine
inspectors. The ACP provides for vessel inspections using inspectors
employed by a recognized classification society. The ACP is available
only to vessels operating on international voyages and classed through
a recognized classification society. The SIP alternative is available
to any U.S. inspected vessel meeting the eligibility requirements.
Some comments discussed personnel, staffing, and
consistency concerns. The comments suggested using retired Coast Guard
marine inspectors as SIP Advisors; expressed concerns that the SIP may
cause the Coast Guard to reduce staffing at MSOs; and stated that there
should be consistency of SIP determinations among the Officers in
Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI).
Marine safety office (MSO) staffing and allocation of personnel and
resources are internal Coast Guard matters that are not part of this
rulemaking. The SIP should, in the long run, allow a more effective use
of Coast Guard resources in MSO activities. The Office of Compliance,
Vessel Compliance Division, is the Coast Guard-wide program manager for
the SIP, and the Office of Quality Assurance/Traveling Inspectors will
be providing the field oversight of the SIP to ensure national
consistency in plan development and inspections.
One comment from an individual who reviews Port State
Information Exchange (PSIX) information to evaluate
[[Page 44347]]
vessels for carrying cargo stated that one concern is, ``there will be
a notable drop off in 835s [CG-835, the widely used Merchant Marine
Inspection Requirement form] issued--indeed in USCG presence
generally.''
Under the SIP, the Coast Guard still conducts required inspections,
and CG-835s issued as a result of these inspections will still be
available in the PSIX. However, repairs made by the company as a result
of routine maintenance while complying with its VAP would be corrected
in accordance with the VAP and documented in VAP records by the vessel
owner. Coast Guard inspectors consider these items during required
inspections, but they would not be entered as a CG-835 requirement in
PSIX.
Another comment noted certain portions of the NPRM
mentioned vessel classes such as subchapters T and D, but neglected to
include subchapter O. The comment asked if the applicability section of
this regulation includes vessels inspected under subchapter O.
This regulation does apply to vessels inspected under subchapter O.
As previously noted in this preamble under Background and Purpose, the
SIP is an alternative for vessels inspected under 46 CFR subchapters D,
H, I, K, L, O, R, T, and U.
A comment disagreed with the philosophy of self-inspection
because no other mode of transportation is self-inspected (e.g.,
airlines and railways).
The SIP is not a self-inspection program. Under the SIP, company
personnel will be responsible for conducting regular tests and
examinations of various vessel systems and recording their findings and
initiating appropriate actions as specified in their OCMI-approved CAP
and VAP. The Coast Guard is still required to verify compliance with
applicable regulations and the conditions of the company's approved
plans. The local OCMI approves the establishment of the company and
vessel plans and Coast Guard marine inspectors provide all periodic and
follow-on inspections.
Some comments were concerned with the effects the SIP will
have on small passenger vessels. One comment suggested requiring fewer
procedures for small passenger vessels because they have fewer staff to
do the work. Another comment suggested providing free training and
guidance to small passenger vessels to encourage them to enroll in the
SIP. The comment also noted that the proposed SIP did not sufficiently
target small companies.
Each VAP will be based on the requirements in the inspection
subchapter applicable to a particular vessel. The Office of Compliance
(G-MOC) and the Director of Field Activities, Quality Assurance Staff
(G-MO-1) will provide Coast Guard oversight for the implementation of
the SIP throughout the country. As resources are available, local OCMIs
will provide training on the SIP to interested vessel owners and
operators.
One comment stated that participation in the program
should not mean that the vessel owner would be subject to increased
liability.
The Coast Guard will continue to conduct inspections and issue the
certificate of inspection (COI), and the vessel owner's compliance with
an approved VAP will constitute compliance with applicable vessel
inspection laws and regulations. Owner liability is not changed by
participation in this program.
One comment recommended the Coast Guard add language to
ensure that this program remains voluntary because many operators do
not have the resources, time, or incentive to participate in this
program.
The SIP is a voluntary program. If a company does not wish to, or
is not eligible to, participate in this alternative inspection program,
they will continue to be inspected under the traditional Coast Guard
inspection program for compliance with vessel inspection laws and
regulations. For clarity, the Coast Guard has placed the word
``voluntary'' in front of the word ``alternative'' in Sec. 8.500(a).
Some comments discussed the development of the SIP
guidance documents. One comment recommended that the Towing Safety
Advisory Committee (TSAC) help the Coast Guard to develop the SIP
guidance for owners of vessels inspected under subchapter D. The
comment also requested separate guidance for owners of tank vessels and
tank barges. Another comment asked that the Coast Guard not treat oil
spill recovery vessels (OSRV) like tank vessels when the Coast Guard
develops the SIP guidance documents.
