[Federal Register: March 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 14233-14234]
[DOCID:fr24mr10-137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61731; File No. SR-ISE-2010-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt a Fee Credit

March 18, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 1, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees by adopting a
per contract fee credit related to the execution on ISE of customer
orders exposed to members before those orders are sent out for
execution on another exchange through the intermarket linkage. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Before a Primary Market Maker (``PMM'') sends a customer order to
another exchange for execution when ISE is not at the national best bid
or offer (``NBBO''), the Exchange exposes these customer orders to all
its members to give them an opportunity to match the NBBO. This
exposure is intended to allow ISE to retain more order flow by giving
these customer orders additional opportunity to be executed at the NBBO
at ISE, which also reduces PMM costs by reducing the number of orders
they must send to other exchanges on behalf of customer orders.
    Specifically, before a PMM sends an order on behalf of a customer,
the customer order is exposed at the NBBO price for a period
established by the Exchange not to exceed one second. During this
exposure period, Exchange members may enter responses up to the size of
the order being exposed in the regular trading increment applicable to
the option. The Exchange currently has fee waivers in place for members
who step up and match or improve the NBBO during the exposure
period.\3\ If at the end of the exposure period, the order is
executable at the then-current NBBO and ISE is not at the then-current
NBBO, the order is executed against responses that equal or better the
then-current NBBO. The exposure period is terminated if the exposed
order becomes executable on the ISE at the prevailing NBBO or if the
Exchange receives an unrelated order that could trade against the
exposed order at the prevailing NBBO price. If, after an order is
exposed, the order is not executed in full on the Exchange at the then-
current NBBO or better, and it is marketable against the then-current
NBBO, the PMM sends an order on the customer's behalf for the balance
of the order as provided in Rule 803(c)(2)(ii). If the balance of the
order is not marketable against the then-current NBBO, it is placed on
the ISE book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 58164 (July 15, 2008), 73 FR
42638 (July 22, 2008); 58216 (July 23, 2008), 73 FR 44302 (July 30,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All customer orders, including professional customer orders,
receive trade through protection under the ISE's rules.\4\ Therefore,
all customer orders are exposed when ISE is not at the best bid or
offer. Members, however, do not know whether an order being exposed is
for a Priority Customer \5\ or a professional customer. Members have a
natural incentive to step up to trade against Priority Customers as
they view this as providing a service to retail customers. Members do
not have a natural incentive to trade against professional customers
who they view as their competitors. Thus, to encourage members to
participate in the flash auction and thereby keep trades at the
Exchange, ISE proposes to adopt a fee credit. Specifically, ISE
proposes to adopt a $0.20 per contract fee credit for members who
execute a transaction as a response to a Professional Order \6\ in the
Exchange's flash auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ISE Rule 1902.
    \5\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities, and
does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
    \6\ A Professional Order is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37C) as
an order that is for the account of a person or entity that is not a
Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, the proposed rule change will allow ISE
to retain more order flow by giving these customer orders additional
opportunity to be executed ISE at the NBBO or better and will also
reduce PMM costs by reducing the number of orders they must send to
other exchanges for execution.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2010-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2010-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\9\ all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2010-18 and should be
submitted on or before April 14, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-6513 Filed 3-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20736-20737]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In February
2008, there were four applications approved. This notice also includes
information on three applications, one approved in December 2006, one
approved in November 2007, and the remaining approved in January 2008,
inadvertently left off the December 2006, November 2007, and January
2008 notices, respectively. Additionally, six approved amendments to
previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: County of Broome, Binghamton, New York.
    Application Number: 06-09-C-00-BGM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $106,875.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2009.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:
    Nonscheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Greater Binghamton Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
Obstruction removal.
    Snow removal equipment purchase.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Use: Runway 10/28 safety
area.
    Decision Date: December 18, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Levine, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Broome, Binghamton, New York.
    Application Number: 08-10-C-00-BGM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $1,047,455.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: March 1, 2009.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: April 1, 2011.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC'S:
    Nonscheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Greater Binghamton Airport.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:
Terminal security improvements.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection:
    North/west aprons rehabilitation, phase I--design.
    North/west aprons rehabilitation, phase II--construction.
    Main ramp rehabilitation, phase I--design.
    Main ramp rehabilitation, phase II--construction.
    Decision Date: November 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Levine, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City and Borough of Juneau, Juneau, Alaska.
    Application Number: 08-08-C-00-JNU.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $8,142,712.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Runway safety area (design and construction).
    Sand/chemical storage building (design and construction).
    Apron development (northeast quadrant); design and construction.
    Apron development (northwest quadrant); design and construction.
    Security fencing construction (gate).
    Terminal expansion (design and construction).
    Acquire snow removal equipment.
    Decision Date: January 22, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Oien, Alaska Region Airports
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Monterey Peninsula Airports District, Monterey,
California.
    Application Number: 08-13-C-00-MRY.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $856,394.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2009.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Nonscheduled/
on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Monterey Peninsula Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Residential soundproofing, phases XI and XII.
    Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
    Airfield pavement improvements.
    Airfield lighting and signage rehabilitation.
    Noise exposure map update.
    Runway safety area study.
    Decision Date: February 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Biaoco, San Francisco Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 626.
    Public Agency: City of Rochester, Minnesota.
    Application Number: 08-04-C-00-RST.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $1,555,114.

