[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23705-23724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11189]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 96
46 CFR Parts 2, 31, 71, 91, 107, 115, 126, 175, 176, and 189
[CGD 95-073]
RIN 2115-AF44
International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and
for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management (ISM) Code)
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to develop regulations which parallel
the international requirements for safety management systems required
of companies and their U.S. vessels that are engaged on foreign
voyages. This action is mandated by the Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 1996. These proposed regulations will allow responsible persons and
their U.S. vessel(s) to develop safety management systems to enhance
vessel operating safety and reduce pollution incidents in compliance
with internationally and nationally mandated deadlines. The proposed
regulations will also permit recognized organizations to receive
authorization from the U.S. to audit safety management systems and
issue international convention certificates.
DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 30, 1997.
Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
collection of information must reach OMB on or before June 30, 1997.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 95-073), 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. You must also mail comments on collection of
information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments, and documents as indicated in this preamble, will
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between
[[Page 23706]]
9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The material proposed for incorporation by reference is available for
inspection at room 1210, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert M. Gauvin, Project Manager,
Vessel and Facility Operating Standards Division (G-MSO-2), at (202)
267-1053, or fax (202) 267-4570.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, and arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,
identify this rulemaking (CGD 95-073) and the specific section of this
document 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 8\1/2\ 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 proposed rule 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 reasons 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 hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
This is the Coast Guard's first ``plain English'' regulation.
Clear, more readable regulations are essential for the success of our
government's reinvention initiative. We encourage your comments on this
new way of writing regulations.
Background and Purpose
This proposed rule is necessary to fulfill the mandates of 46
U.S.C. 3203, as added by section 602 of the Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-324, 110 Stat. 3901. The purpose of this rule
is to establish a national safety management system and requirements
for the development, documentation, auditing, certification and
enforcement of responsible persons and vessel safety management systems
consistent with the U.S. adopted international regulations of Chapter
IX of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) 1974, as amended. Chapter IX of SOLAS, ``Management for the
Safe Operation of Ships,'' requires that all vessels to which SOLAS is
applicable, and their companies, have effective safety management
systems developed to meet the performance elements of the International
Safety Management (ISM) Code (International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Resolution A.741(18)).
Safety management systems for vessel transportation operations were
first formalized in November 1987, in response to the HERALD OF FREE
ENTERPRISE disaster, when the IMO adopted Resolution A.596(15),
``Safety of Passenger Ro-Ro Ferries.'' This resolution concluded that
vessel safety could be greatly enhanced by establishing improved vessel
operating practices. It further requested that the IMO Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) and Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC)
develop guidelines for shipboard and shore-based management procedures
for safer vessels and pollution prevention.
On October 19, 1989, the MSC and MEPC guidelines for development of
enhanced safety management practices were adopted by the IMO as
Resolution A.647(16), ``Guidelines on Management for the Safe Operation
of Ships and for Pollution Prevention.'' This first set of
recommendations provided performance standards for the maritime
industry on vessel safety management systems and encouraged continuous
improvement in safety management skills within the maritime industry
worldwide. It noted that vessel safety could be increased and
environmental pollution decreased for all vessels which used documented
company and vessel operating management practices. Safe operating
practices, implemented through documented procedures and company
policies, would provide better results in vessel safety than
governments' attempts to regulate operating practices.
IMO Resolution A.647(16) was endorsed by the U.S. and published as
an enclosure to Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 1-
90, ``Recommendation Concerning Management Practices for Safe Ship
Operation and Pollution Prevention,'' published August 17, 1990. NVIC
1-90 recommendations were intended as guidelines for industry use.
These guidelines were intended to document management procedures that
increased the levels of safety aboard vessels and reduced pollution
incidents. The Coast Guard concluded that operating efficiency and
profitability is increased for a vessel, if the owner or managing
operator provides effective supervision and plans a safety strategy
which anticipates problems and provides direction to manage important
day-to-day vessel and shore-based operations. It was also found that
the effective use of a safety management system specifically enhances
the ability of a company's shore-based personnel to respond to vessel
operational needs or emergencies.
Since the adoption of IMO Resolution A.647(16) in 1989, the MSC and
MEPC have continued to refine and amend the performance standards and
elements required for enhancement of safety management systems. This
was because significant marine casualties continued to occur despite
engineering and technological innovations. The Coast Guard's analysis
of marine casualties over the past 30 years illustrated that the
national and international maritime community applied engineering and
technological solutions to promote safety and minimize the consequences
of marine casualties. In an effort to further reduce casualties, the
role of the ``human element'' in the maritime safety equation was
evaluated.
Recent casualty studies concluded that in excess of 80 percent of
all high consequence marine casualties may be directly or indirectly
attributable to the ``human element.''
Consequently, the international maritime community saw the need to
emphasize shipboard safety management practices to minimize human
errors or omissions. These types of errors play a part in virtually
every casualty, including those where structural or equipment failure
may be the direct cause.
During the last eight years, two subsequent IMO resolutions were
adopted due to work by the MSC and MEPC that incorporated the earlier
recommendations and guidelines. These IMO resolutions are:
IMO Resolution A.681(17), adopted November 6, 1991,
``Procedures for the Control and Operational Requirements Related to
the Safety of Ships and Pollution Prevention''; and
IMO Resolution A.741(18), adopted November 4, 1993, ``The
International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for
Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management (ISM) Code).''
Adoption of these resolutions increased the performance elements
required to enhance the marine management skill practices documented as
part of the safety management
[[Page 23707]]
system. These new performance elements included:
Written management procedures that document relevant
national and international regulations which are applicable to vessel
operations;
Designation of a person within the company who is
responsible to oversee and maintain the safety management system. This
person has complete communication authority from the lowest employee
level to the top management of the company to ensure that vessel
operation problems reach all levels of management unobstructed; and
Internal company auditing and reporting procedures to
ensure continuous improvement to the safety management system by owner
and managers.
The U.S. has been at the forefront providing input, analysis and
direction for MSC and MEPC development of these resolutions. The U.S.
recognized that the human element needed to be addressed and initiated
the Prevention Through People (PTP) program which examines and defines
the critical role that the human element plays in maritime safety. The
PTP concept asserts that safe and profitable operations require a
systematic approach toward the constant and balanced interaction
between the elements of management, the work environment, individual
behavior, and appropriate technology. The ISM Code provides this
systematic approach to the mariner with the policy and procedures
needed to understand their duties and address the human element issues
and risks that can prevent casualties from occurring. The voluntary
certification of safety management systems by U.S. vessels in domestic
trade supports the PTP strategies to bring government and industry
together in making cultural change and partnerships to address the
human element in maritime operations and pollution prevention.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard endorsed the guidance provided by the
ISM Code in IMO Resolution A.741(18), and provided it as a reference in
NVIC No. 2-94 published March 15, 1994, ``Guidance Regarding Voluntary
Compliance with the International Management Code for the Safe
Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention.'' NVIC 2-94 canceled
the earlier NVIC 1-90.
In May 1994, Chapter IX of SOLAS, ``Management for the Safe
Operation of Ships,'' was adopted at the IMO's Conference of
Contracting Governments to SOLAS, 1974. Chapter IX of SOLAS mandates
that all vessels subject to SOLAS, and their companies, have effective
safety management systems developed and in use that conform to the
performance elements of the ISM Code (IMO Resolution A.741(18)).
Companies whose U.S. flag vessels trade internationally (engaged on a
foreign voyage) and are subject to SOLAS, must have their safety
management system externally audited and must receive the appropriate
international certificates from the U.S. or from a recognized
organization authorized to act on behalf of the U.S.
The adoption of Chapter IX of SOLAS will become effective for
companies whose vessels are subject to the provisions of SOLAS and are
engaged in international trade as follows:
Beginning July 1, 1998, for vessels transporting more than
12 passengers; and tankers, bulk freight vessels, or high speed freight
vessels of at least 500 gross tons; and
Beginning July 1, 2002, for freight vessels and self-
propelled mobile offshore drilling units of at least 500 gross tons.
The ISM Code marks a significant philosophical shift in the
maritime community's approach by recognizing the human element's role
in preventing marine casualties and ensuring vessels are operated
responsibly in accordance with domestic and international standards.
The ISM Code is seen as a major contributor to industry's self-
evaluation and action to address the human element concerns. It is
intended to change the current approach of regulatory compliance from
industry's passive defect notification and correction response mode to
an aggressive approach to safety. Under this proactive approach,
potential discrepancies are resolved by the companies themselves before
casualties can occur.
The ISM Code performance elements require the development of safety
management systems which document and communicate the owner's policy,
chain of authority, and operational and emergency procedures. It also
requires management reviews, internal audits and corrections of non-
conformities in a company's management procedures. The documentation of
a safety management system provides the basis for auditing the
employee's knowledge, ashore and afloat, of the company's procedures
and policies. It illustrates owner, manager and master responsibilities
specifically and ensures that all national and international standards
are documented in the system's procedures.
To ensure that the U.S. public and maritime industry understood the
mandatory requirements of the ISM Code, the Coast Guard published a
notice in the Federal Register on October 5, 1995 (60 FR 52143). This
notice explained the adoption of the ISM Code by the Contracting
Parties of SOLAS, and scheduled four public meetings held at the
following times and locations:
October 30, 1995,--Federal Building, Seattle, Washington;
November 1, 1995,--Port Authority Building, Long Beach,
California;
November 13, 1995,--Holiday Inn Downtown, New Orleans,
Louisiana; and
November 16, 1995,--Port Authority Building, New York
City, New York.
At these public meetings, the Coast Guard received comments on
implementation of the international requirements and provided a
presentation on the U.S.'s voluntary safety management system
guidelines in NVIC 2-94. Comments received at these meetings were audio
taped and are a part of this docket.
On January 26, 1996, RADM James C. Card, the Assistant Commandant
for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection (G-M), sent a personal
letter to each owner of a U.S. vessel required to be certificated by
the international requirements of the ISM Code. This was done to ensure
that the U.S. flag vessel owners understood that the U.S. had adopted
Chapter IX of SOLAS, and the ISM Code would be mandatory for their
companies and U.S. vessels.
Discussion of Proposed Rules
The incorporation of the ISM Code's tenets into U.S. regulations is
required by section 602 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996.
This section added Chapter 32 ``Management of Vessels'' to Title 46
U.S. Code. The Secretary of Transportation is required by 46 U.S.C.
3203 to prescribe regulations that establish a safety management system
for the responsible persons and vessels to which Subtitle II of 46
applies. The safety management system must be consistent with the ISM
Code and must include:
A safety and environmental protection policy;
Instructions and procedures to ensure safe operation of
vessels and protection of the environment in compliance with
international and U.S. law;
Defined levels of authority and lines of communication
between, and among, personnel onshore and on the vessel;
Procedures to report accidents and nonconformities with 46
U.S.C. chapter 32;
[[Page 23708]]
Procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency
situations; and
Procedures for internal audits and management reviews of
the system.
The Secretary of Transportation's authority under 46 U.S.C. Chapter
32 and 46 U.S.C. 3103 was delegated to the Commandant of the Coast
Guard in title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Sec. 1.46 (fff)
and (ggg), published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April
24, 1997 (62 FR 19935).