The Coast Guard is already in contact with TSAC and other advisory
committees and organizations concerning development of implementation
guidance.
Comments on Specific Sections of the Rule
Scope and applicability (Sec. 8.505). Three comments suggested dry-
dock exams be included in the SIP because the benefits of the SIP can
only be fully realized when all vessel inspections are included in the
SIP.
As stated in the NPRM, the Coast Guard must evaluate SIP
performance data before adding dry-dock examinations to this program.
One comment stated that Sec. 8.505(c) is very specific regarding
the inspections that are excluded from the program. The comment asked
if the SIP will apply to inspections done under the Critical Area
Inspection Program (CAIP).
The CAIP is not a regulatory program. Currently, the Coast Guard is
invited to attend CAIP surveys, but we are not required to witness the
inspection. The CAIP surveys can be included as part of a CAP or VAP
just like any other preventative maintenance program, if approved by
the OCMI as part of the plan.
Definitions (Sec. 8.510). One comment suggested including form CG-
835 in the definition of ``documented deficiency.'' A documented
deficiency is broader than just a CG-835, and can also include a work
list item issued by a marine inspector which was identified during the
course of an inspection, re-inspection, or examination, but corrected
prior to the issuance of a CG-835. The Coast Guard agrees that both CG-
835s and work list items are forms of documented deficiencies. The
definition is meant to encompass all forms of Coast Guard-maintained
documentation on a vessel's condition, including CG-835s. Therefore, we
have not changed the wording in the definition.
One comment recommended the Coast Guard permit the continued use of
prototype program nomenclature for definitions in this part and, as an
alternative, permit the use of a reference sheet or glossary that would
define the nomenclature used in the prototype program in terms of the
nomenclature used in the SIP regulation.
Approved plans must be in compliance with the SIP final rule.
Companies enrolled in locally-endorsed prototype programs have 3 years
to bring their plans into compliance with the national standards. The
OCMI has the flexibility and authority to accept revisions to prototype
plans. A prototype program already in place that is also in compliance
with the final rule with the exception of nomenclature, may include a
cross reference glossary or index, as long as the glossary or index
allows confirmation of a plan's compliance with the requirements of the
national program.
Eligibility (Sec. 8.515). Several comments expressed the position
that newly-constructed vessels and recently-acquired, existing (i.e.,
new-to-company) vessels should be allowed to enroll in the SIP without
regard for the
[[Page 44348]]
3-year eligibility requirement. The comment stated that newly-
constructed vessels are in the best condition they will ever be in and
that is the best time to establish the vessel's base-line for
enrollment. For recently-acquired existing vessels, if a company
enrolled in the SIP takes the time to bring the vessel into full
compliance, then a vessel's performance under the previous operator
during the past 3 years should not be determinative of the vessel's
eligibility for SIP enrollment with the new owner. The Coast Guard
agrees that in many instances these vessels would be suitable for the
SIP and companies with one or more vessels already enrolled in the SIP
need not meet the 3-year requirement in Sec. 8.515(b)(1) for a newly-
constructed or recently-acquired vessel.
One comment recommended that vessels older than 20 years be
ineligible for the SIP.
The Coast Guard's experience indicates that the age of a vessel is
not the most reliable indicator of its condition or suitability for
continued safe operation. Age alone is not, therefore, a singularly
disqualifying factor for SIP eligibility. In considering a vessel for
enrollment, the OCMI will review all aspects of a vessel's condition,
its history, and the operational and management practices relative to
the vessel's service.
Two comments recommended that the SIP permit newly-formed companies
to participate from the onset of vessel construction to give operating
companies greater ownership of the program and better inspection
results.
Another comment suggested revising Sec. 8.515 to indicate that a
vessel is eligible, if there are no outstanding deficiencies issued
within the last 6 months. The eligibility section should recognize that
civil penalties vary in degrees of severity, from those that affect the
seaworthiness and safety of the vessel to those that involve relatively
minor regulatory infractions. The OCMI should have more discretion in
determining eligibility and in evaluating civil penalties.
As stated previously, the 3-year history requirements provide the
OCMI with a record of a company's commitment to the safe operation of
its vessels. Also, in most cases, a 6-month period would not include a
re-inspection cycle or an inspection for certification. However, under
the waiver provision in the final rule, the OCMI may consider enrolling
a company or vessel that does not meet all the eligibility
requirements. The OCMI evaluation of the company's eligibility will
take into consideration all factors, including the severity of any
civil penalties noted by the Coast Guard in the last 3 years.
