[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21212-21219]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9336]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. USCG-2007-27668]
RIN 1625-AB35

Approval of Classification Societies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Congress requires that classification societies conducting
certain work in the United States must either be full members of
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) or
approved by the Coast Guard. In this proposed rule, the Coast Guard
proposes application procedures and performance standards that
classification societies must meet in order to be approved. Through
this proposed rule, the Coast Guard seeks to improve marine safety and
environmental protection by assuring the consistency and quality of
work conducted by classification societies that review, examine,
survey, or certify the construction, repair, or alteration of a vessel
in the United States.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before July 22, 2010
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2007-27668 using any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting
comments.
    Viewing incorporation by reference material: You may inspect the
material proposed for incorporation by reference at room 1308, U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies of the
material are available as indicated in the ``Incorporation by
Reference'' section of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Mr. William Peters, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for the Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Comments
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-27668), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2007-27668'' in the Keyword box, press Enter, and
then click on the balloon shape for ``Submit a Comment'' in the Actions
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
insert USCG-2007-27668 in the Keyword box and press Enter. Then, choose
from the resulting list the types of documents you want to view. If you
do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement
with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management
Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting
would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time

and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
IACS International Association of Classification Societies
ICLL International Convention on Load Lines 1966
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISM International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships
and for Pollution Prevention
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution From Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
RO recognized organization
SOLAS International Safety of Life at Sea
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Background

    In section 413 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
of 2004, Congress amended 46 U.S.C. 3316(c) to require that, after
December 31, 2004, a classification society, including an employee or
agent of that society, may not review, examine, survey, or certify the
construction, repair or alteration of a vessel in the United States
unless the classification society is either approved by the Coast Guard
or is a full member of the International Association of Classification
Societies (IACS). Public Law 108-293, August 9, 2004. (For information
on IACS see http://www.iacs.org.uk). On November 2, 2004, the Coast
Guard published a ``Notice of Policy'' (69 FR 63548) in the Federal
Register to provide guidance on the approval application process for
classification societies that are not full members of IACS.
    After reviewing applications from classification societies seeking
approval under the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3316(c) and the guidance in
our notice, we decided that the procedures and criteria the Coast Guard
uses to evaluate classification societies should be made part of Title
46, Code of Federal Regulations (46 CFR) in order to have a specific,
consistent, and enforceable basis for approval determinations. We
consider it prudent to incorporate the requirements of 46 U.S.C.
3316(c) into 46 CFR part 2 because maritime industry personnel and
Coast Guard field inspectors are generally more familiar with the Code
of Federal Regulations than they are with the U.S. Code.
    Inconsistencies in the applications we reviewed since January 2005
also reveal a need for clear regulations that explain the basis for
approval. Furthermore, our analysis of the applications we reviewed
since January 2005 indicates we can simplify the approval process to
make requests easier to submit and evaluate.
    To incorporate the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 3316(c) into
regulations, the Coast Guard deems the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Resolution A.739(18), ``Guidelines for the
Authorization of Organizations Acting on Behalf of the
Administration,'' to provide sound and international recognized
standard from which to base the Coast Guard's review and approval
program.
    IMO acknowledges that classification societies often act as
recognized organizations (ROs) under powers delegated by the flag state
Administrations \1\ when they perform technical and survey work on
behalf of a government agency. Recognizing this relationship, IMO
adopted Resolution A.739(18) that establishes minimum competency
standards required by the applicable international conventions for ROs
that act on behalf of Administrations to conduct vessel examinations,
issue international certificates, perform surveys and certifications,
and determine vessel tonnage. IMO Resolution A.739(18) is consistent
with our minimum standards for a recognized classification society in
46 CFR Part 8, ``Vessel Inspection Alternatives.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``Administration'' means the government whose flag
a vessel is entitled to fly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To work on behalf of a flag state Administration, a recognized
organization must sufficiently demonstrate that its business practices
meet or exceed the performance standards described in IMO Resolution
A.739(18). For example, the RO must show that it:
     Publishes and systematically maintains rules for the
construction and maintenance of vessels;
     Is professionally staffed with strategically placed
resources for geographic coverage;
     Maintains a high level of professional ethics;
     Is competent;
     Provides timely and quality services; and
     Maintains an internal quality system no less effective
than the ISO 9000 series certification. (For information on these
standards or ISO, see http://www.iso.ch.)
    When an RO demonstrates these competencies to the satisfaction of
the Administration, its authorization is documented in a formal written
agreement under the requirements of IMO Resolution A.739(18).
    Similarly, a classification society that is not a full member of
IACS must meet the following requirements for approval under the
provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3316(c):
    a. Vessels surveyed by the classification society must have an
adequate safety record;
    b. The classification society must have an adequate program to
develop and implement safety standards for vessels it surveys;
    c. The classification society must have an adequate program to make
their safety records available in an electronic format; and
    d. The classification society must have an adequate program to make
the safety records of a vessel survey available to other classification
societies, and to request records from other classification societies
that previously surveyed the vessel for the purpose of a specific
vessel survey.
    To better assess the classification societies the Coast Guard
evaluates the classification societies' implementation of safety
standards for vessels by examining worldwide port state control
statistics for the classification society and the vessels it surveys.
This data is found in the annual reports published by the world's
regional port state control organizations. These include, but are not
limited to:
     Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control
(Paris MOU: http://www.parismou.org);
     Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the
Asian-Pacific Region (Tokyo MOU: http://www.tokyomou.org);
     Mediterranean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State
Control (Med MOU: http://www.medmou.org);
     Black Sea Memorandum of Understanding on Port State
Control (Black Sea MOU: http://www.bsmou.org);
     The Latin American Agreement on Port State Control of
Vessels (Vina del Mar MOU: http://www.acuerdolatino.int.ar);
     West and Central Africa Memorandum of Understanding on
Port State Control (ABUJA MOU);
     Riyadh Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control
in the Gulf Region (Riyadh MOU: http://www.riyadhmou.org);