Safety Management System
The Coast Guard is implementing the requirements for safety
management systems and related requirements to implement the provisions
of Chapter IX of SOLAS, in new 33 CFR part 96. To establish safety
management system requirements, the Coast Guard is proposing to use
existing industry based standards or previously adopted international
standards to the greatest extent possible. Under the proposed rules,
responsible persons and their U.S. vessels subject to Chapter IX of
SOLAS and IMO Resolution A.741(18) will be able to meet these
international requirements at the same time they comply with parallel
U.S. statutory requirements and regulations. For those vessels or
companies that are not subject to the SOLAS requirements and not
required to meet these regulations, the proposed Sec. 96.210(c) permits
them to voluntarily meet the standards of part 96 and Chapter IX of
SOLAS. Proposed Secs. 96.220, 96.230, 96.240, and 96.250 establish the
safety management system, and detail the specific objectives,
functional requirements, documentation and reporting required for
consistency with the ISM Code and to comply with Federal law.
46 U.S.C. 3204 requires that responsible persons submit a safety
management plan to the Secretary describing how they will comply with
the regulations pertaining to the safety management system. The
Secretary must review this plan to determine if it is consistent with
and will assist in implementing the safety management system. Once
compliance is assured, then the Secretary issues a Safety Management
Certificate and a Document of Compliance certificate.
Responsible persons are owners of vessels or other persons,
organizations or companies who have assumed responsibility for the
operation of a vessel from the owner. Responsible persons who are not
owners have agreed to take over the duties and responsibilities imposed
by the safety management system and the requirements of these proposed
rules. To be consistent with these proposed regulations and the
elements of the ISM Code, and for ease of understanding by the user of
the regulations, the term ``company(nies)'' will be used in the place
of responsible person(s) where needed for grammatical correctness and
readability of the proposed regulations.
Chapter IX of SOLAS does not contain requirements for, or a
definition of, a ``safety management plan.'' SOLAS does require,
however, specific documentation as part of an individual vessel's or
company's safety management system. The nature of this documentation
describes how the vessel or company will comply with the requirements
of the ISM Code. Proposed Secs. 96.240 and 96.250 adopt SOLAS
documentation and reporting requirements, which require the vessel or
company to demonstrate how it complies with the ISM Code. As proposed
here, the documentation and reporting requirements of proposed
Secs. 96.240 and 96.250 will suffice as the ``safety management plan''
required by 46 U.S.C. 3204.
Proposed Secs. 96.330 and 96.340 set forth requirements for a
responsible person or company to obtain a Document of Compliance
certificate or Safety Management Certificate. Proposed Secs. 96.350 and
96.360 provide criteria for Interim Document of Compliance certificates
and Interim Safety Management Certificates. These sections parallel IMO
Resolution A.788(19), ``Guidelines on Implementation of the
International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations,''
adopted November 23, 1995.
Organizations Acting on Behalf of the U.S.
Section 603 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 (46 U.S.C.
3103) permits the Secretary, and the Commandant through authority
delegated from the Secretary as noted above, to rely on reports,
documents and records of other reliable persons as evidence of
compliance with Subtitle II of Title 46, U.S. Code. Under the authority
of 46 U.S.C. 3103, this rulemaking will allow organizations previously
recognized by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 8, to obtain
authorization under proposed 33 CFR part 96, subpart D to audit safety
management systems and issue Document of Compliance certificates and
Safety Management Certificates on behalf of the U.S.
The Coast Guard will only authorize organizations that are
recognized in accordance with 46 CFR part 8, subpart B, ``Recognition
of a Classification Society.'' Experience within other industries has
shown that subject matter expertise is essential for proper functioning
of a quality or safety management certification scheme. Use of the
criteria in 46 CFR part 8, subpart B, will ensure that the
organizations selected to be authorized by these proposed rules will
have the expertise and capabilities to properly carry out this function
for the U.S.
Because the Coast Guard proposes to authorize recognized
organizations to issue safety management system certificates,
certification will not be completed directly by the Coast Guard. Coast
Guard personnel would require extensive training and resources which
already exists in the commercial industry. Commercial organizations
recognized under 46 CFR part 8, and authorized under these proposed
rules, already have the training and resources available to carry out
the auditing requirements consistent with the international guidelines
of the ISM Code. By permitting organizations to carry out this
function, the Coast Guard will be able to effectively oversee the
proper execution of regulatory implementation and certification. The
implementation of these proposed regulations will better utilize Coast
Guard resources to oversee these and other marine functions carried out
by others on behalf of the U.S.
Proposed 33 CFR part 96, subpart D sets the standard for
organizations that will be authorized to act on behalf of the Coast
Guard for the Flag Administration. This parallels the standards of IMO
Resolution A.739(18), ``Guidelines for the Authorization of
Organizations Acting on Behalf of the Administration,'' adopted
November 4, 1993, and is incorporated by reference into the proposed
rules. These international guidelines establish the minimum standards
that each organization is reviewed for and must meet in order to
complete safety management audits, marine surveys or inspections, and
certifications on behalf of a Flag Administration.
The authorization of foreign based classification societies under
these proposed rules in subpart D will be subject to the reciprocity
requirements of Sec. 96.430(a)(5). This section is based on 46 U.S.C.
3316 as amended by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996. This
statute requires reciprocity to the American Bureau of Shipping for
certain delegations of authority to foreign based classification
societies.
Proposed Sec. 96.440 establishes requirements, consistent with the
guidelines in IMO Resolution A.739(18), for organizations seeking
authorization to act on behalf of the U.S. Proposed
[[Page 23709]]
Sec. Sec. 96.430, 96.440, and 96.450 establish requirements for
authorization requests and agreements of authorization between
recognized organizations and the Coast Guard. Following the
international guidelines incorporated into these proposed sections will
ensure that organizations selected by the Coast Guard to act on behalf
of the U.S. have the qualifications acceptable by all parties to SOLAS
worldwide.
In order to ensure that authorized organizations maintain the high
standards necessary to perform audits and issue certificates on behalf
of the U.S., proposed Sec. 96.470 provides for an annual Coast Guard
evaluation of an organization's audit procedures. If the organization
fails to maintain the standards established in part 96, subpart D, the
Coast Guard can terminate the organization's authorization under
proposed Sec. 96.470. Certificates issued by that organization will
remain valid until the certificate expiration date or the next periodic
safety management audit date, whichever occurs first. An organization
which has its authorization terminated is required under proposed
Sec. 96.490 to provide a written explanation of its loss of
authorization and a list of organizations authorized to act on behalf
of the U.S. to the responsible persons for companies and vessels
certificated by that organization. The organization must explain the
status of the companies and vessels, and how certificates can be
transferred to another U.S. authorized organization.
Proposed Sec. 96.495 establishes the appeal procedures for a
responsible person who does not agree with actions taken by the
authorized organizations for their company's or vessel's safety
management system. By permitting responsible persons to appeal directly
to the Commandant, Coast Guard oversight of actions by authorized
organizations is ensured.
Safety Management Audits for U.S. Companies
In order to verify that a vessel or the company represented by a
responsible person is in compliance with the requirements of the safety
management system established under proposed Secs. 96.220, 96.230,
96.240, and 96.250, safety management audits will be performed by the
authorized organizations under proposed Sec. 96.320. This requires that
audits be performed consistent with IMO Resolution A.788(19).
In addition to safety management audits performed initially to
verify compliance with the safety management system, 46 U.S.C. 3205(c)
requires periodic reviews to determine continued compliance with the
safety management system. The proposed rules require a responsible
person to request periodic safety management audits, to be performed in
accordance with proposed Sec. 96.320. Periodic audits are defined in
proposed Secs. 96.330(f) and 96.340(e)(2).
In the event that a responsible person fails to request a periodic
audit, or if a major non-conformity is found within a company's or
vessel's safety management system during a safety management audit, the
Coast Guard may revoke the company's Document of Compliance certificate
or a vessel's Safety Management Certificate. If a Document of
Compliance certificate is revoked, all Safety Management Certificates
issued to the vessel(s) owned and operated by that responsible person,
will become invalid under proposed Sec. 96.340(e)(3). This is because,
without a valid Document of Compliance certificate, all such vessels
are operating under a non-conforming safety management system. After a
company resumes operations under a valid Document of Compliance
certificate, the responsible person for the company's vessel(s) must
request and complete a satisfactory safety management audit prior to
receiving a valid Safety Management Certificate.
Compliance and Enforcement
To ensure compliance with the ISM Code requirements by vessels in
U.S. waters, proposed Sec. 96.380 permits the Coast Guard to board U.S.
and foreign vessels to determine if the safety management system is
being observed and practiced during vessel operations. During this
process, the Coast Guard will also verify that a valid copy of the
company's Document of Compliance certificate and a valid vessel Safety
Management Certificate are on board. A vessel may be detained under
authority of this proposed section, if its personnel are not following
its safety management system or if the vessel is not carrying the
appropriate certificates. Proposed Sec. 96.390 authorizes the Coast
Guard to deny entry of a vessel into a port or terminal under the
authority of 46 U.S.C. 3204(c).
For vessels from a country not a party to Chapter IX of SOLAS,
proposed Sec. 96.370 requires those vessels to have evidence of a
safety management system consistent with the ISM Code. Failure to
comply will subject these vessels to the compliance and enforcement
procedures of proposed Sec. 96.380.
Amendments to Existing Regulations
A second category of proposed rules will amend existing general
SOLAS certification regulations to incorporate the requirements for
safety management systems in various parts of 46 CFR for specific
vessel types. These regulatory amendments will expand upon current
applicability of SOLAS certification and the safety management
certification for each U.S. vessel type engaged in international trade,
and are referenced to 33 CFR part 96 as follows:
Vessel Inspections, International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. (46 CFR 2.01-25);
Tank vessel, Safety Management Certificate (46 CFR 31.40-
30);
Passenger vessel, Safety Management Certificate (46 CFR
71.75-13);
Freight vessel, Safety Management Certificate (46 CFR
91.60-30);
Self-propelled mobile offshore drilling unit, Safety
Management Certificate (46 CFR 107.415);
Small passenger vessel, Safety Management Certificate (46
CFR 115.925);
Offshore supply vessel, Safety Management Certificate (46
CFR 126.480);
Small passenger vessel, Safety Management Certificate (46
CFR 176.925); and
Oceanographic research vessel, Safety Management
Certificate (46 CFR 189.60-30).
The third category of proposed rules specifically involves safety
management system certification for approximately 72 U.S. small
passenger vessels and their responsible persons. These U.S. small
passenger vessels involved in international trade are divided into two
categories:
Small passenger vessels which must meet 46 CFR, subchapter
T, parts 175 through 185 (known in the U.S. marine industry as ``T
boats''); and
Small passenger vessels which must meet 46 CFR, subchapter
K, parts 114 through 122 (known in the U.S. marine industry as ``K
vessels'').
The Coast Guard reviewed the management strategies used by U.S.
small passenger vessels (less than 100 gross tons) certificated under
SOLAS for international trade. The Coast Guard's G-M Business Plan
requires that there be a recognition between different types of
passenger vessels to determine the types of risks and management
strategies affecting their operations. Of the 72 U.S. small passenger
vessels potentially affected by this proposed rulemaking, approximately
54 vessels fall into the ``T boat'' category. This review showed that T
boats which carry less than 49 passengers overnight and not more than
150 passengers, and operate on routes less than 20 miles
[[Page 23710]]
from shore in international trade, are typically manned and operated by
small companies made up of one to five employees. In these cases, the
responsible person for the vessel is usually the vessel's operator or
master, who is involved in every decision and action related to the
management and operation of that vessel. In light of the nature of
these vessels' operations, and the fact that the owner oversees the
vessels everyday, a safety management system meeting the requirements
of these proposed rules could be seen as overwhelming for a small
company with limited resources.