OCMI review and action (Sec. 8.525). One comment suggested adding a
paragraph that states, if the vessel operates in more than one OCMI
zone, all OCMIs must accept the SIP. Another comment suggested that all
OCMIs in the area where a vessel operates should agree to an SIP
inspection conducted in another OCMI zone.
For companies with vessels in more than one OCMI inspection zone,
the CAP will be approved by the cognizant OCMI in the zone where the
initial application for the SIP enrollment is made. The same
requirements that regulate the operation and inspection of any vessel
in more than one OCMI zone apply to the SIP vessels. The Coast Guard's
internal implementation guidance will ensure consistent implementation
of the SIP.
Plan development and approval (Sec. 8.530). Four comments suggested
allowing the use of a highly experienced surveyor (including the
American Bureau of Shipping) to inspect and certify inspected equipment
and correct any deficiencies.
The intent of the SIP is to have company personnel conduct
examinations to provide a sense of ownership and improve safety
awareness. Using a third party surveyor, hired by the Company SIP Agent
as a ``designated SIP support person'' is subject to approval by the
OCMI. Maintenance or examination of certain shipboard systems may be
beyond the expertise of a company's vessel or shoreside personnel. In
that case, outside expertise may be appropriate and could be included
in the VAP. Section 8.530(a)(4) requires that the CAP identify the
responsibilities of those individuals who examine and maintain
equipment and how their satisfactory performance will be verified and
recorded.
One comment wanted the Coast Guard to incorporate a process into
the final rule, allowing companies with vessels that are sufficiently
alike in multiple ports to undergo the procedure of developing CAPs and
VAPs with a single OCMI. Companies can then use the original CAP and
VAP as a model for vessels in other OCMI zones. The comment stated that
incorporating this procedure would provide the consistency and
standardization required in maintaining and inspecting a large fleet of
similar vessels. The comment also stated that developing the CAP and
VAP would be simple for a company with a single vessel or multiple
vessels that are similar within the same OCMI zone. However, the
procedure becomes more complex for companies with similar vessels in
multiple OCMI zones.
The Coast Guard agrees that a single OCMI will be able to approve
an owner's CAP, however, the VAP is vessel- and area-specific.
Companies with multiple vessels in more than one OCMI zone should start
their enrollment process with a single vessel, or series of vessels and
a single OCMI. Once the CAP has been developed and approved for the
first vessel, it can be used as part of the application to the next
OCMI zone. Subsequent OCMI review should focus on the revision of the
CAP as it pertains to their zone. Section 8.530(a)(3) requires that the
CAP contain information on designated SIP support personnel responsible
for implementation and oversight of the program. Adding new ports and
vessels to a CAP will require revisions to the CAP only as it pertains
to operations under the SIP in the new location.
Three comments stated that developing a separate plan for each
vessel poses a significant administrative burden for a large barge
fleet. The comments suggested that companies develop a VAP for each
barge series where the construction, piping, and configuration are
consistent. The comment also stated that the Coast Guard should not
require VAPs to be maintained on board unmanned barges. Rather, VAPs
should be available to the Coast Guard upon request.
The Coast Guard agrees that a single VAP for each barge series may
be accepted by the OCMI. However, a VAP needs to be on board an
unmanned barge. Inspection certificates and company documents are
routinely maintained on board unmanned vessels. Coast Guard inspection
documents are required to be on board. The VAP is an inspection
document that the company and the Coast Guard may need to access at any
time. Having the VAP maintained on board the vessel ensures
availability.
One comment questioned if documents and plans created for the
Responsible Carrier Program (RCP) could be used as ``credit'' for the
CAP since the elements of the CAP are similar to the charter of the RCP
and to approved vessel response plans. Another comment suggested
allowing vessel owners to use documents developed for the International
Safety Management (ISM) Code as CAP and VAP documents.
The Coast Guard agrees that there may be some documentation
redundancy between a CAP and other required or voluntary documents and
plans. For example, companies with vessels that
[[Page 44349]]
are ISM Code compliant should have the necessary documentation
developed to apply for the SIP. If ISM Code documents are sufficiently
detailed, then they may also be suitable for use in a CAP or VAP. The
use of ISM documentation or other documents as part of a CAP or VAP
must be approved by the OCMI. In such cases, companies should submit
copies of what they already have in place to the OCMI for review and
possible use in development of its CAP and VAPs.
One comment stated that the Coast Guard should consider waiving the
extensive training requirements for a company that has implemented a
recognized quality management program such as an ISM or American
Waterways Operators (AWO) RCP.
The OCMI may accept evidence that the training conducted pursuant
to an approved quality management program is the same as the training
required under the SIP. The Coast Guard doesn't intend to impose a
redundant burden on companies that have already implemented a quality
management system. For those companies that have such a system in
place, the OCMI may consider accepting in the CAP and VAP those quality
management components that meet the specific requirements for a CAP and
VAP.