     Indian Ocean Memorandum on Port State Control (Indian
Ocean MOU: http://www.iomou.org); and
     Caribbean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State
Control (Caribbean MOU: http://www.caribbeanmou.org).
    These Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) are regional agreements
among countries to share port state control inspection results with the
aim of eliminating the operation of sub-standard ships. The MOUs are
managed by secretariats that maintain databases of inspection
activities and results and often compile the data into annual reports.
This data is available to the public and identifies, among other
things:
     Vessel names and particulars;
     Inspection dates and locations;
     Classification societies;
     Deficiencies noted;
     Detentions imposed;
     Lists of detained vessels; and
     Lists of banned and targeted vessels.
    For information on U.S. port state control results and the regional
MOUs, see http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/pscweb/index.htm. A copy of the
most recent annual report from the United States and the regional
organizations can be found in this docket.
    The Coast Guard can evaluate the performance of a particular
classification society by scrutinizing the port state control history
of the vessels it surveys. For example, an annual report from a major
MOU secretariat typically includes 3 years of data showing the
performance of all ships listed by Administration and RO. The RO is
usually the classification society.
    This shared port state control data is indispensable for evaluating
the safety performance of Administrations and classification societies.
Not only can the Coast Guard check performance from the data in the
annual reports, but trends can be tracked from year to year.