Historical vessel casualty information on these small passenger
vessels was reviewed to determine any basis of risk. The review did not
indicate a larger than normal risk when compared to other T boats in
operation within U.S. domestic waters only. This review of historical
casualty information included only vessel incidents involving
groundings, allisions, collisions, propulsion equipment failures,
pollution incidents, fires and navigational errors. This review of
casualty information did not include incidents which occurred on these
vessels that were reported as marine casualties, which included only
personal injuries, such as: Diving accidents; slips and falls;
passenger medical ailments; passenger illnesses; or other such non-
vessel related mishaps to passengers.
Other factors determined from this review support the concept of
hands-on, responsible person management of T boats. They include:
Vessel employees with long tenures of employment (a number of these
vessels are family owned and operated); vessels operate on short
routes, close to shore on protected waters; a low number of passengers
are carried; and a short amount of time is spent underway from shore or
from the vessel's home dock.
This review reinforced our belief that the existing oversight
management strategies and hands-on operation of T boats by their
responsible persons, can be considered equivalent to providing safety
management systems for these specific 54 small passenger vessels.
Small passenger vessels subject to the requirements of 46 CFR
subchapter T have traditionally been allowed equivalencies to SOLAS
requirements in accordance with Chapter I, Regulation 5 of SOLAS. This
is allowed, if the equivalence is at least as effective as that
required by the regulations. The existing SOLAS equivalency provision
for these small passenger vessels is found at 46 CFR 176.930. Because
equivalencies for ``T boats'' are currently allowed, the Coast Guard
proposes to amend 46 CFR 176.930 to allow ``T boat'' owners to apply
for an equivalence to the requirements of 33 CFR part 96, at their
option. The Coast Guard plans on partnering with the responsible
persons of this limited number of T boats to develop safety management
systems that are equivalent to manage the risks these vessels see in
their limited operations. Specific actions for equivalence applications
will be provided by the Coast Guard as a separate directive from this
rulemaking action, if the proposed revision to Sec. 176.930 is
incorporated in the final rule.
The remaining 18 small passenger vessels applicable to these
proposed rules are regulated under subchapter K. ``K vessels'' are
normally owned and operated by larger companies with similar management
issues associated to those of deep draft fleets, such as: large number
of passengers carried; large number of persons employed, onshore and
onboard the vessels; unrestricted international routes with overnight
underway capability; day to weekly underway operations from shore; and
the responsible persons reliance on a management company to oversee and
manage the day to day operation of the vessel. Furthermore, due to the
complexity of the operation of these vessels, the crews require a
higher level of training and management by the company.
A historical vessel casualty review showed that K vessels in
international trade had a higher risk of casualties than vessels of
similar size in operation within U.S. domestic waters. The casualties
reviewed for this determination were also vessel related casualties and
did not include passenger injury or illness related incidents.
Small passenger vessel owners not wishing to apply for an
equivalence allowed for T boats or, whose vessels must comply with 46
CFR subchapter K, must meet the safety management system requirements
of the proposed regulations in 33 CFR part 96. Comments on this
proposal are specifically requested.
Incorporation by Reference
Material that would be incorporated by reference is listed in
Sec. 96.130. The material is available for inspection where indicated
under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from the sources
listed in Sec. 96.130.
Before publishing a binding rule, the Coast Guard will submit this
material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the
incorporation by reference.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential cost 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).
A draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory
policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the
Evaluation follows:
The Coast Guard estimates that the proposed regulations will affect
approximately 370 U.S. vessels registered for international trade,
which are owned by approximately 153 different owners. Of these owners,
approximately 96 own 190 U.S. vessels which will be required to comply
with these proposed rules by July 1, 1998. Of the remaining 180 U.S.
vessels, 57 owners must comply by July 1, 2002. The proposed
regulations will also affect any owners or vessels that voluntarily opt
to meet the requirements of proposed 33 CFR part 96.
The Coast Guard expects that the total costs for ISM Code
implementation falls into two categories for each company affected. The
first category involves costs incurred by the responsible persons to
have their company and vessel(s) safety management system externally
audited and certificated. The second category involves the development
and training costs for safety management systems.
Audit and Certification Costs
The Coast Guard surveyed a small representative group of companies
that operate U.S. vessels and the three organizations (American Bureau
of Shipping (ABS), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), and Lloyd's Register of
Shipping (LRS)), that had been accepted to complete the voluntary
auditing and certification of safety management systems in accordance
with NVIC 2-94. Because actual audit and certification costs are
internal to the company's profit and loss determinations, and therefore
proprietary, the companies surveyed provided cost estimates only. The
three organizations provided cost estimates for services involving
initial audits and certification for companies and their vessel(s). All
cost data provided varied widely due to the size of the company, number
of personnel, type of vessels and the number of
[[Page 23711]]
vessels owned and engaged in international trade.
To clearly describe the costs of audit and certification, companies
have been separated into three categories of large, medium and small
sized companies, based on the number of personnel required to operate a
company and the number of vessels a company operates.
Large size companies. Included here are 71 companies which own
approximately 275 U.S. vessels that must meet the requirements of these
proposed rules. These companies operate deep draft tankers (liquid and
gas carriers), freight vessels (container, roll-on/roll-off (RO-RO),
combination, break bulk carriers), bulk vessels (ore and grain
carriers), and self-propelled mobile offshore drilling units.
It is estimated that the external audit and certification cost for
these companies are:
Initial audit and certification of company=$7,000.
Company periodic certificate audit (4)=approx. $7,000 per
audit.
Initial audit and certification of vessel=$5,000.
Vessel intermediate certificate audit (1)=approx. $5,000.
The costs for initial audit and certification of 71 large
companies, plus 4 yearly periodic audits during the life of each
certificate, is estimated at $497,000 annually. [(number of companies)
x 5 (certification + audits) x cost / 5 (years) = $ total cost per
year] The costs for audit and certification of 275 vessels owned by
large companies, plus one intermediate audit during the life of each
certificate, is estimated at $550,000 annually. [(number of vessels)
x 2 (certification + audit) x cost / 5 (years) = $ total cost per
year] The total cost per year for the certification of large size
companies and their vessels is estimated at $1,047,000 per year after
July 1, 2002.
Between July 1, 1998, and July 1, 2002, 40 of these large size
companies and 157 of their vessels will not be required to be
certificated due to the later effective date of the proposed rules for
freight vessels and self-propelled mobile drilling units. Between July
1, 1998, and July 1, 2002, cost estimates for certification of safety
management systems per year would be reduced to $217,000 for companies
and $236,000 for vessels. A total cost is estimated at $453,000
annually from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 2002.
Medium size companies. These include 17 companies with 23 U.S.
vessels. These companies operate oceangoing tugs, industrial support
vessels (offshore supply service vessels, cable laying vessels, etc.),
and research vessels.
It is estimated that the audit and certification cost for these
companies are:
Initial audit and certification of company=$5,000.
Company periodic certificate audit (4)=approx. $5,000 per
audit.
Initial audit and certification of vessel=$3,000.
Vessel intermediate certificate audit (1)=approx. $3,000.
Therefore, the cost for audit and certification of 17 medium size
companies, plus four yearly periodic audits per the life of each
certificate, is estimated at $85,000 annually. The cost for audit and
certification of 23 vessels owned by medium size companies, plus one
intermediate audit per life of certificate, is estimated at $27,600
annually. A total cost per year for certification actions of all medium
size companies owning U.S. vessels is estimated at $112,600 per year.
It must be remembered that due to the type of vessels that fall into
this size company category, the effective date for implementation of
safety management systems for all medium size companies would be July
1, 2002.
Small size companies. These include 65 companies, which own 72 U.S.
vessels. These companies own U.S. passenger vessels engaged in a
foreign voyage while carrying 12 or more passengers. The proposed rules
will become effective for all passenger vessels on July 1, 1998. Small
size companies include T boats and K vessels.
It is estimated that the average audit and certification costs for
these companies are:
Initial audit and certification of company=$1,000.
Company periodic certificate audit (4)=$500 per audit.
Initial audit and certification of vessel=$800.
Vessel intermediate certificate audit (1)=$500.
The cost for initial audit and certification of 65 small size
companies, plus 4 yearly periodic audits per the life of each
certificate, is estimated at $39,000 annually. The cost for initial
audit and certification of 72 vessels owned by small size companies,
plus 1 intermediate audit per the life of each certificate, is
estimated at $18,720 annually. The total estimated cost per year for
certification actions of all small size companies owning U.S. vessels
equals $57,720.
However, this proposed rule provides an alternative to alleviate
the costs imposed on some of these small companies. It is proposed that
T boats, be provided with an equivalence to Chapter IX of SOLAS under
their inspection for certification by the U.S. This equivalence would
cover the 53 owners of the 54 U.S. small passenger vessels (1 owner
owns 2 vessels). If that occurs, no further cost for certification
would be incurred by these small passenger vessels, as this examination
of the vessel and company's safety management systems would be
completed as part of the Coast Guard's examination for issuance of the
Certificate of Inspection (COI). This is already covered under the
vessel's user fee.
Of the K vessels not covered by the SOLAS equivalence proposed in
this rulemaking, the 12 owners of the 18 U.S. vessels would be required
to develop and have their company and vessel(s) safety management
systems audited and certificated by July 1, 1998.
Total audit and certification cost. The total cost for audit and
certification is estimated at $514,780 annually for the period July 1,
1998, through June 30, 2002. On July 1, 2002, the cost will increase to
an estimated $1,217,280 annually. This is because additional U.S.
vessels and companies will be required to comply with Chapter IX of
SOLAS and 46 U.S.C. 3203(a). This cost may increase or decrease after
that time due to the fluctuation in the number of companies and U.S.
vessels which are registered to be engaged in international trade. The
Coast Guard encourages the maritime industry and the general public to
submit comments on these estimated costs.
Safety Management System Development and Employee Training Costs
To ascertain the costs to develop safety management systems and to
train employees to use these systems, the Coast Guard surveyed a small
representative group of U.S. vessel owners and operators that developed
safety management systems consistent with IMO resolutions. Some of
those surveyed voluntarily certificated their company and vessel(s)
safety management systems in accordance with Coast Guard NVIC 2-94.
When surveyed on the specific costs required to develop a safety
management system, the general response was that the companies could
not provide a detailed or accurate cost assessment until they had seen
the proposed regulations. Some indicated that their company had already
developed and certificated quality assurance programs as part of, or
prior to, development of a safety management
[[Page 23712]]
system, and could not provide data on initial development costs. In
those cases, their internal costs were marginal to meet the ISM Code
requirements, as compared to the companies who must develop safety
management systems under these proposed rules. Others indicated that
the development of quality assurance and safety management systems are
a component of the cost of doing business because these systems are
required by contractual agreements. Consequently, they were unable to
attribute specific costs to safety management system development.
Overall, it is difficult to determine the incremental costs
incurred by these companies to develop safety management systems. This
is because these systems are developed for companies that can range in
size from the operation of one small passenger vessel by its owner, who
is the vessel's master, to a U.S. oceangoing container vessel company
with thousands of employees and 37 deep draft vessels. Development
costs will also depend on whether a company internally develops its
safety management system or hires an outside consultant to do it. The
various types of vessels, companies, and the requirements necessary to
run any one of them, will affect development costs. Therefore, it is
requested that comments, data, and documentation on the costs to
develop a safety management system be submitted by vessel owners,
operators, the maritime industry and the general public.