One comment asked, to what extent will outside vendors who repair
and service certain equipment be able to serve as SIP examiners and
under whose training program will they be accredited.
The use of outside vendors is common. The approved VAP should
answer these questions on the use of vendors, but the company's SIP
Agent will still be responsible for verifying that the work is
completed by approved facilities and qualified personnel where
required, that the equipment is installed and functioning properly, and
the work has been properly documented.
One comment requested that the Coast Guard reword Sec. 8.530(b) to
state, ``* * * Each VAP shall include at least the following or its
functional equivalent:''. The comment noted that the regulations must
allow flexibility in the method of documentation. If specific written
forms are required by these regulations, companies who develop
effective computer-based inspection scheduling systems will then have
to maintain a duplicate manual driven system.
The Coast Guard agrees in principle with the comment; however, we
made no regulatory changes. The OCMI has the discretion to approve any
appropriate recordkeeping system, including computer-based systems, as
part of a vessel's VAP. As stated previously in discussing comments to
Sec. 8.510, the Coast Guard must be able to verify compliance with the
requirements in the final rule and measure the effectiveness of the
program.
One comment wanted the Coast Guard to delete the organizational
commitment statement in paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 8.530 in light of the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) of this section.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The need for an
organizational commitment statement is not satisfied by the inclusion
of the items specified in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5). Instead, it
is complemented by those requirements. The commitment statement defines
the company's philosophical position and goals. The items in
Sec. 8.530, paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5), specifically identify how
that philosophical commitment will be put into effect.
One comment stated that there is no guidance in Sec. 8.530 for the
handling of inspection criteria discrepancies. The comment recommended
that in Sec. 8.530, paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) be revised to
incorporate the mechanism used in the offshore prototype programs for
handling vessel deficiencies. Prototype programs classified
deficiencies as ``urgent'' and ``routine,'' and assigned a time for
correction of the deficiency.
In Sec. 8.530, paragraph (a)(5) allows for flexibility when
determining corrective action. It is up to the company and the OCMI to
determine the time frame associated with corrective action. In
addition, the implementation guidance provided by the Coast Guard in
the inspection criteria references (ICR) includes information on
corrective action. The Coast Guard did not make the suggested change to
paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5).
Another comment stated that paragraph (a)(10) of Sec. 8.530 implies
that a CAP must have appendices that contain each approved VAP. For a
company with numerous vessels enrolled, this could become a very
unwieldy document. The comment recommended this section be revised to
require an appendix that lists each VAP approved under the CAP.
The CAP and VAPs are interdependent documents. It is necessary that
each VAP be accessible to the company SIP Agent, as well as having a
vessel-specific copy maintained on the vessel. Paragraph (a)(10) is not
revised in the final rule.
One comment suggested deleting paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 8.530
because it appears to repeat the requirements of paragraph (a)(5).
The Coast Guard disagrees. The VAP and CAP are separate documents
and are not redundant in their function. Paragraph (b)(2) will remain
unchanged in the final rule.
Training and operational evaluation (Sec. 8.535). One comment
requested further clarification on what constitutes an SIP training
program. Many hours of training and apprenticeship are required for
designation as a Coast Guard ``barge inspector.'' There is concern that
training expectations may exceed training resource capabilities.
Vessel owners, through their SIP Agent, and the OCMI's SIP Advisor
must work closely to develop the SIP training requirements, based on
vessel type and operating requirements. Vessel-specific ICRs should be
used extensively as training aids to develop and maintain consistent
and efficient procedures under the VAP.
One comment discussed manning and crew fatigue. The comment stated
that the crew would be required to conduct additional tests and
examinations as a result of the SIP. The comment wanted to know how the
increase in work would be reflected in the manning scale on the
vessel's COI since there are work-hour restrictions and required rest-
hour periods mandated by law and international convention.
The regulations governing maximum work hours in a 24-hour period
and required rest intervals are not affected by this regulation; they
remain unchanged. Part of the CAP and VAP development process will be
incorporating the periodic system examinations contained in the VAP
into regular vessel routines.
Enrollment in SIP (Sec. 8.540). One comment suggested that the OCMI
enrollment letter be a mandatory requirement.
The Coast Guard agrees and has revised Sec. 8.540 to indicate that
once the company and its vessel(s) have successfully completed the
training and evaluation phase, and the OCMI concurs with the Coast
Guard SIP Advisor's recommendation, the OCMI will issue an enrollment
letter and endorse the COI.