IV. Discussion of Comments

    Two commenters responded to the November 2, 2004, ``Notice of
policy'' (69 FR 63548). Both commenters asked several questions about
the revised 46 U.S.C. 3316 and the Coast Guard's approval policy.
    Two commenters asked if the new requirements would restrict
classification societies from performing work related to the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) or the
International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for
Pollution Prevention (ISM Code). The new requirements would only
prohibit a non-compliant classification society from reviewing,
examining, surveying, or certifying the construction, alteration, or
repair of a vessel in the United States. Work other than the
construction, alteration, or repair of a vessel related to issuing
certificates would not be affected.
    Two commenters asked whether a vessel that is issued an
international certificate or examined for classification purposes by a
non-compliant classification society would be denied entry to U.S.
ports. These vessels would not be denied entry to U.S. ports, but they
might be subject to targeted port state control inspections.
    Two commenters asked how an application should be formatted. An
application can be made in either paper or a common electronic format,
such as Portable Document Format (PDF).
    One commenter asked if a non-compliant classification society may
conduct classification surveys of vessels whose construction, repair,
or alteration had been previously supervised by a compliant
classification society. A non-compliant classification society may not
review, examine, survey, or certify the construction, repair, or
alteration of a vessel in the United States, regardless of who
previously surveyed the vessel. To the extent practicable, a non-
compliant classification society is not prohibited from surveying
elements of a vessel that are not associated with that vessel's
construction, repair, or alteration. Previous survey work performed by
a compliant classification society would have no bearing on the
prohibition of certain work by a non-compliant classification society.
    One commenter asked that we define the term ``adequate,'' as used
extensively in the revised statutes. This term was not defined in the
November 2004 ``Notice of policy'' (69 FR 63548). In this rulemaking,
we propose clear, measurable performance standards to avoid vagueness.
The term ``adequate'' is no longer used. If additional clarification is
needed for the proposed performance standards, comments and suggestions
can be submitted for this rulemaking.
    Similarly, another commenter inquired about the meaning of the
phrase ``safety records.'' This phrase also was not defined in the
November 2004 ``Notice of policy'' (69 FR 63548). The Coast Guard
believes that the proposed rule, in detailing the performance standards
for approval, fully defines the meaning of this phrase. If additional
clarification is needed, comments and suggestions can be submitted for
this rulemaking.
    One commenter asked if a vessel with a list of repairs required by
U.S. port state control officers would be allowed to perform cargo
operations and leave U.S. waters to make those repairs abroad under the
review, examination, and survey of an RO. If such a vessel is neither
detained nor held by the Captain of the Port (COTP), it would be able
to depart the United States. Because the proposed rule would not apply
to a vessel outside the United States, a non-compliant classification
society could perform services permitted by the port state in which the
repairs are to be made.
    One commenter asked if the prohibition of non-compliant
classification societies applies specifically to certain flag states.
The prohibitions that would apply in the proposed rule are not
associated with any flag state. The proposed requirements would only
prohibit a non-compliant classification society from reviewing,
examining, surveying, or certifying the construction, alteration, or
repair of a vessel in the United States.
    One commenter asked if a flag state inspector would be affected by
the proposed rule. A flag state inspector who performs statutory work
directly for a flag state would not be affected by the proposed rule.
    One commenter inquired if the list of vessels surveyed by the
classification society and included in the approval application should
be limited to those surveyed for classification purposes. Following 46
U.S.C. 3316(C)(2), the safety records of all vessels surveyed by the
classification society, whether or not they are surveyed for
classification purposes, would be considered in the assessment of the
safety record of the classification society.
    Both previous commenters also inquired about the type of electronic
format that would be acceptable to the Coast Guard for providing
requested safety records. A commonly available electronic word
processing format or access to a web-based electronic database, in
which information on vessels surveyed by the classification society is
available, would be acceptable.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In this rulemaking, we propose to revise 46 CFR part 2 by adding
definitions for ``Administration,'' ``classification society,''
``recognized organization,'' and ``regional port state control
secretariat.''
    We also propose to add a new section describing the procedures to
apply for approval. Under this section, a classification society must
demonstrate it has an adequate program to develop safety standards for
vessels. This

requirement would be met by providing a copy of the written agreement
that shows it is an RO for at least one Administration signatory to
the:

--International Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS);
--International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships,
1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78);
--International Convention on Load Lines 1966 (ICLL); and
--Protocol of 1988 relating to the ICLL.