Training costs include the instruction of personnel in the new
safety management systems, both ashore and aboard vessels, and the
documentation of training in the company's safety management systems to
meet the ISM Code. These costs can include on-the-job reading,
classroom training provided by the company to its employees, consultant
training programs completed in house, and on-the-job demonstration and
training drills.
Training costs will also vary due to the wide range of companies
required to comply with these regulations. For example, training costs
for a company that has 5,000 employees will be much higher than the
training costs of a company with 5 employees.
Training costs are also effected by the fact that many shipboard
personnel of U.S. vessels engaged in international trade have received
training regarding the performance elements of the ISM Code through the
implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention
of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW),
1978. Thus, a substantial portion of these training costs may be
related to STCW implementation, and not to ISM Code implementation.
When surveyed on the costs involved to train employees on the use
of safety management systems, cost estimates ranged from $10,000 for
larger companies with deep draft vessels, to $0 for companies who had
integrated their training costs into their normal safety training
budget. So little information was received and the differences in
estimates was such, that a valid estimate of training costs could not
be made. It is believed that different factors, including those
training costs of the STCW requirements, were combined into these cost
statements. Due to the variation of the types of companies and vessels
that will be subject to these proposed rules, the Coast Guard is
requesting that the maritime industry and general public submit
comments, data, and documentation on training costs expected to be
incurred by companies and vessels of all sizes and varied
organizational structure.
Benefits
The Coast Guard expects that the proposed rule will have economic
benefits and the potential to reduce marine casualties. With the
development of safety management systems, a reduction in costs
attributable to shipboard personnel injuries and liability is likely. A
reduction of risk due to fewer vessel casualties and liabilities is
also expected. Because safety management systems include pollution
prevention procedures, the Coast Guard expects a reduction in pollution
incidents which could result in environmental damage. It also expects
reduced company and vessel liability and regulatory fines due to these
incidents. Delays in vessel operation and scheduling can be eliminated
or significantly reduced because the lines of authority and
communication will be defined between personnel onshore and on the
vessel. With fewer marine casualties, costs associated with insurance
claims and vessel insurance premiums should also decrease.
As with other industries, it is anticipated that preventive actions
provided by clear and communicated procedures and policies will allow
for proactive management styles. Over time, the maritime industry
should realize substantial savings in cost that far outweigh start up
and maintenance fees for safety management systems. These savings
include reduction of: lost worker's hours due to injury, loss of vessel
operation due to repairs, and costs due to fines and judicial actions
against the company and its vessel(s). The Coast Guard specifically
solicits comments on the benefits of this proposed action.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposed rule, if adopted, 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.
This rulemaking will affect U.S. oceangoing vessels of specific
categories of more than 500 gross tons, or passenger vessels of any
size carrying more than 12 passengers in international trade. The
greatest impact will fall on large U.S. oceangoing shipping companies,
which have 1 to 37 deep draft vessels over 500 gross tons and are not
considered as small business concerns or small business entities.
Today, there are approximately 5,600 small and large passenger
vessels certificated for operation under the U.S. flag. Approximately
370 of those U.S. flag vessels will be affected by this proposed rule
and the mandatory requirements of the ISM Code. Out of those 370 U.S.
vessels, approximately 72 are small passenger vessels on limited
international routes in the sportfishing, tourism and cruising trade.
Only the small passenger vessel companies appear to have less than 500
employees within their firms or claim gross revenues far below the
defined base of a small entity. Thus, for the purposes of this
rulemaking, the 72 small passenger vessels are the only companies that
appear to meet the definition of a small entity under this section.
Costs for these small passenger vessels to develop a safety
management system, provide training and document procedures will be
considerably less than larger companies due to the limited number of
employees, routes, and passengers. Most of these companies operate with
less than 5 employees. In some cases, the owner is the master of the
vessel, and the crew are close relatives of the owner. There is long
term tenure of the employees in these small companies, and since most
positions aboard are unlicensed or undocumented, training consists of
basic operations which are required to be documented by the existing
[[Page 23713]]
regulations for small passenger vessels in 46 CFR.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard proposes to permit vessels in the ``T
boat'' category to comply with the ISM Code through an equivalence
under 46 CFR part 176.930, at their option. This would eliminate the
$860.00 certification cost for each vessel, per year, as discussed in
the preceding cost/benefit analysis. All 54 of the ``T boats'' may opt
to satisfy these requirements by that equivalence.
An initial evaluation showed that the cost of this rulemaking would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
business entities as described above. Therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies that under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposal, if adopted, will
not have a significant 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 will have a
significant economic impact on your business or organization, please
submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies
and in what way and to what degree this proposal will economically
effect 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
wants to help small entities understand this proposed rule so they can
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process. If your small business is affected by this rule and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact Mr. Robert M. Gauvin, Project Manager, Vessel and Facility
Operating Standards Division (G-MSO-2), at (202) 267-1053, or fax (202)
267-4570.
Collection of Information
The proposed rule provided for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As
defined in 5 CFR 1320.361, ``collection of information'' includes
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other
similar actions. The title and description of the information
collections, a description of the respondents, and an estimate of the
total annual burden follow. Included in the estimate is the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.
Summary of the Collection of Information
This proposal contains collection-of-information requirements in
the following sections: 33 CFR 96.250, 96.320, 96.330, 96.340, 96.350,
96.360, and 46 CFR 2.01-25, 31.40-30, 71.75-13, 71.75-20, 91.60-30,
91.60-40, 107.417, 115.925, 126.480, 175.540, 176.925, 176.930,189.60-
30, 189.60-40.
DOT No.: 2115-0056; 2115-0626, and 2115.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: International Management Code for the Safe Operation of
Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management
(ISM) Code).
Need for Information: 46 U.S.C. Chapter 32 and Chapter IX of SOLAS
require that U.S. companies and their vessels comply with the ISM Code.
The ISM Code is a mandatory international convention requirement
paralleled in U.S. law which will come into effect:
On July 1, 1998, for passenger vessels, and tankers, bulk
freight and high speed freight vessels over 500 gross tons engaged in
foreign trade; and
On July 1, 2002, for freight vessels and self-propelled
mobile offshore drilling units over 500 gross tons engaged in foreign
trade.
Information showing the compliance status of responsible persons
and their U.S. vessels must be provided to the Coast Guard by
recognized organizations authorized by the Coast Guard to act on behalf
of the U.S. To comply, a responsible person, company and vessel(s)
owned and operated by that person, must establish a safety management
system and prepare internal audit reports for the responsible person's
company and vessel(s) which demonstrate compliance with the ISM Code.
Preparation of these reports requires a new information collection.
Title 46, chapter 32 also requires that a responsible person's
company and U.S. vessel(s) possess Document of Compliance certificates
and Safety Management Certificates, respectively, as evidence of
compliance with the ISM Code. Recognized organizations authorized to
act on behalf of the U.S. and the Coast Guard will issue these
certificates. To prepare and issue these certificates, an amendment to
existing 2115-0056 is required.
Safety management systems will be externally audited and reported
on by the authorized, recognized organizations through a review of the
internal audit reports prepared by a company. Since the Coast Guard
reviews this information that documents the ISM Code compliance, 2115-
0626 requires amendment.
Proposed use of Information: The information will be used by the
Coast Guard or recognized organizations authorized to act on behalf of
the U.S. to determine if responsible persons and their vessels are
complying with the ISM Code. If in compliance, Document of Compliance
certificates and Safety Management Certificates will be issued.
Frequency of Response: Initially, all responsible persons who own
or operate U.S. vessels subject to these proposed rules will develop
their internal auditing system and recordkeeping requirements. Once
established, these procedures will state when internal audits and
reports of the audits will be completed and reviewed, at the discretion
of the responsible person. These reports will be reviewed by authorized
recognized organizations during safety management audits of both the
company and its vessel(s) safety management systems. It is expected
that, at a minimum, an internal audit report will be prepared prior to
each safety management audit.
Company safety management systems will be externally audited once
to verify compliance with the ISM Code and to issue a company its
Document of Compliance certificate. The Document of Compliance
certificate is valid for five years and requires that an annual
verification audit be completed. After five years, one renewal safety
management audit will be conducted and a new certificate will be
issued.
Once a company receives its Document of Compliance certificate, its
U.S. flag vessel(s) will undergo an initial safety management audit, to
verify compliance with the ISM Code and to issue a Safety Management
Certificate. The Safety Management Certificate is valid for five years
and requires one intermediate verification audit during that time.
After five years, one renewal safety management audit will be conducted
and a new certificate will be issued.
Recognized organizations authorized to complete certification
actions on safety management systems for the U.S. will complete
external audit reports which will be reviewed by the Coast Guard at a
minimum of once a year.
Burden of Response: Companies of various sizes will be required to
maintain internal audit reports in order to comply with the ISM Code.
The burden of compliance is expected to be lower for those U.S.
companies with few employees and/or vessels because less documentation
will be required, and thus, preparation time is shorter. Preparation of
these internal reports will allow companies and vessels to continuously
be certificated to
[[Page 23714]]
international safety management system requirements. Additionally,
recognized organizations, acting on behalf of the U.S., will review
these internal reports during safety management audits, and will then
prepare external audit reports which document a company or vessel's
compliance or non-compliance with the ISM Code. If in compliance,
Document of Compliance certificates and Safety Management Certificates
will be issued by the organizations. External audit reports and
certificates will be reviewed by the Coast Guard.
The burden estimate for the companies and their vessels is as
follows:
Small passenger vessels (T boats); 54 x .5 hours (per
report)=27.0 annually.
Other vessels; 316 (vessels) x 1 hour (audit report) x
.4 (report frequency)=126.4 hours.
Company review of audits; [316 (vessels) x 2 hour (audit
report) x .4 (frequency of report)] + [100 (companies) x 2 hours
(audit review)]=452.8 hours.
It is estimated that the recognized organizations will expend the
following personnel hours to review internal audit reports, prepare
external audit reports, and issue certificates to companies and U.S.
vessels:
Review of internal audit reports: [2 (audits/year/company)
x 4 hours (complete report + review report) x 100 (companies)] + [2
(audits/year/vessels) x 5 hours (complete report + review report) x
316 (vessels)]=3,960 hours.
Review of external audit reports; [316 + 100 (U.S. vessels
and companies)/5 years] x .5 hours=41.6 hours.
Endorsement of Document of Compliance certificates; 100
(companies) x .25 hours=25 hours.
Endorsement of Safety Management Certificates; 316
(vessels) x .25 hours/5 years=15.8 hours.
Vessel and company handling of certificates; 416
(certificates) x .25 hours/5 years=20.8 hours.
It is expected that the Coast Guard will review audits and
certificates and expend the following estimated personnel hours:
For small passenger vessels; 54 (vessels) x .5
(hours)=27.0 hours.
For other vessels; 316 (vessels) x .5 (hours) x .4
(frequency)=63.2 hours.
Review of recognized organization actions and reports on
vessels; 316 (vessels) x 3 (hour)=948 hours.
Number of Respondents: Companies and their U.S. vessels which are
over 500 gross tons or carry more than 12 passengers, engaged in
international trade. Recognized organizations who opt to apply for
authorization to act on behalf of the U.S. to review and certificate
the safety management systems of companies and their U.S. vessels.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: The Coast Guard is submitting the
required information to OMB for review under section 3504 (h) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act. It is estimated that the following annual
hours are required to complete the record and reportkeeping required by
this proposal:
Companies and U.S. vessels--3,981 hours for internal audit
reports.