Scope of Inspection for Enrolled Vessels (Sec. 8.545). Four comments
discussed an alternative to annual inspections. They recommended that
rather than annual inspections, vessels--especially unmanned tank
barges--should only be subject to periodic random inspections like the
current MARPOL checks.
[[Page 44350]]
The SIP is an alternative to traditional Coast Guard inspections. A
particular vessel inspection interval is determined by the regulations
contained in the applicable subchapter. It is beyond the scope of the
SIP rulemaking to adjust inspection intervals. To clarify the
inspection interval requirement and allow for any future changes within
the inspection subchapters, we have changed the word ``annual'' to
``periodic'' in paragraph (a) of Sec. 8.545.
One comment asked why an approved VAP is needed if the marine
inspector might conduct additional tests or examinations of a vessel.
The OCMI remains responsible for ensuring the safe operation of
vessels within that inspection zone. Marine inspectors under the SIP
will conduct their examinations in accordance with the VAP. The marine
inspector will only expand the examination parameters if discrepancies
are discovered or there is otherwise cause for concern. These would be
instances where the marine inspector believes the vessel is not being
operated in complete compliance with the approved VAP. This, if found
to be the case, is cause for disenrollment. There is nothing in the SIP
that diminishes the OCMI's authority or responsibility to ensure the
safety of life, property, the environment, and facilitation of maritime
commerce within that zone.
One comment expressed concerns that an audit or a spot check
boarding may not focus on compliance with the approved VAP. Once a VAP
is approved, that document becomes the primary guide for the owner or
operator to follow in determining inspection compliance issues. Coast
Guard inspections will focus on the condition of the vessel and
maintenance of the vessel in accordance with the VAP.
One comment suggested revising paragraph (b) of Sec. 8.545 to
indicate ``A Coast Guard inspector from the OCMI staff'' will conduct
the inspection. It should be made clear that the local inspection staff
conducts the inspections.
The SIP is designed so that any Coast Guard marine inspector should
be able to verify compliance with a VAP, regardless of whether the
vessel was enrolled in that particular OCMI zone or not. This
regulation establishes a uniform, nationwide program, in which marine
inspectors for the OCMI zone where the SIP inspection is scheduled will
conduct the examination. Only marine inspectors from ``the OCMI staff''
will be conducting inspections. Therefore, no changes to the regulation
have been made.
One comment recommended that Sec. 8.545 be revised to provide
guidance regarding the scope of an SIP audit, and that a sample audit
be included.
The scope of an SIP inspection is covered in Sec. 8.545, paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(4). Additional detailed guidance may be provided by
the OCMI. The intent of an SIP inspection is for the marine inspector
to verify compliance with the VAP.
One comment recommended that the VAP list specific inspections that
will be conducted by the qualified crewmember, operators, or Coast
Guard inspectors and stated that there are too many critical
inspections that require the presence of a marine inspector.
The ICR sheets provide information on the level of inspection
required. Since the VAP will contain ICRs, no further clarification is
required in the regulation.
Plan review and revisions (Sec. 8.550). One comment recommended a
change from a 2-year to a 5-year review cycle, unless the owner or
operator's performance record indicates needed oversight. Annual review
is time consuming and costly.
There is no required annual review of SIP documentation by the
company unless the company itself has established such an interval. The
requirement to review the CAP every 2 years is a quality control
measure that ensures that the plan contents are up to date. Properly
maintained plans will normally be revised as the need arises. There
may, in fact, be no changes necessary at the time of the review--it is
simply a company check for accuracy.
Three comments suggested eliminating the mandatory review and
revision for ISM compliant companies. The ISM process calls for the
continual review and revision of manuals and procedures when non-
conformities are identified. The internal and external audit programs
required by the ISM system also provide assurance that manuals will not
become obsolete.
The Coast Guard agrees that ISM compliant companies will probably
be able to prove to the OCMI that their review processes are meeting
the regulations. However, this method of continuous compliance needs to
be submitted to the cognizant OCMI for approval and incorporation into
the VAP during the application and VAP approval process.
One comment stated that requiring a company to submit a revised
plan to the OCMI each time that a revision is made could place an
unnecessary administrative burden on the local MSOs. The comment also
recommended periodic review or audit for operations that are ISM
compliant.
The Coast Guard must be kept informed of changes that affect a
company's CAP or VAP. The company SIP Agent and OCMI's SIP Advisor
should coordinate the manner in which this process is to be
accomplished, and the Coast Guard has not changed this requirement in
the final rule.
Disenrollment (Sec. 8.555). In Sec. 8.555(a), one comment suggested
adding the words ``that issued the Certificate of Inspection'' after
the words ``cognizant OCMI''. The OCMI that issued the COI should be
the one that voluntarily disenrolls the vessel.