    The written agreement must show that the classification society
complies with IMO Resolution A.739(18). In addition, the Administration
recognizing the classification society must not be on a port state
control target list or equivalent.
    In this rule, we also propose the classification society seeking
Coast Guard approval must demonstrate it has an adequate program to
implement safety standards for vessels by meeting the following
requirements:
     The classification society must not be assigned a Priority
I Matrix Point Assignment as identified in the most recent publication
of ``Port State Control in the United States'' and as having more than
one RO-related detention for the vessels it surveys during the past 3
years; and
     The classification society must demonstrate that the
vessels it surveys have a worldwide detention rate of 2 percent or less
based on the number of detentions related to the classification
society's activities divided by the number of vessel inspections for at
least 40 port state control inspections.
    Where sufficient performance records are not available from a
regional port state control secretariat, the Coast Guard would consider
applications for approval and vessel safety record data based on fewer
than 40 inspections on a case-by-case basis.
    In this rule, we also propose to require a classification society
to demonstrate that it has a program to share information
electronically with other classification societies and the Coast Guard.
A description of this capability would be part of the Coast Guard
approval application.
    In this rule, we also propose to annually reevaluate the records of
approved classification societies to ensure they continue to meet the
conditions for approval. An annual review would help the Coast Guard
identify classification societies with deteriorating safety records and
decide what action is appropriate.
    The Coast Guard proposes three courses of action that could be
taken if an approved classification society demonstrates substandard
performance. A classification society could have its approval placed on
probation, suspended, or revoked.
    If a classification society approval is placed on probation, the
classification society would be notified and could continue to conduct
survey work. The Coast Guard would continue to monitor the
classification society's performance through port state control
records. If the Coast Guard finds improved performance, probation could
be lifted. On the other hand, if performance is still below the
conditions of approval, the Coast Guard could suspend the approval.
    When a classification society's approval is suspended, it could no
longer conduct survey work on vessels in the United States. The Coast
Guard would continue to monitor the classification society's
performance and could remove the suspension or place the approval on
probation, depending on the results of the annual review.
Alternatively, if performance does not improve, the Coast Guard could
revoke the approval.
    When an approval is revoked, the classification society could no
longer perform survey work on vessels in the United States and the
Coast Guard would cease monitoring the society's records. Before
resuming survey work on vessels in the United States, the
classification society would be required to obtain approval by
resubmitting an application as outlined in the above paragraphs.
    In this rulemaking, we also propose to add a new section to Part 2
referencing the penalty provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3318. We considered
Coast Guard enforcement actions in the case where a non-approved
classification society performs a prohibited review, examination,
survey, or certification. Title 46 U.S.C. 3318 does not authorize the
Coast Guard to penalize a classification society for violations of
Sec.  3316. Therefore, to enforce the provisions of Sec.  3316, we
propose to hold the owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master,
or individual in charge of a vessel responsible for ensuring compliant
classification societies are employed for survey work when the vessel
is in the United States.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in Sec.
2.45-5. You may inspect this material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
where indicated under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available
from the sources listed in Sec.  2.45-5.
    Before publishing a binding rule, we will submit this material to
the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation
by reference.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    This proposed rule amends regulations to require Coast Guard
approval of classification societies that are not full members of the
IACS. This rulemaking would not affect classification societies that
are current members of the IACS. This proposed rule comprises
application procedures and the performance standards classification
societies must meet for approval. This rulemaking would incorporate
provisions based on the statutory requirements in 46 U.S.C. 3316(c).
These statutory requirements have been enforced since January 2005. We
expect minimal costs to industry as a result of this rulemaking.
    The Coast Guard has been receiving applications since January 2005.
Approved classification societies would not need to take additional
action to comply with this rulemaking and would not incur additional
cost if they comply with existing requirements. The provisions of this
rulemaking that would require periodic review also do not impose
changes that would result in additional costs since the Coast Guard
currently performs these reviews of approved classification societies.
    We do not expect additional applications at this time.
Classification societies have had more than four years to submit
applications and we estimate that most affected classification
societies have submitted applications.\2\ Additionally, we are not
aware of the formation of any new classification societies and none of
the approved classification societies have currently been placed on
suspension or