Recognized Organizations--1,168 hours for external audit
reports and certification requirements.
Coast Guard--559 hours for review of audit reports,
certificates, and company data.
As required by section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, the Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection
of information.
The Coast Guard solicits public comment on the proposed collection
of information to (1) evaluate whether the information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the Coast Guard, including
whether the information would have practical utility; (2) evaluate the
accuracy of the Coast Guard's estimate of the burden of the collection,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3)
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection on those who
are to respond, as by allowing the submittal of responses by electronic
means or the use of other forms of information technology.
Persons submitting comments on the collection of information should
submit their comments both to OMB and to the Coast Guard where
indicated under ADDRESSES by the date under DATES.
Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Before the
requirements for this collection of information become effective, the
Coast Guard will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's
decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient
implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environment impact of this proposed
rule and concluded that under paragraph 2.B.2.e(34) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this proposed rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation. Paragraph 2.B.2.e(34)(d)
categorically excludes regulations concerning manning, documentation,
measurement, inspection and equipping of vessels. A ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 96
Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference,
Marine Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety
management systems, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 2
Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 31
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety management systems.
46 CFR Part 71
Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety management systems.
46 CFR Part 91
Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety management systems.
46 CFR Part 107
Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety management systems, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 115
Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Report and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety management systems.
46 CFR Part 126
Marine safety, Offshore supply vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety management systems.
46 CFR Part 175
Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Report and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety management systems.
[[Page 23715]]
46 CFR Part 176
Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Report and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety management systems.
46 CFR Part 189
Marine safety, Oceanographic research vessels, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety management systems.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Ch. I and 46 CFR Ch. I as follows:
1. Add part 96 to read as follows:
33 CFR PART 96--RULES FOR THE SAFE OPERATION OF VESSELS AND SAFETY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
96.100 Purpose.
96.110 Who does this subpart apply to?
96.120 Definitions.
96.130 Incorporation by reference.
Subpart B--Company and Vessel Safety Management Systems
96.200 Purpose.
96.210 Who does this subpart apply to?
96.220 What makes up a safety management system?
96.230 What objectives must a safety management system meet?
96.240 What functional requirements must a safety management system
meet?
96.250 What documents and reports must a safety management system
have?
Subpart C--How Will Safety Management Systems be Certificated and
Enforced?
96.300 Purpose.
96.310 Who does this subpart apply to?
96.320 What is involved to complete a safety management audit and
when is it required to be completed?
96.330 Document of Compliance certificate: What is it and when is
it needed?
96.340 Safety Management Certificate: What is it and when is it
needed?
96.350 Interim Document of Compliance certificate: What is it and
when can it be used?
96.360 Interim Safety Management Certificate: What is it and when
can it be used?
96.370 What are the requirements for vessels of countries not party
to Chapter IX of SOLAS?
96.380 How will the Coast Guard handle compliance and enforcement
of these regulations?
96.390 When will the Coast Guard deny entry into a U.S. port?
Subpart D--Authorization of Recognized Organizations to Act on Behalf
of the U.S.
96.400 Purpose.
96.410 Who does this subpart apply to?
96.420 What authority may an organization ask for under this
subpart?
96.430 How does an organization submit a request to be authorized?
96.440 How will the Coast Guard decide whether to approve an
organization's request to be authorized?
96.450 What happens if the Coast Guard disapproves an
organization's request to be authorized?
96.460 How will I know what the Coast Guard requires of my
organization if my organization receives authorization?
96.470 How does the Coast Guard terminate an organization's
authorization?
96.480 What is the status of a certificate if the issuing
organization has its authority terminated?
96.490 What further obligations exist for my organization if the
Coast Guard terminates its authorization?
96.495 How can I appeal a decision made by an authorized
organization?
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3201 et. seq.; 46 U.S.C. 3103; 46 U.S.C.
3316, as amended by Sec. 607, Pub. L. 104-324, 110 Stat. 3901; 49
CFR 1.45, 49 CFR 1.46.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 96.100 Purpose.
This subpart implements Section 602, ``Safety Management'' (46
U.S.C. 3201-3205) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 (Pub. L.
104-324, 110 Stat. 3901), which requires responsible persons and their
vessels to comply with the requirements of Chapter IX of the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974,
International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for
Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management (ISM) Code),
adopted in London on May 24, 1994.
Note: Chapter IX of SOLAS is available from the International
Maritime Organization, Publication Section, 4 Albert Embankment,
London, SE1 75R, United Kingdom, Telex 23588. Please include
document reference number ``IMO-190E'' in your request.
Sec. 96.110 Who does this subpart apply to?
This subpart applies to you if--
(a) You are a responsible person who owns a U.S. vessel(s) and must
comply with Chapter IX of SOLAS;
(b) You are a responsible person who owns a U.S. vessel(s) that is
not required to comply with Chapter IX of SOLAS, but requests
application of this subpart;
(c) You are a responsible person who owns a foreign vessel(s) that
trades in U.S. waters, which must comply with Chapter IX of SOLAS; or
(d) You are a recognized organization applying for authorization to
act on behalf of the U.S. to conduct safety management audits and issue
international convention certificates.
Sec. 96.120 Definitions.
As used in this part--
Administration means the Government of the State whose flag the
ship is entitled to fly.
Authorized Organization Acting on behalf of the U.S. means an
organization that is recognized by the Commandant of the U.S. Coast
Guard under the minimum standards of subpart B of 46 CFR part 8, and
has been authorized under this section to conduct certain actions and
certifications on behalf of the United States.
Captain of the Port (COTP) means the U.S. Coast Guard officer as
described in 33 CFR 6.01-3, commanding a Captain of the Port zone
described in 33 CFR part 3, or that person's authorized representative.
Commandant means the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.
Company means the owner of a vessel, or any other organization or
person such as the manager or the bareboat charterer of a vessel, who
has assumed the responsibility for operation of the vessel from the
shipowner and who on assuming responsibility has agreed to take over
all the duties and responsibilities imposed by this part or the ISM
Code.
Document of Compliance means a certificate issued to a company or
responsible person that complies with the requirements of this part or
the ISM Code.
International Safety Management (ISM) Code means the International
Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution
Prevention, Chapter IX of the Annex to the International Convention for
the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974.
Non-conformity means an observed situation where objective evidence
indicates the non-fulfillment of a specified requirement.
Major non-conformity means an identifiable deviation which poses a
serious threat to personnel or vessel safety or a serious risk to the
environment and requires immediate corrective action; in addition, the
lack of effective and systematic implementation of a requirement of the
ISM Code is also considered a major non-conformity.
Objective Evidence means quantitative or qualitative information,
records or statements of fact pertaining to safety or to the existence
and implementation of a safety management system element, which is
based on observation, measurement or test and which can be verified.
Officer In Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) means the U.S. Coast
Guard officer as described in 46 CFR 1.01-15(b), in charge of an
inspection zone described in 33 CFR part 3, or that person's authorized
representative.
[[Page 23716]]
Recognized organization means a national or international
organization which has applied and been recognized by the Commandant of
the Coast Guard to meet the minimum standards of 46 CFR part 8.
Responsible person means--
(a) The owner of a vessel to whom this part applies, or
(b) Any other person that--
(1) Has assumed the responsibility from the owner for operation of
the vessel to which this part applies; and
(2) Agreed to assume, with respect to the vessel, responsibility
for complying with all the requirements of this part.
(c) A responsible person may be a company, firm, corporation,
association, partnership or individual.
Safety management audit means a systematic and independent
examination to determine whether the safety management system
activities and related results comply with planned arrangements and
whether these arrangements are implemented effectively and are suitable
to achieve objectives.
Safety Management Certificate means a document issued to a vessel
which signifies that the responsible person or its company, and the
vessel's shipboard management operate in accordance with the approved
safety management system.
Safety Management System means a structured and documented system
enabling Company and vessel personnel to effectively implement the
responsible person's safety and environmental protection policies.
SOLAS means the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea, 1974, as amended.
Vessel engaged on a foreign voyage means a vessel to which this
part applies that is--
(a) Arriving at a place under the jurisdiction of the United States
from a place in a foreign country;
(b) Making a voyage between places outside the United States; or
(c) Departing from a place under the jurisdiction of the United
States for a place in a foreign country.
Sec. 96.130 Incorporation by reference.
(a) The Director of the Federal Register approves certain material
that is incorporated by reference into this subpart under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must
publish notice of the change in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. You may inspect all material at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol St., NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC and at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards (G-MSE), 2100 Second St., SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001, and receive it from the source listed in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this
subpart and the sections affected are as follows:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
11 West 42nd St., New York, NY 10036.
ANSI/ASQC Q9001-1994, Quality Systems--Model for Quality
Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation, and
Servicing, 1994--96.430
International Maritime Organization IMO
4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, United Kingdom.
Resolution A.741(18), International Management Code for the Safe
Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, November 4, 1993--
96.220, 96.370
Resolution A.788 (19), Guidelines on Implementation of the
International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations,
November 23, 1995--96.320, 96.440
Resolution A.739(18), Guidelines for the Authorization of
Organizations Acting on Behalf of the Administration, November 4,
1993--96.440
Subpart B--Company and Vessel Safety Management Systems.
Sec. 96.200 Purpose.
This subpart establishes the minimum standards that the safety
management system of a company and its U.S. flag vessel(s) must meet
for certification to comply with the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 3201-
3205 and Chapter IX of SOLAS, 974. It also permits companies with U.S.
flag vessels that are not required to comply with this part to
voluntarily develop safety management systems which can be certificated
to standards consistent with Chapter IX of SOLAS.
Sec. 96.210 Who does this subpart apply to?
(a) This subpart applies--
(1) To a responsible person who owns or operates a
U.S. vessel(s) engaged on a foreign voyage which meet the
conditions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
(2) To all U.S. vessels engaged on a foreign voyage that are--
(i) A passenger vessel transporting 12 passengers or more; or
(ii) A tanker, a bulk freight vessel, a freight vessel or a self-
propelled mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) of 500 gross tons or
more; and
(3) To all foreign vessels engaged on voyages operating in U.S.
waters and subject to Chapter IX of SOLAS.
(b) This subpart does not apply to--
(1) A barge;
(2) A recreational vessel not engaged in commercial service;
(3) A fishing vessel;
(4) A vessel operating only on the Great Lakes or its tributary and
connecting waters; or
(5) A public vessel, which includes a U.S. vessel of the National
Defense Reserve Fleet owned by the U.S. Maritime Administration and
operated in non-commercial service.
(c) Any responsible person and their company who owns and operates
a U.S. flag vessel(s) which does not meet the conditions of paragraph
(a) of this section, may voluntarily meet the standards of this part
and Chapter IX of SOLAS and have their safety management systems
certificated.
(d) The effective date for the requirements of this part are--
(1) On or after July 1, 1998, for--
(i) Vessels transporting 12 or more passengers engaged on a foreign
voyage; or
(ii) Tankers, bulk freight vessels, or high speed freight vessel of
at least 500 gross tons or more.
(2) On or after July 1, 2002, for freight vessels and self-
propelled mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) of at least 500 gross
tons or more.
Sec. 96.220 What makes up a safety management system?
(a) The safety management system must document the responsible
person's--
(1) Safety and pollution prevention policy;
(2) Functional safety and operational requirements;
(3) Recordkeeping responsibilities; and
(4) Reporting responsibilities.
(b) A safety management system must also be consistent with the
functional standards and performance elements of IMO Resolution
A.741(18).