The Coast Guard does not find this change necessary. As SIP is a
nationwide program, disenrollment requests through any cognizant OCMI
(defined as the OCMI responsible for the zone in which the vessel is
currently operating) will satisfactorily disenroll the vessel.
One comment asked the Coast Guard to clarify the parameters for re-
enrollment once a vessel has been disenrolled.
Once a vessel or company has been disenrolled either voluntarily or
involuntarily, the company must reapply for enrollment in accordance
with subpart E.
Waiver (Sec. 8.560). One comment had several questions concerning
waivers. The comment asked when a waiver can be requested; who can
request the waiver, the OCMI or the vessel operator; and is the waiver
the equivalent of an appeal for a marine inspection requirement.
A company may request a waiver at any time. The company will
request the waiver through its SIP Agent for any procedural requirement
in subpart E, such as eligibility. Waiver of substantive inspection
requirements should be submitted in accordance with procedures in the
subchapter containing the requirement.
One comment recommended that Sec. 8.560 be revised to provide
guidance on the discretionary authority of the District Commander to
grant waivers. The comment noted that this is necessary because the
preamble, which provides an explanation of the regulation will
disappear once the regulations are final. Two comments noted the waiver
section is a key provision and should be kept as is.
The Coast Guard agrees with these latter comments that no revisions
are needed.
Interim approval of prototype company vessel plans (Sec. 8.570).
One comment noted that prototype programs were based on ISM and
International
[[Page 44351]]
Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards. The comment stated
that the SIP regulations must permit companies participating in the SIP
some degree of flexibility with respect to the format of the CAP and
VAP to allow companies to structure the program for their individual
needs. This is consistent with the general provisions of the ISM Code
and ISO 9000 standards. The comment also noted that companies with
approved prototype programs should not have to revise their CAP and
VAP.
For the SIP to be uniformly applied there must be consistency
nationwide in its implementation. A prototype program vessel examined
in an OCMI zone that did not endorse that prototype program might
encounter needless difficulty during the SIP inspection. The extra
effort necessary to bring Coast Guard inspectors up to speed with all
possible prototype programs would nullify some of the benefits of the
SIP. In addition, some prototype programs lack disenrollment and other
important criteria. Therefore, companies and vessels in a prototype SIP
program will have 3 years from the effective date of the final rule to
bring their existing program into full compliance. As discussed
previously, the Coast Guard will consider equivalents and appropriate
cross-referencing to required documentation. This should provide the
needed flexibility for prototype programs to make a smooth transition.
One comment suggested that vessels of unique design only be
considered for this program after the 3-year period.
That determination is up to the OCMI. Therefore, the Coast Guard
made no changes based on this comment.
Other Changes to the Proposed Regulations
In addition to the changes made to the regulations as a result of
the comments, the Coast Guard has revised the definition of Exam
Checklists to accommodate a variety of documents. In the revised
definition, Exam Checklists may be any document or form approved in the
VAP to record the periodic examinations of vessel systems by vessel
personnel. For example, copies of the Inspection Schedule and
Verification (ISV) sheets could be used as Examination Checklists.
The Coast Guard has also revised the definition of ``prototype
vessel plan'' by removing the word ``vessel'' and adding the word
``SIP'' in its place. In addition, the heading and the first sentence
in paragraph (a) of Sec. 8.570 has been revised to include prototype
SIP company or vessel plans. This will provide consistency and account
for prototype SIP company or vessel plans.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule 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 rule 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 rule 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 SIP. Entrance into the SIP is
voluntary. Because the program is new, it is difficult to estimate how
many vessel owners will choose to develop a VAP and seek enrollment.
Some Coast Guard offices have been working with company owners on
prototype programs that are similar to the SIP.
Over the next 3 years, the Coast Guard estimates that the following
number of vessels will 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 OSRVs (subchapter D or O).
These estimates of vessel enrollment reflect both the number of
vessels presently in prototype programs similar to the SIP and the
number of vessels that could enroll for the first time in the SIP
within the next 3 years.
Industry Cost
The Coast Guard based the cost estimates for the SIP on the
incremental costs company owners and operators have incurred
participating in prototype programs similar to the SIP. Company owners
and operators will have different economic impacts from this program
depending on the number, class, and size of the vessels that they
enroll in the program. The time and resources an owner or operator may
spend developing the VAP will 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.
For a company to submit the application required to enroll its
vessels in the SIP, the Coast Guard estimates that--
Preparation of the application will take a senior staff
official 1 hour at $60 per hour; and
401 companies will apply for the program during the first
3 years at an industry cost of $8,040 annually over the first 3 years.