revocation. There are currently 6 classification societies approved
under the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3316(c).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We expect only those classification societies with potential
vessel activity in U.S. waters would consider submitting an
application and need approval under current requirements, which are
the requirements of this rulemaking.
    \3\ Approvals as of 11/27/09 based on applicants since January
2005 that are not full members of the IACS. The current list
includes Bulgarski Koraben Register, China Corporation Register of
Shipping, Hellenic Register of Shipping, Indian Register of
Shipping, International Naval Surveys Bureau, and Polski Rejestr
Statkow. The current list of classification society approvals can be
accessed at https://homeport.uscg.mil/. This site requires
registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the costs of preparing and reviewing one application
below for illustration, even though we expect this rulemaking would not
result in additional costs. Classification societies would incur the
burden to prepare and submit applications for approval or re-approval.
Based on information from the Coast Guard's Naval Architecture
Division, we estimate that it would take a junior manager 8 hours to
prepare an application and a senior manager 2 hours to review and
approve it. We estimate the information used to prepare an application
would be available as a result of existing classification society
operations and require no additional data collection. Using wage rates
of $67 for the junior manager and $88 for the senior manager, we
estimate that the total industry cost for an application would be $712
((8 hours x $67/hour) + (2 hours x $88/hour)).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the purpose of estimating preliminary costs to industry
and government, we used standard loaded hourly rates used in Coast
Guard Information Collection Requests. These hourly rates include
wages, benefits, overhead, and other expenses. These rates are found
at http://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1L.PDF
(link as of 11/27/2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs to government would be the time for the Coast Guard to
review and reply to the application for approval. From our experience
with earlier approvals, we estimate that it would take a junior officer
2 hours to review the application and draft a reply and a senior
officer 0.5 hours to review and approve the reply. Using wage rates of
$67 for the junior officer and $88 for the senior officer, we estimate
the total government cost for an application to be $178 ((2 hours x
$67/hour) + (0.5 hour x $88/hour)). The estimated total cost for one
application would be $890 ($712 + $178). As discussed above, we expect
no new classification societies to apply and the costs of this
rulemaking to be minimal.
    The benefits of this rulemaking derive from incorporating the
approval information of 46 U.S.C. 3316(c) into 46 CFR part 2. We
consider the maritime industry and Coast Guard field offices, in
general, to be more familiar with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
than with the U.S. Code. By adding the statutory requirements to the
CFR we anticipate improved administrative clarity and efficiency.
    At this time, based on available information since January 2005, we
expect that this rulemaking would not be economically significant under
Executive Order 12866 (i.e., have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more). The Coast Guard urges interested parties to
submit comments that specifically address the economic impacts of this
rulemaking. Comments can be made as indicated in the ADDRESSES section.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    Classification societies affected by this proposed rule are
classified under one of the following North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) 6-digit codes for water transportation:
488330--Navigation Services to Shipping or 488390--Other Support
Activities for Water Transportation. According to the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) size standards, a U.S. company classified under
these NAICS codes with annual revenues less than $7 million is
considered a small entity.
    The classification societies affected by this rulemaking are all
foreign owned and operated. The affected classification societies are
currently incurring the cost of the statutory requirements and this
rulemaking would not require additional costs. In addition, we consider
the costs of these requirements to not be substantial. See the
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' section for additional detail on
cost impacts.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rulemaking would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rulemaking would economically
affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. William
Peters, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Coast Guard, via
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Under OMB
regulations implementing the PRA, ``Controlling Paperwork Burdens on
the Public'' (5 CFR 1320), collection of information means the
obtaining, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to an agency of
information by or for an agency by means of identical questions posed
to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements
imposed on, ten or more persons. ``Ten or more persons'' refers to the
number of respondents to whom a collection of information is addressed
by the agency within any 12-month period and does not include employees
of the respondent acting within the scope of their employment,
contractors engaged by a respondent for the purpose of complying with
the collection of information, or current employees of the Federal
government. Collections of information affecting ten or more
respondents within any 12-month period require OMB review and approval.

    This proposed rule comprises application procedures classification
societies must meet for approval. We expect fewer than ten entities
(potentially none) would be affected by this requirement within any 12-
month period. As such, the number of respondents is less than the
threshold of ten respondents per 12-month period for collection of
information requirements under the PRA.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule uses the following voluntary consensus
standards: IMO Resolution A.739(18) ``Guidelines for the Authorization
of Organizations Acting on Behalf of the Administration.'' The proposed
section that references this standard and the location where this
standard is available is listed in 46 CFR 2.45-5.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. This
rule involves the approval of classification societies that examine,
survey, or certify the construction, repair, or alteration of a vessel.
This rule falls under paragraphs 34(b) and (d) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1D, which refer to the delegation of authority and
the inspection of vessels. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 2

    Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

    For the reasons listed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 46 CFR part 2 as follows:

PART 2--VESSEL INSPECTIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1903; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2110,
3103, 3205, 3306, 3307, 3703; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; E.O. 12234, 45
FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart 2.45 also issued under the Act Dec.
27, 1950, Ch. 1155, secs. 1, 2, 64 Stat. 1120 (see 46 U.S.C. App.
Note prec. 1).

    2. Add subpart 2.45 to read as follows:
Subpart 2.45--Classification Society Activities
Sec.
2.45-1 Definitions.
2.45-5 Incorporation by reference.
2.45-10 General.
2.45-15 Approval requirements.
2.45-20 Probation, suspension and revocation.
2.45-25 Application for approval.
2.45-30 Penalties.

Subpart 2.45--Classification Society Activities

Sec.  2.45-1  Definitions.