Sec. 96.230 What objectives must a safety management system meet?
The safety management system must:
(a) Provide written safe practices for vessel operation and a safe
working environment for the type of vessel the system is developed for;
(b) List safeguards against all identified risks;
(c) List expected actions to continuously improve safety management
skills of personnel ashore and aboard vessels, including preparation
for emergencies related to
[[Page 23717]]
both safety and environmental protection; and
(d) Ensure compliance with mandatory rules and regulations, and
take into account all national, international, and industry guidelines,
standards and codes when developing written procedures for the safety
management system.
Sec. 96.240 What functional requirements must a safety management
system meet?
The functional requirements of a safety management system must
include--
(a) A written statement from the responsible person stating the
company's safety and environmental protection policy;
(b) Instructions and procedures to provide direction for the safe
operation of the vessel and protection of the environment in compliance
with Titles 33 and 46 of the U.S. Code, and international conventions
to which the U.S. is a party (SOLAS, MARPOL, etc.);
(c) Documents showing the levels of authority and lines of
communication between shoreside and shipboard personnel;
(d) Procedures for reporting accidents, near accidents, and
nonconformities with provisions of the company's and vessel's safety
management system;
(e) Procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency situations
by shoreside and shipboard personnel;
(f) Procedures for internal audits on the operation of the company
and vessel(s) safety management system; and
(g) Procedures and processes for management review of company
internal audit reports and correction of nonconformities that are
reported by these or other reports.
Sec. 96.250 What documents and reports must a safety management system
have?
The documents and reports required for a safety management system
under Sec. 96.330 or Sec. 96.340 must include the written documents and
reports itemized in Table 96.250. These documents and reports must be
available to the company's shore-based and vessel(s)-based personnel:
Table 96.250 Safety Management System Documents and Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of documents and reports Specific requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Safety and environmental (1) Meet the objectives of Sec. 96.230;
policy statements. and
(2) Are carried out and kept current at
all levels of the company.
(b) Company responsibilities (1) The owners name and details of
and authority statements. responsibility for operation of the
company and vessel(s);
(2) Name of the person responsible for
operation of the company and vessel(s),
if not the owner;
(3) Responsibility, authority and
interrelations of all personnel who
manage, perform, and verify work
relating to and affecting the safety and
pollution prevention operations of the
company and vessel(s); and
(4) A statement describing the company's
responsibility to ensure adequate
resources and shore-based support are
provided to enable the designated person
or persons to carry out the
responsibilities of this subpart.
(c) Designation in writing of (1) Have direct access to communicate
a person or persons to with the highest levels of the company
oversee the safety and with all management levels ashore
management system for the and aboard the company's vessel(s);
company and vessel(s).
(2) Have the written responsibility to
monitor the safety and environmental
aspects of the operation of each vessel;
and
(3) Have the written responsibility to
ensure there are adequate support and
shore-based resources for vessel(s)
operations.
(d) Written statements that (1) Carry out the company's safety and
define the Master's environmental policies;
responsibilities and
authorities.
(2) Motivate the vessel's crew to observe
the safety management system policies;
(3) Issue orders and instructions in a
clear and simple manner;
(4) Make sure that specific requirements
are carried out by the vessel's crew and
shore-based resources; and
(5) Review the safety management system
and report non-conformities to shore-
based management.
(e) Written statements that (1) Ability to make decisions about
the Master has overriding safety and environmental pollution; and
responsibility and authority
to make vessel decisions.
(2) Ability to request the company's help
when necessary.
(f) Personnel procedures and (1) Masters of vessels are properly
resources which are qualified for command;
available ashore and aboard
ship.
(2) Masters of vessels know the company's
safety management system;
(3) Owners or companies provide the
necessary support so that the Master's
duties can be safely performed;
(4) Each vessel is properly crewed with
qualified, certificated and medically
fit seafarers complying with national
and international requirements;
(5) New personnel and personnel
transferred to new assignments involving
safety and protection of the environment
are properly introduced to their duties;
(6) Personnel involved with the company's
safety management system know the
relevant rules, regulations, codes and
guidelines;
(7) Needed training is identified to
support the safety management system and
ensure that the training is provided for
all personnel concerned;
(8) Communication of relevant procedures
for the vessel's personnel involved with
the safety management system is in the
language(s) understood by them; and
(9) Personnel are able to communicate
effectively when carrying out their
duties as related to the safety
management system.
[[Page 23718]]
(g) Vessel safety and (1) Define tasks; and
pollution prevention
operation plans and
instructions for key
shipboard operations.
(2) Assign qualified personnel to
specific tasks.
(h) Emergency preparedness (1) Identify, describe and direct
procedures. response to potential emergency
shipboard situations;
(2) Set up programs for drills and
exercises to prepare for emergency
actions; and
(3) Make sure that the company's
organization can respond at anytime, to
hazards, accidents and emergency
situations involving their vessel(s).
(i) Reporting procedures on (1) Report non-conformities of the safety
required actions. management system;
(2) Report accidents;
(3) Report hazardous situations to the
owner or company; and
(4) Make sure reported items are
investigated and analyzed with the
objective of improving safety and
pollution prevention.
(j) Vessel maintenance (1) Inspect vessel's equipment, hull, and
procedures. (These machinery at appropriate intervals;
procedures verify that a
company's vessel(s) is
maintained in conformity
with the provisions of
relevant rules and
regulations, with any
additional requirements
which may be established by
the company.).
(2) Report any non-conformity with its
possible cause, if known;
(3) Take appropriate corrective actions;
(4) Keep records of these activities;
(5) Identify specific equipment and
technical systems that may result in a
hazardous situation if a sudden
operational failure occurs;
(6) Identify measures that promote the
reliability of the equipment and
technical systems identified in
paragraph (j)(5), and regularly test
standby arrangements and equipment or
technical systems not in continuous use;
and
(7) Include the inspections required by
this section into the vessel's
operational maintenance routine.
(k) Safety management system (1) Procedures which establish and
document and data maintain control of all documents and
maintenance. data relevant to the safety management
system;
(2) Documents are available at all
relevant locations, i.e., each vessel
carries on board all documents relevant
to that vessel's operation;
(3) Changes to documents are reviewed and
approved by authorized personnel; and
(4) Outdated documents are promptly
destroyed.
(l) Safety management system (1) Periodic evaluation of the safety
internal audits which verify management system's efficiency and
the safety and pollution review of the system in accordance with
prevention activities. the established procedures of the
company, when needed;
(2) Types and frequency of internal
audits, when they are required, how they
are reported, and possible corrective
actions, if necessary;
(3) Determining factors for the selection
of personnel, independent of the area
being audited, to complete internal
company and vessel audits; and
(4) Communication and reporting of
internal audit findings for critical
management review and to ensure
management personnel of the area audited
take timely and corrective action on
deficiencies found.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart C--How Will Safety Management Systems be Certificated and
Enforced?
Sec. 96.300 Purpose.
This subpart establishes the standards for the responsible person
of a company and its vessel(s) to obtain the required and voluntary,
national and international certification for the company's and vessel's
safety management system.
Sec. 96.310 Who does this subpart apply to?
This subpart applies:
(a) If you are a responsible person who owns a vessel(s) registered
in the U.S. and engaged on foreign voyages;
(b) If you are a responsible person who owns a vessel(s) registered
in the U.S. and volunteer to meet the standards of this part and
Chapter IX of SOLAS;
(c) To all foreign vessels engaged in foreign trade operating in
U.S. waters and subject to Chapter IX of SOLAS; or
(d) If you are a recognized organization authorized by the U.S. to
complete safety management audits and certification required by this
part.
Sec. 96.320 What is involved to complete a safety management audit and
when is it required to be completed?
(a) A safety management audit is any of the following:
(1) An initial audit which is carried out before a Document of
Compliance certificate or a Safety Management Certificate is issued;
(2) A renewal audit which is carried out before the renewal of a
Document of Compliance certificate or a Safety Management Certificate;
(3) Periodic audits including--
(i) An annual verification audit, as described in Sec. 96.330(f) of
this part, and
(ii) An intermediate verification audit, as described in
Sec. 96.340(e)(2) of this part.
(b) A satisfactory audit means that the auditor(s) agrees that the
requirements of this part are met, based on review and verification of
the procedures and documents that make up the safety management system.
(c) Actions required during safety management audits for a company
and their U.S. vessel(s) are--
(1) Review and verify the procedures and documents that make up a
safety management system, as defined in subpart B of this part.
[[Page 23719]]
(2) Make sure the audit complies with this subpart and is
consistent with IMO Resolution A.788(19), Guidelines on Implementation
of the International Safety Management (ISM) Code by Administrations.
(3) Make sure the audit is carried out by a team of Coast Guard
auditors or auditors assigned by a recognized organization authorized
to complete such actions by subpart D of this part.
(d) Safety management audits for a company and their U.S. vessel(s)
are required--
(1) Before issuing or renewing a Document of Compliance
certificate, and to keep a Document of Compliance certificate valid, as
described in Secs. 96.330 and 96.340 of this part.
(2) Before issuing or renewing a Safety Management Certificate, and
to maintain the validity of a Safety Management Certificate, as
described in Sec. 96.340 of this part. However, any safety management
audit for the purpose of verifying a vessel's safety management system
will not be scheduled or conducted for a company's U.S. vessel unless
the company first has undergone a safety management audit of the
company's safety management system, and has received its Document of
Compliance certificate.
(e) Requests for all safety management audits for a company and its
U.S. vessel(s) must be communicated--
(1) By a responsible person directly to a recognized organization
authorized by the U.S.
(2) By a responsible person within the time limits for an annual
verification audit, described in Sec. 96.330(f) of this part, and for
an intermediate verification audit, described in Sec. 96.340(e)(2) of
this part. If he or she does not make a request for a safety management
annual or verification audit for a valid Document of Compliance
certificate issued to a company or a valid Safety Management
Certificate issued to a vessel, this is cause for the Coast Guard to
revoke the certificate as described in Secs. 96.330 and 96.340 of this
part.
(f) If a non-conformity with the safety management system is found
during the audit, it must be reported in writing to the company's owner
or vessel's master by the auditor as described in IMO Resolution
A.788(19).
Sec. 96.330 Document of Compliance certificate: what is it and when is
it needed?
(a) You must hold a valid Document of Compliance certificate if you
are the responsible person who, or company which, owns a U.S. vessel
engaged in foreign voyages, carrying 12 or more passengers, or is a
tanker, bulk freight vessel, freight vessel, or a self-propelled mobile
offshore drilling unit of 500 gross tons or more.
(b) You may voluntarily hold a valid Document of Compliance
certificate, if you are a responsible person who, or a company which,
owns a U.S. vessel not included in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) You will be issued a Document of Compliance certificate only
after you complete a satisfactory safety management audit as described
in Sec. 96.320 of this part.
(d) All U.S. and foreign vessels that carry 12 or more passengers
or a tanker, bulk freight vessel, freight vessel, or a self-propelled
mobile offshore drilling unit of 500 gross tons or more, must carry a
valid copy of the company's Document of Compliance certificate onboard
when on a foreign voyage.
(e) A valid Document of Compliance certificate covers the type of
vessel(s) on which a company's safety management system initial safety
management audit was based. The validity of the Document of Compliance
certificate may be extended to cover additional types of vessels after
a satisfactory safety management audit is completed on the company's
safety management system which includes those additional vessel types.
(f) A Document of Compliance certificate is valid for 60 months. It
must be verified annually through a safety management verification
audit within three months before or after the certificate's anniversary
date.