For a company to develop a CAP, the Coast Guard estimates that--
It will require 80 hours of senior staff time at a cost of
$60 per hour; and
401 companies will develop CAPs during the first 3 years
at an industry cost of $641,580 annually over the first 3 years.
For a company to develop a VAP, the Coast Guard estimates that--
It will require 40 hours of senior staff time at a cost of
$60 per hour; and
VAPs will be prepared for 1,506 vessels during the first 3
years at an industry cost of $1,204,800 annually over the first 3
years.
For a company to make the required updates to the plans, the Coast
Guard estimates that each company will devote 10 hours annually at $60
per hour for an industry cost of $80,220.
Additional costs associated with these plans include $25,100 in
printing and copying costs. We estimate the total industry cost
associated with plan development and approval to be $1,959,740.
Under this rule, vessel owners and operators will 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 and systems required by the VAP.
One small passenger vessel owner (regulated under subchapter K)
currently in a prototype program estimated that VAP training took
approximately 35 hours to train each of four employees 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
[[Page 44352]]
employees, we estimate a one-time training cost of $2,380 for a similar
passenger vessel.
A tank barge owner currently in a prototype program estimated that
VAP training took approximately 40 days to train 16 employees to
conduct and record examinations under the VAP for a 200-barge fleet.
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,
we estimate a training cost of $138,770 for a similar size barge fleet.
The Coast Guard estimates that the one-time training costs for
personnel on vessels in the SIP will range from $700 ($138,770 divided
by a 200-simple-system fleet) to $3,000 (for one large multi-system
vessel) per vessel. The Coast Guard assumes that once the VAP is
approved and the vessel is enrolled in the SIP, any further training
will be incorporated into established company training and vessel
maintenance programs at little or no additional cost. Therefore, we did
not include recurring training costs in the cost estimates for this
rule.
Some owners and operators participating in prototype programs
purchased computers and other administrative items to help with
collation of plan information. A computer could reduce the
administrative time spent developing the VAP; however, this rule does
not require a company to have a computer. Because a company could meet
all of the SIP criteria without a computer, the Coast Guard did not
include equipment costs in the cost estimates for this rule.
Industry Benefits
Benefits from the 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. Prototype program
participants have also reported other benefits. 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 had
been 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.
User Fees
The Coast Guard expects that once implemented, the SIP will result
in fewer onboard Coast Guard inspection hours required to inspect and
certify participating vessels. This rule, however, will 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 rule has short-term costs to the Coast Guard but, in the long-
term, will save resources. In the initial implementation of the SIP,
Coast Guard inspectors will 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 VAP 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 CAP and
VAP. 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
vessels enrolled in the SIP.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast
Guard must consider whether this rule will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small entities''
include 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.
The Coast Guard expects this rule to have a positive economic
impact for owners and operators who choose to participate in the SIP.
Of the 1,506 vessels which owners may submit for SIP enrollment, we
estimate that small entities will own 334 small passenger vessels, 52
offshore supply vessels, and 94 tank barges or OSRVs. Under Section 601
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Coast Guard has provided a
flexible approach that meets the needs of each company and its vessels
and will benefit any small businesses choosing to enter the program.
This rule will have no impact on vessel owners who do not choose to
participate in the program.
This rule provides an optional way of complying with existing
inspection regulations and will only have an economic impact if the
vessel owner enrolls in 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 will provide detailed guidance tailored to
the small passenger vessel operator and to other small entities that
operate other vessel types. This rule also provides for one-on-one time
with Coast Guard inspectors to assist in plan development. Benefits
from the 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 will be minimal for developing
VAP(s) for the remaining vessels.
The SIP is a voluntary program; it provides benefits to small
entities willing to invest the time and training needed for enrollment.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
[[Page 44353]]
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
wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so they can
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process. If your small business or organization is affected by this
rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact LT Paul Arnett at the numbers listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Collection of Information
This final rule provides for a collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The information collections associated with this rule concern the
application for enrollment, development of the VAP, development of the
CAP, and updates to the CAP and VAP. The costs and hour-burdens
associated with these procedures are outlined in the Industry Costs
section. A total information collection hour-burden of 32,244 is
estimated for this program.
One comment noted that the collection of information section of the
NPRM states ``* * * reports must be submitted whenever a company
representative performs activities required by the VAP.'' The comment
was concerned that this requirement could create a paperwork burden for
industry and the Coast Guard. For example, a company may require a
deckhand to check void spaces several times a day and record those
checks.