    Administration means the Government of the State whose flag the
ship is entitled to fly.
    Classification society means an organization that, at a minimum,
verifies that a vessel meets requirements embodying the technical
rules, regulations, standards, guidelines and associated surveys, and
inspections covering the design, construction, and/or through-life
compliance of a ship's structure and essential engineering and
electrical systems.
    Recognized organization (RO) means an organization authorized to
act on behalf of an Administration.
    Regional port state control secretariat means an organization
established to collect and maintain port state control

inspection data in addition to other functions under a regional
agreement among countries.

Sec.  2.45-5  Incorporation by reference.

    Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of
change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to
the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available for inspection
at the Coast Guard's Office of Design and Engineering Systems (CG-521),
2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, and is available
from the sources indicated in this section.
    (a) International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment,
London SE1 7SR, U.K. +44 (0)20 7735 7611, http://www.imo.org/.
    (b) IMO Resolution A.739(18), Guidelines for the Authorization of
Organizations Acting on Behalf of the Administration, adopted 4
November 1993.

Sec.  2.45-10  General.

    (a) A classification society (including an employee or agent of
that society) must not review, examine, survey, or certify the
construction, repair, or alteration of a vessel in the United States
unless it is either a full member of the International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS) or is approved under the provisions of
this subpart.
    (b) This subpart applies to a recognized organization that meets
the definition of a classification society provided in Sec.  2.45-1 of
this subpart.

Sec.  2.45-15  Approval requirements.

    (a) This section applies to a classification society that is not a
full member of IACS.
    (b) A classification society may be approved for purpose of Sec.
2.45-10 if the following conditions are met:
    (1) Vessels surveyed by the classification society must have a
world-wide port state control detention rate of less than 2 percent
based on the number of detentions related to the classification
society's activities divided by the number of vessel inspections for at
least 40 port state control inspection;
    (2) The classification society must not be identified in the most
recent publication of ``Port State Control in the United States'' as a
Priority I and as having more than one Recognized Organization (RO)-
related detention for the past 3 years;
    (3) The classification society must comply with the minimum
standards for a recognized organization recommended in IMO Resolution
A.739(18), Appendix 1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.45-5);
    (4) The classification society must be an RO for at least one
country under a formal written agreement that includes all of the
elements described in IMO Resolution A.739(18), Appendix 2
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  2.45-5);
    (5) The country for which the classification society is an RO:
    (i) Must be signatory to each of the following: the International
Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS), the International Convention
on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), the
International Convention on Load Lines (ICLL), 1966, and the Protocol
of 1988 relating to the ICLL, 1966; and
    (ii) Must not be identified as a flag state targeted by the Coast
Guard or equivalent by any regional port state control secretariat for
additional port state control examinations; and
    (6) The classification society must use a system to:
    (i) Make its safety records and those of persons acting on behalf
of the classification society available to the Coast Guard in
electronic format;
    (ii) Provide its safety records and those of persons acting on
behalf of the classification society to another classification society
that requests those records for the purpose of conducting surveys of
vessels; and
    (iii) Request the safety records of a vessel to be surveyed from
any other classification society that previously surveyed that vessel.
    (c) Where sufficient performance records are not available from a
regional port state control secretariat, the Coast Guard may consider
an equivalent safety performance indicator proposed by the
classification society seeking approval.

Sec.  2.45-20  Probation, suspension and revocation.

    (a) A classification society approved for the purpose of this
subpart must maintain the minimum requirements for approval set forth
in Sec.  2.45-15.
    (b) If an approved classification society fails to maintain
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, the Coast Guard may
place the classification society approval on probation, or suspend or
revoke the classification society's approval, as appropriate.
    (c) A classification society on probation is approved for the
purpose of this subpart. The probation continues until the next review
of the classification society's compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (1) If the review shows that compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section is achieved, the probation may end.
    (2) If the review shows significant improvement but compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section is not achieved, the probation may be
extended.
    (3) If the review does not show significant improvement, and
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section is not achieved, the
approval may be suspended.
    (d) A classification society whose approval is suspended is not
approved for the purpose of this subpart. Suspension will continue
until the next review of the classification society's compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (1) If the review shows compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section, the classification society's approval may be restored.
    (2) If the review shows significant improvement toward compliance
with paragraph (a) of this section, the suspension may be extended.
    (3) If the review does not show significant improvement and
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, the classification
society's approval may be revoked.
    (e) A classification society whose approval is revoked is not
approved for the purpose of this subpart. The classification society
may reapply for approval when the requirements of Sec.  2.45-15 are
met.
    (f) The Coast Guard's Office of Design and Engineering Standards
(CG-521) administers probations, suspensions, and revocations and makes
all related notifications to affected classification societies.