(g) Only the Coast Guard may revoke a Document of Compliance
certificate from a company which owns a U.S. vessel. The Document of
Compliance certificate may be revoked if--
(1) The annual safety management audit and system verification
required by paragraph (f) of this section is not requested by the
responsible person; or
(2) Major non-conformities are found in the company's safety
management system during a safety management audit or other related
survey or inspection being completed by the Coast Guard or the
recognized organization chosen by the company or responsible person.
(h) When a company's valid Document of Compliance certificate is
revoked by the Coast Guard, a satisfactory safety management audit must
be completed before a new Document of Compliance certificate for the
company's safety management system can be reissued.
Sec. 96.340 Safety Management Certificate: what is it and when is it
needed?
(a) Your U.S. vessel engaged on a foreign voyage must hold a valid
Safety Management Certificate if it carries 12 or more passengers, or
if it is a tanker, bulk freight vessel, freight vessel, or a self-
propelled mobile offshore drilling unit of 500 gross tons or more.
(b) Your U.S. vessel may voluntarily hold a valid Safety Management
Certificate even if your vessel is not required to by paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) Your U.S. vessel may only be issued a Safety Management
Certificate or have it renewed when your company holds a valid Document
of Compliance certificate issued under Sec. 96.330 of this part and the
vessel has completed a satisfactory safety management audit of the
vessel's safety management system set out in Sec. 96.320 of this part.
(d) A copy of your company's valid Document of Compliance
certificate must be on board all U.S. and foreign vessels which carry
12 or more passengers, and must be onboard a tanker, bulk freight
vessel, freight vessel, or a self-propelled mobile offshore drilling
unit of 500 gross tons or more, when engaged on foreign voyages or
within U.S. waters.
(e) A Safety Management Certificate is valid for 60 months. The
validity of the Safety Management Certificate is based on--
(1) A satisfactory initial safety management audit;
(2) A satisfactory intermediate verification audit requested by the
vessel's responsible person, completed between the 24th and 36th month
of the anniversary date of the certificate; and
(3) A vessel's company holding a valid Document of Compliance
certificate. When a company's Document of Compliance certificate
expires or is revoked, the Safety Management Certificate for the
company-owned vessel(s) is invalid.
(f) Renewal of a Safety Management Certificate requires the
completion of a satisfactory safety management system audit which meets
all of the requirements of subpart B of this part. A renewal of a
Safety Management Certificate cannot be started unless the company
which owns the vessel holds a valid Document of Compliance certificate.
(g) Only the Coast Guard may revoke a Safety Management Certificate
from a U.S. vessel. The Safety Management Certificate will be revoked
if--
(1) The vessel's responsible person does not ask for and complete a
satisfactory intermediate safety management audit required by paragraph
(e)(2) of this section; or
(2) Major non-conformities are found in the vessel's safety
management system during a safety management
[[Page 23720]]
audit or other related survey or inspection being completed by the
Coast Guard or the recognized organization chosen by the vessel's
responsible person.
Sec. 96.350 Interim Document of Compliance certificate: What is it and
when can it be used?
(a ) An Interim Document of Compliance certificate may be issued to
help set up a company's safety management system when--
(1) A company is newly set up or in transition from an existing
company into a new company; or
(2) A new type of vessel is added to an existing safety management
system and Document of Compliance certificate for a company.
(b) A responsible person for a company operating a U.S. vessel(s)
that meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, may send
a request to a recognized organization authorized to act on behalf of
the U.S. to receive an Interim Document of Compliance certificate that
is valid for a period up to 12 months. To be issued the Interim
Document of Compliance certificate the vessel's company must--
(1) Demonstrate to an auditor that the company has a safety
management system that meets Sec. 96.230 of this part; and
(2) Provide a plan for full implementation of a safety management
system within the period that the Interim Document of Compliance
certificate is valid.
Sec. 96.360 Interim Safety Management Certificate: What is it and when
can it be used?
(a) A responsible person may apply for an Interim Safety Management
Certificate when--
(1) A responsible person takes delivery of a new U.S. vessel; or
(2) Takes responsibility for the management of a U.S. vessel which
is new to the responsible person or their company.
(b) An Interim Safety Management Certificate is valid for 6 months.
It may be issued to a U.S. vessel which meets the conditions of
paragraph (a) of this section, when--
(1) The company's valid Document of Compliance certificate or
Interim Document of Compliance certificate applies to that vessel type;
(2) The company's safety management system for the vessel includes
the key elements of a safety management system, set out in Sec. 96.220,
applicable to this new type of vessel;
(3) The company's safety management system has been assessed during
the safety management audit to issue of the Document of Compliance
certificate or demonstrated for the issuance of the Interim Document of
Compliance certificate;
(4) The master and senior officers of the vessel are familiar with
the safety management system and the planned set up arrangements;
(5) Written documented instructions have been extracted from the
safety management system and given to the vessel prior to sailing;
(6) The company plans an internal audit of the vessel within three
months; and
(7) The relevant information from the safety management system is
written in English, and in any other language understood by the
vessel's personnel.
Sec. 96.370 What are the requirements for vessels of countries not
party to Chapter IX of SOLAS?
(a) Each foreign vessel which carries 12 or more passengers, or is
a tanker, bulk freight vessel, freight vessel, or self-propelled mobile
offshore drilling unit of 500 gross tons or more, operated in U.S.
waters, under the authority of a country not a party to Chapter IX of
SOLAS must--
(1) Have on board valid documentation showing that the vessel's
company has a safety management system which was audited and assessed,
consistent with the International Safety Management Code of IMO
Resolution A.741(18);
(2) Have on board valid documentation from a vessel's Flag
Administration showing that the vessel's safety management system was
audited and assessed to be consistent with the International Safety
Management Code of IMO Resolution A.741(18); or
(3) Show that evidence of compliance was issued by either a
government that is party to SOLAS or an organization recognized to act
on behalf of the vessel's Flag Administration.
(b) Evidence of compliance must contain all of the information in,
and have substantially the same format as a--
(1) Document of Compliance certificate; and
(2) Safety Management Certificate.
(c) Failure to comply with this section will subject the vessel to
the compliance and enforcement procedures of Sec. 96.380 of this part.
Sec. 96.380 How will the Coast Guard handle compliance and enforcement
of these regulations?
(a) While operating in waters under the jurisdiction of the United
States, the Coast Guard may board a vessel to determine that--
(1) Valid copies of the company's Document of Compliance
certificate and Safety Management Certificate are on board, or evidence
of the same for vessels from countries not party to Chapter IX of
SOLAS; and
(2) The vessel's crew or shore-based personnel are following the
procedures and policies of the safety management system while operating
the vessel or transferring cargoes.
(b) A foreign vessel that does not comply with these regulations,
or one on which the vessel's condition or use of its safety management
system do not substantially agree with the particulars of the Document
of Compliance certificate, Safety Management Certificate or other
required evidence of compliance, may be detained by order of the COTP
or OCMI. This may occur at the port or terminal where the violation is
found until, in the opinion of the detaining authority, the vessel can
go to sea without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the
port, the marine environment, the vessel or its crew. The detention
order may allow the vessel to go to another area of the port, if
needed, rather than stay at the place where the violation was found.
(c) If any vessel that must comply with this part or with the ISM
Code does not have a Safety Management Certificate and a copy of its
company's Document of Compliance certificate on board, a vessel owner,
charterer, managing operator, agent, master, or any other individual in
charge of the vessel that is subject to this part, may be liable for a
civil penalty under 46 U.S.C. 3318. For foreign vessels, the Coast
Guard may request the Secretary of the Treasury to withhold or revoke
the clearance required by 46 U.S.C. App. 91. The Coast Guard may ask
the Secretary to permit the vessel's departure after the bond or other
surety is filed.
Sec. 96.390 When will the Coast Guard deny entry into a U.S. port?
(a) Unless a foreign vessel is entering U.S. waters under force
majeure, no vessel shall enter any port or terminal of the U.S. without
a safety management system that has been properly certificated to this
subpart if--
(1) It is engaged in foreign trade; and
(2) It is carrying 12 or more passengers, or a tanker, bulk freight
vessel, freight vessel, or self-propelled mobile offshore drilling unit
of 500 gross tons or more.
(b) The cognizant COTP will deny entry of a vessel into a port or
terminal under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3204(c), to any vessel that
does not meet the
[[Page 23721]]
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
Subpart D--Authorization of Recognized Organizations To Act on
Behalf of the U.S.
Sec. 96.400 Purpose.
(a) This subpart establishes criteria and procedures for
organizations recognized under 46 CFR part 8, to be authorized by the
Coast Guard to act on behalf of the U.S. The authorization is necessary
in order for a recognized organization to perform safety management
audits and certification functions delegated to the Coast Guard as
described in this part.
(b) To receive an up-to-date list of recognized organizations
authorized to act under this subpart, send a self-addressed, stamped
envelope and written request to the Commandant (G-MSE), 2100 Second
Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
Sec. 96.410 Who does this subpart apply to?
This subpart applies to all organizations seeking authorization to
conduct safety management audits and issue international safety
management certificates on behalf of the U.S. that are recognized under
46 U.S.C. part 8.
Sec. 96.420 What authority may an organization ask for under this
subpart?
(a) An organization may request authorization to conduct safety
management audits and to issue the following certificates:
(1) Safety Management Certificate;
(2) Document of Compliance certificate;
(3) Interim Safety Management Certificate; and
(4) Interim Document of Compliance certificate.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 96.430 How does an organization submit a request to be
authorized?
(a) A recognized organization must send a written request for
authorization to the Commandant (G-MSE), Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, 2100 Second Street SW, Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The request must include the following:
(1) A statement describing what type of authorization the
organization seeks;
(1) Documents showing that--
(i) The organization has an internal quality system with written
policies, procedures and processes that meet the requirements in
Sec. 96.440 of this part for safety management auditing and
certification; or
(ii) The organization has an internal quality system based on ANSI/
ASQC C9001 for safety management auditing and certification; or
(iii) The organization has an equivalent internal quality standard
system recognized by the Coast Guard to complete safety management
audits and certification.
(3) A list of the organization's exclusive auditors qualified to
complete safety management audits and their operational area;
(4) A written statement that the procedures and records of the
recognized organization regarding its actions involving safety
management system audits and certification are available for review
annually and at any time deemed necessary by the Coast Guard; and
(5) If the organization is a foreign classification society that
has been recognized under 46 CFR part 8 and wishes to apply for
authorization under this part, it must demonstrate the reciprocity
required by 46 U.S.C. 3316, by providing with its request for
authorization an affidavit from the government of the country in which
the classification society is headquartered. This affidavit must
provide a list of authorized delegations by the flag state of the
administration of the foreign classification society's country to the
American Bureau of Shipping, and indicate any conditions related to the
delegated authority. If this affidavit is not received with a request
for authorization from a foreign classification society, the request
for authorization will be disapproved and returned by the Coast Guard.
(b) Upon the satisfactory completion of the Coast Guard's
evaluation of a request for authorization, the organization will be
visited for an evaluation as described in Sec. 96.440(b) of this part.
Sec. 96.440 How will the Coast Guard decide whether to approve an
organization's request to be authorized?