Under the frequency of response section of the NPRM, the Coast
Guard did not state that all documentation should be sent to the Coast
Guard. It is true that if the VAP requires certain activities to be
documented, then company personnel will do that documenting. The
documentation will be kept by the company or on the vessel and will be
made available to the Coast Guard. But these recordkeeping requirements
should not be confused with reporting requirements. This rule does not
require the documentation to be submitted to the Coast Guard.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 3507(d), the Coast Guard submitted a copy
of this rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review of the collection of information. Originally, the Coast Guard
submitted to OMB requests for additions to four existing collection-of-
information requests--OMB Approval Numbers 2115-0025, 2115-0071, 2115-
0578, and 2115-0592. These requests added SIP collection hours to
existing programs and all but 2115-0071 were approved by OMB. The
Office of Management and Budget did not approve 2115-0071, titled
Official Logbook, because a public comment expressed confusion over the
inclusion of SIP collection hours in that particular request. To
eliminate confusion, the Coast Guard submitted a consolidated, SIP-
exclusive, collection-of-information request to OMB. This consolidated
request presents the numbers in a form that is easier to understand and
makes it easier for the Coast Guard to renew when it expires.
The Office of Management and Budget has approved the consolidated
collection. The section numbers are Secs. 8.520, 8.530, 8.535, and
8.550, and the corresponding approval number from OMB is OMB Control
Number 2115-0633, which expires on July 31, 2001.
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
preempts State action addressing the same matter. One comment stated
disagreement with the Coast Guard's determination that the regulations
would preempt state or local regulations involving inspection of
vessels, citing the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ray v. ARCO and
of the District Court for the Western District of Washington in
INTERTANKO v. Lowery, as affirmed in part by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals for the premise that Federal preemption is limited to
regulations relating solely to the design, equipment, and construction
of vessels. The Coast Guard disagrees with this limited interpretation
of the Supreme Court precedent in the Ray case and the ruling of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in the INTERTANKO case that adopts this
limited interpretation. The Coast Guard has historically inspected
vessels for their compliance with Federal regulations that address the
safety of vessels and protection of the marine environment. The
certificate of inspection issued to vessels as a result of these
inspections indicates that the vessels are safe for the service in
which they are engaged. It is the Coast Guard's opinion that the
Supremacy Clause preempts state and local regulations that seek to
impose different or higher standards governing the inspection of U.S.
vessels.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1C, 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.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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, 3316, 3703; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Subpart E, consisting of Secs. 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 SIP company or vessel plans.
Subpart E--Streamlined Inspection Program
Sec. 8.500 Purpose.
(a) This subpart establishes the Streamlined Inspection Program
(SIP) which is a voluntary alternative
[[Page 44354]]
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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 8.510 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this subpart:
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.
Examination Checklist means any document or form approved in the
VAP, that may be used by company employees to record the periodic
examinations required by the VAP.
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 SIP plan means the SIP plans developed for a company or
vessel participating in a Coast Guard District-or OCMI-endorsed SIP
before August 18, 1998.
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.
Sec. 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) Except as allowed by paragraph (c) of this section, 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 any of 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.
(c) A vessel constructed for, or acquired by, a company with one or
more vessels enrolled in the SIP need not meet the requirement in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section for enrollment in the SIP, provided
that the vessel holds a valid COI issued by the OCMI where the vessel
will principally operate.
Sec. 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 Sec. 8.515.
(b) A summation of the company's current status in relation to
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 8.515, the
cognizant OCMI will notify the company in writing of its ineligibility
stating each reason for not accepting the company or a vessel.
Sec. 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.
[[Page 44355]]
(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 examination 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.
Sec. 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 Advisor
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.
(d) 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.
Sec. 8.540 Enrollment in SIP.
Upon successful completion of the training and evaluation phase,
the Coast Guard SIP Advisor will recommend to the OCMI that the company
or vessel be enrolled in the SIP. If the OCMI concurs with the
recommendation, he or she will issue an enrollment letter and endorse
the vessel's COI. Subsequent inspections covered under this subpart
will be conducted in accordance with the approved VAP.
Sec. 8.545 Scope of inspection for enrolled vessels.
(a) A Coast Guard marine inspector will conduct required periodic
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, the contents of
the VAP, and 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 crew
performance in drills.
(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.
Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
Sec. 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 continue to meet the eligibility
requirements in Sec. 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 Sec. 8.515(b)(3).
Sec. 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 granted under this section shall be
maintained at all times in the VAP.
[[Page 44356]]
Sec. 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.
Sec. 8.570 Interim approval of prototype SIP company or vessel plans.
(a) A company operating under an approved prototype SIP company or
vessel plan must apply in writing by November 1, 1998, to the cognizant
OCMI for approval to continue operating under the plans while revisions
are developed to bring the prototype SIP 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 SIP company or vessel plan by February 1,
1999, 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: August 5, 1998.
Joseph J. Angelo,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 98-21549 Filed 8-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