Sec.  2.45-25  Application for approval.

    An application for approval must be made in writing and in the
English language to U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant (CG-521), Office of
Design and Engineering Standards, 2100 Second Street, SW. STOP 7126,
Washington, DC 20593-7126. The application must:
    (a) Indicate the type of work the classification society intends to
perform on vessels in the United States;

    (b) Include documentation demonstrating that the classification
society complies with Sec.  2.45-15 of this subpart;
    (c) Contain a list of the vessels surveyed by the classification
society over the previous 3 calendar years. The list must include
vessel names, flags, and IMO numbers, as well as initial vessel
inspections and detentions; and
    (d) Provide a summary of the safety records of vessels the
classification society surveys for each of the previous 3 calendar
years, including initial vessel inspections and detentions for all data
contained in regional port state control Memoranda of Understanding and
other port state control data sources, including the U.S. Coast Guard.

Sec.  2.45-30  Penalties.

    The owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master, or
individual in charge of a vessel that employs a classification society
to review, examine, survey or certify the construction, repair, or
alteration of a vessel in the United States is subject to civil
penalties in accordance with Title 46 U.S.C. 3318 if the classification
society is not a full member of IACS or not approved by the Coast Guard
under this subpart.

    Dated: April 16, 2010.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-9336 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15404-15405]
[DOCID:fr28mr06-52]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-89-000; Docket Nos. CP06-90-000, CP06-91-000, and
CP06-92-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; WTG Hugoton, LP; Notice of
Applications

March 22, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 15, 2006, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed in
Docket No. CP06-89-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for
permission and approval to abandon by sale various natural gas pipeline
facilities, referred to as the West Hugoton facilities, located in
various Kansas and Oklahoma counties, to WTG Hugoton, LP (WTG), 211
North Colorado, Midland Texas 79701. On the same date, WTG filed an
application, in Docket No. CP06-90-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the
NGA and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting a
certificate of public convenience and necessity to acquire, own, and
operate the West Hugoton facilities. WTG also requests, in Docket Nos.
CP06-91-000 and CP06-92-000, respectively, issuance of a blanket
certificates pursuant to subpart F of part 157 and subpart G of part
284 of the Commission's regulations. Northern's and WTG's applications
are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. These
filings may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link, select ``Docket ''

and follow the instructions (call<PHONE_NUMBER> or for TTY, 202-502-
8659).
    Specifically, Northern proposes to abandon by sale to WTG
approximately 264 miles of 3-inch to 26-inch diameter pipeline and
related compression, delivery and receipt points and appurtenant
facilities in Morton, Stevens, Grant, Kearny, Finney, Seward, and
Haskell Counties in Kansas, and Texas County in Oklahoma for a price of
approximately $24 million. Northern also proposes to establish a new
Rate Schedule CS-1 to provide stand-alone compression service, at an
incremental rate, that is needed for WTG to continue to make deliveries
on the Liberal Lateral portion of the West Hugoton facilities in
accordance with the terms of Northern's existing firm service
agreements. Neither Northern nor WTG are requesting authorization to
construct or remove any facilities. Upon

certification, WTG will be a new, open access interstate pipeline
company. WTG states that it will continue to provide firm and
interruptible service to all shippers currently served by Northern
through the West Hugoton facilities. WTG requests issuance of an order
by September 30, 2006.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michael T. Loeffler, Director, Certificates for Northern, 1111 South
103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Richard
Hatchet at 211 North Colorado, Midland, Texas 79701, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-
Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 12, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-4454 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Contact Summary

April 30, 2012

Bob Mastropietro, VP Technology, Lodge Cottrell

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Mr. Mastropietro was contacted for information on the performance of
existing ESP at portland cement plants. He stated that existing ESP,
with any modifications, could probably reduce PM to about 0.01 – 0.02
gr/dscf. He thought they could be modified to reach levels as low as
0.002 – 0.004 by adding additional fields, but that it would be costly
and may be limited due to the additional space requirements.