(a) First, the Coast Guard will evaluate the organization's request
for authorization and supporting written materials, looking for
evidence of the following--
(1) The organization's clear assignment of management duties;
(2) Ethical standards for managers and auditors;
(3) Procedures for auditor training, qualification, certification,
and requalification that are consistent with recognized industry
standards;
(4) Procedures for auditing safety management systems that are
consistent with recognized industry standards and IMO Resolution
A.788(19);
(5) Acceptable standards for internal auditing and management
review;
(6) Record-keeping standards for safety management auditing and
certification;
(7) Methods for reporting non-conformities and recording completion
of remedial actions;
(8) Methods for certifying safety management systems;
(9) Methods for periodic and intermediate audits of safety
management systems;
(10) Methods for renewal audits of safety management systems;
(11) Methods for handling appeals; and
(12) Overall procedures consistent with IMO Resolution A.739(18),
``Guidelines for the Authorization of Organizations Acting on Behalf of
the Administration.''
(b) After a favorable evaluation of the organization's written
request, the Coast Guard will arrange to visit the organization's
corporate offices and port offices for an on-site evaluation of
operations.
(c) When a request is approved, the recognized organization and the
Coast Guard will enter into a written agreement. This agreement will
define the scope, terms, conditions and requirements of the
authorization. Conditions of this agreement are found in Sec. 96.460 of
this part.
Sec. 96.450 What happens if the Coast Guard disapproves an
organization's request to be authorized?
(a) The Coast Guard will write to the organization explaining why
it did not meet the criteria for authorization.
(b) The organization may then correct the deficiencies and reapply.
Sec. 96.460 How will I know what the Coast Guard requires of my
organization if my organization receives authorization?
(a) Your organization will enter into a written agreement with the
Coast Guard. This written agreement will specify--
(1) How long the authorization is valid;
(2) Which duties and responsibilities the organization may perform,
and which certificates it may issue on behalf of the U.S.;
(3) Reports and information the organization must send to the
Commandant (G-MOC);
(4) Actions the organization must take to renew the agreement when
it expires; and
(5) Actions the organization must take if the Coast Guard should
revoke its authorization or recognition under 46 CFR part 8.
(b) [Reserved]
[[Page 23722]]
Sec. 96.470 How does the Coast Guard terminate an organization's
authorization?
At least every 12 months, the Coast Guard evaluates organizations
authorized under this subpart. If an organization fails to maintain
acceptable standards, the Coast Guard may terminate that organization's
authorization, remove the organization from the Commandant's list, and
further evaluate the organization's recognition under 46 CFR part 8.
Sec. 96.480 What is the status of a certificate if the issuing
organization has its authority terminated?
Any certificate issued by an organization authorized by the Coast
Guard whose authorization is later terminated remains valid until--
(a) Its original expiration date,
(b) The date of the next periodic audit required to maintain the
certificate's validity, or
(c) whichever of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section occurs
first.
Sec. 96.490 What further obligations exist for an organization if the
Coast Guard terminates its authorization?
The written agreement by which an organization receives
authorization from the Coast Guard places it under certain obligations
if the Coast Guard revokes that authorization. The organization agrees
to send written notice of its termination to all responsible persons,
companies and vessels that have received certificates from the
organization. In that notice, the organization must include--
(a) A written statement explaining why the organization's
authorization was terminated by the Coast Guard;
(b) An explanation of the status of issued certificates;
(c) A current list of organizations authorized by the Coast Guard
to conduct safety management audits; and
(d) A statement of what the companies and vessels must do to have
their safety management systems transferred to another organization
authorized to act on behalf of the U.S.
Sec. 96.495 How can I appeal a decision made by an authorized
organization?
(a) A responsible person may appeal a decision made by an
authorized organization by mailing or delivering to the organization a
written request for reconsideration. Within 30 days of receiving your
request, the authorized organization must rule on it and send you a
written response. They must also send a copy of their response to the
Commandant (G-MOC).
(b) If you are not satisfied with the organization's decision, you
may appeal directly to the Commandant (G-MOC). You must make your
appeal in writing, including any documentation and evidence you wish to
be considered. You may ask the Commandant (G-MOC) to stay the effect of
the appealed decision while it is under review.
(c) The Commandant (G-MOC) will make a decision on your appeal and
send you a response in writing. That decision will be the final Coast
Guard action on your request.
PART 2--VESSEL INSPECTIONS
2. Revise the authority citation for part 2 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3103, 3205,
3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49
CFR 1.46; Subpart 2.45 also issued under the authority of Act of
Dec. 27, 1950, Ch. 1155, secs. 1, 2, 64 Stat 1120 (see 46 U.S.C.
App. note prec.1).
3. In Sec. 2.01-25, add paragraph (a)(1)(ix) and revise paragraph
(a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.01-25 International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) Safety Management Certificate.
(2) The U.S. Coast Guard will issue through the Officer In Charge,
Marine Inspection, the following certificates after performing an
inspection or safety management audit of the vessel's systems and
determining the vessel meets the applicable requirements:
(i) Passenger Ship Safety Certificate.
(ii) Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate except when issued
to cargo ships by a Coast Guard recognized classification society at
the option of the owner or agent.
(iii) Cargo Ships Safety Equipment Certificate.
(iv) Exemption Certificate
(v) Nuclear Passenger Ship Safety Certificate.
(vi) Nuclear Cargo Ship Safety Certificate.
(vii) Safety Management Certificate, except when issued by a
recognized organization authorized by the Coast Guard.
* * * * *
PART 31--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
4. Revise the authority citation for part 31 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 3703;
49 U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234; 45 FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR
1.46. Section 31.10-21 also issued under the authority of Sec. 4109,
Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515.
5. Add Sec. 31.40-30 to read as follows:
Sec. 31.40-30 Safety Management Certificate--T/ALL.
(a) All tankships on an international voyage must have a valid
Safety Management Certificate and a copy of their company's valid
Document of Compliance certificate on board.
(b) All such tankships must meet the applicable requirements of 33
CFR part 96.
6. In Sec. 31.40-40, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 31.40-40 Duration of Convention certificates---T/ALL.
* * * * *
(b) A Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate and a Safety
Management Certificate shall be issued for a period of not more than 60
months.
* * * * *
PART 71--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
7. Revise the authority citation for part 71 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2113, 3205, 3306; E.O.
12234, 45 FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46.
8. Add Sec. 71.75-13 to read as follows:
Sec. 71.75-13 Safety Management Certificate.
(a) All vessels on an international voyage must have a valid Safety
Management Certificate and a copy of their company's valid Document of
Compliance certificate on board.
(b) All such vessels must meet the applicable requirements of 33
CFR part 96.
9. In Sec. 71.75-20, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 71.75-20 Duration of certificates.
(a) The certificates are issued for a period of not more than 12
months, with exception to a Safety Management Certificate which is
issued for a period of not more than 60 months.
* * * * *
PART 91---INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
10. Revise the authority citation for part 91 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3205, 3306; E.O. 12234;
45 FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46.
11. Add Sec. 91.60-30 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.60-30 Safety Management Certificate.
(a) All vessels on an international voyage must have a valid Safety
[[Page 23723]]
Management Certificate and a copy of their company's valid Document of
Compliance certificate on board.
(b) All such vessels must meet the applicable requirements of 33
CFR part 96.
12. In Sec. 91.60-40, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.60-40 Duration of certificates.
* * * * *
(b) A Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate and a Safety
Management Certificate are issued for a period of not more than 60
months.
* * * * *
PART 107--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
13. Revise the authority citation for part 107 to read as follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3205, 3306, 5115; 49 CFR
1.45, 1.46; Sec. 107.05 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C.
3507.
14. Add Sec. 107.415 to read as follows:
Sec. 107.415 Safety Management Certificate.
(a) All self-propelled mobile offshore drilling units of 500 gross
tons or over on an international voyage must have a valid Safety
Management Certificate and a copy of their company's valid Document of
Compliance certificate on board.
(b) All such vessels must meet the applicable requirements of 33
CFR part 96.
(c) A Safety Management Certificate is issued for a period of not
more than 60 months.
PART 115--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
15. Revise the authority citation for part 115 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306; 49
U.S.C. App. 1804; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp.,
p. 743; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR
1.46.
16. Add Sec. 115.925 to read as follows:
Sec. 115.925 Safety Management Certificate.
(a) All vessels that carry more than 12 passengers on an
international voyage must have a valid Safety Management Certificate
and a copy of their company's valid Document of Compliance certificate
on board.
(b) All such vessels must meet the applicable requirements of 33
CFR part 96.
(c) A Safety Management Certificate is issued for a period of not
more than 60 months.
PART 126--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
17. Revise the authority citation for part 126 to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3205, 3306; 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); E.O. 11735,
38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; 49 CFR 1.46.
18. Add Sec. 126.480 to read as follows:
Sec. 126.480 Safety Management Certificate.
(a) All offshore supply vessels of 500 gross tons or over on
international voyages must have a valid Safety Management Certificate
and a copy of their company's valid Document of Compliance certificate
on board.
(b) All such vessels must meet the applicable requirements of 33
CFR part 96.
(c) A Safety Management Certificate is issued for a period of not
more than 60 months.
PART 175--GENERAL PROVISIONS
19. Revise the authority citation for part 175 to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 3703; 49 U.S.C. App.
1804; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46; 175.900 also issued under authority of 44
U.S.C. 3507.
20. In Sec. 175.540, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 175.540 Equivalents
* * * * *
(d) The Commandant may accept alternative compliance arrangements
in lieu of specific provisions of the International Safety Management
(ISM) Code (IMO Resolution A.741(18)) for the purpose of determining
that an equivalent safety management system is in place on board a
vessel. The Commandant will consider the size and corporate structure
of a vessel's company when determining the acceptability of an
equivalent system. Requests for determination of equivalency must be
submitted to Commandant (G-MOC) via the cognizant OCMI.
PART 176--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
21. Revise the authority citation for part 176 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306; 49
U.S.C. App. 1804; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp.,
p. 793; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR
1.46.
22. Add Sec. 176.925 to read as follows:
Sec. 176.925 Safety Management Certificate.
(a) All vessels that carry more than 12 passengers on an
international voyage must have a valid Safety Management Certificate
and a copy of their company's valid Document of Compliance certificate
on board.
(b) All such vessels must meet the applicable requirements of 33
CFR part 96.
(c) A Safety Management Certificate is issued for a period of not
more than 60 months.
23. Revised Sec. 176.930 to read as follows:
Sec. 176.930 Equivalents.
As outlined in Chapter I (General Provisions) Regulation 5, of
SOLAS, the Commandant may accept an equivalent to a particular fitting,
material, apparatus, or any particular provision required by SOLAS
regulations if satisfied that such equivalent is at least as effective
as that required by the regulations. An owner or managing operator of a
vessel may submit a request for the acceptance of an equivalent
following the procedures in Sec. 175.540 of this chapter. The
Commandant will indicate the acceptance of an equivalent on the
vessel's SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate or Safety Management
Certificate, as appropriate.
PART 189--INSPECTION FOR CERTIFICATION
24. Revise the authority citation for part 189 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2113, 3205, 3306; E.O.
12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46.
25. Add Sec. 189.60-30 to read as follows:
Sec. 189.60-30 Safety Management Certificate.
(a) All vessels on an international voyage must have a valid Safety
Management Certificate and a copy of their company's valid Document of
Compliance certificate on board.
(b) All such vessels must meet the applicable requirements of 33
CFR part 96.
26. In Sec. 189.60-40, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 189.60-40 Duration of certificates.
* * * * *
(b) A Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate and a Safety
Management Certificate are issued for a period of not more than 60
months.
* * * * *
[[Page 23724]]
Dated: April 23, 1997.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 97-11189 Filed 4-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P