    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2011.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled
Part 135 commuters and air taxis.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Rochester International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Land acquisition, 37 acres.
    Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
    Pavement between air carrier and cargo ramps.
    Rehabilitate runway 2/20.
    Runway 13/31 extension--phase I engineering and planning.
    Runway 13/31 extension--grading.
    Runway 13/31 extension--phase Il engineering.
    Runway 13/31 extension--electrical equipment.
    Runway 13/31 extension--navigational aid relocation.
    Runway 13/31 extension--construction phase.
    Runway 13/31 extension--electrical (in pavement).
    Runway 13/31 extension--engineering for navigational aid
relocation.
    Navigational aid equipment and installation.
    Electrical vault for airside power equipment.
    Runway 13/31 extension--highway relocation.
    PFC administration fees.
    Environmental assessment for runway 13/31 extension.
    Decision Date: February 20, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Nistler, Minneapolis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County and City of Yakima, Yakima, Washington.
    Application Number: 08-1 1-C-00-YKM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $783,961.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1,2008.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: November 1, 2011.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC'S: Air taxi/
commercial operator--nonscheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA
Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Environmental and pie-design of south 16th Avenue relocation.
    Master plan update--runway length.
    Pavement maintenance--crack seal.
    Security enhancements.
    Upgrade taxiway guidance sign system.
    Runway 22 traverse way (service road).
    Construct ``C'' stub taxiway.
    Aviation demand forecast.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection: Relocate
south 16th Avenue/safety area/service road.
    Decision Date: February 21, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Brownsville, Texas.
    Application Number: 08-04-C-00-BRO.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $234,956.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2009.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: June 1, 2010.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Pavement management plan.
    Taxiway G reconstruction, phase I.
    Displace runway 17/35 threshold.
    PFC application and administration fees.
    Decision Date: February 25, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Nicely, Texas Airports
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original     Amended
                                        Amendment       Original           Amended       estimated    estimated
      Amendment No., city, state         approved     approved net      approved net    charge exp.  charge exp.
                                           date        PFC revenue       PFC revenue        date         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04-06-C-01-BTM, Butte, MT............      2/07/08          $189,711          $184,956     02/01/07     06/01/06
98-03-C-04-TLH, Tallahassee, FL......      2/12/08         3,770,045         3,753,489     10/01/02     10/01/02
03-04-C-01-LET, Lafayette, LA........      2/20/08         1,967,250         2,351,898     04/01/08     04/01/08
96-02-C-01-SAV, Savannah, GA.........      2/22/08         1,439,445           977,956     06/01/10     05/01/10
02-05-C-01-SAV, Savannah, GA.........      2/22/08         3,015,790         2,633,876     05/01/12     03/01/12
06-06-C-01-SAV, Savannah, GA.........      2/22/08         3,231,473         4,480,700     11/01/12     03/01/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 4, 2008.
Myrna Rivera
Acting Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge
Branch.
[FR Doc. E8-8080 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


316B RULE TELEPHONE LOG Name of Caller: John Sunda, SAIC Date: September 10, 2002 & October 23, 2002 Company Name: Brackett Green Street Address:

City/ State/ ZIP: Houston, TX Person Contacted: Trent Gathright Title: Sales Manager Telephone #: 281 480 7955 Talked to ( receptionist) forwarded to Trent Called to inquire about O& M cost for traveling screens.

September 10, 2002 Screen Motor Requirements: Motor size is based on expected water differential at screen startup. Screens are generally balanced , the weight of water in the buckets rising above water is offset by air in trapped in the buckets on the downward moving side. The differential exerts pressure on the screen and it produces differences in the buoyancy of the two screen sides. General are: For 5 ft screen about 2 Hp but could be higher For 10 ft screen 5 to 7.5 Hp For 14 ft screens 7.5 Hp+ He will provide some additional data and guidance with the cost spreadsheets.

Spray Water Requirements He was not sure about quantity but reminded me that fish troughs need a minimum flow. Can estimate using 2 " deep, 22" wide trough and 1.5 fps velocity. Pressure needed is just above ambient. 80 PSI is average pressure for trash spray, fish spray is around 10 psi. I asked if they use different sources or use regulators. He said they often use regulators for low pressure source.

Labor Generally about 200 manhours per year per screen. For different sizes, scale such that shallownarrow is 100 hours and wide deep is 300 hours. Materials Suggested assuming 15% of equipment purchase cost is replaced every 5 yrs. Typical is $ 12,000 to $ 15,000 every 5 yrs which is roughly 15%.

October 23, 2002 Called back to get more O& M costs detail on contrasting O& M costs for coarse mesh versus fine mesh and capital costs for different types of screen panels.

For time of operation of the screen traveling screens, Those with fish handling & fine mesh will be operated continuously but at a slow rate of speed ( e. g., 5 fpm), Those with coarse mesh will operate about 4 6 hours/ day with spray pumps on and off the same time period. The screen travel rate will be 15 to 30 fpm. While the time of operation is 4 5 times for fish handling screens, the slower speed tempers some of this added werar and tear such that the amount of wear is only about double.

For parts replacement the 15% every five years applies to coarse mesh. He estimates that this figure changes to 15% every 2.5 years for fine mesh.

For Labor estimates the 200 hour average applied to coarse mesh this figure should be double for fine mesh with fish handling.

Concerning changing from coarsew mesh to fine mesh you don't necessarily need to change the screen panels. Overlays equal in costs to about 8% to 10% of the scen costs can be used in this case the labor requirement will be less taking 30 min for dual flow screens and about 1 hour for through flow. The difference is that with dual flow the overlays always have water flow towards the supporting screen while through flow have water flow reversed on the backside requiring stronger connections to the existing panels. He agreed that if the baskets are being replaced that a 30% ( he estimated 25%) capital cost figure is reasonable.

Concerning various mesh types, the difference between fine mesh and smooth top mesh ( 1/ 8 by ½ inch) would only change total screen unit costs by about 2%. Fine mesh dopes not change through screen velocity by much he gave an example where it changed from 68% to 64%.

The idea is that fine mesh is weaker is not true in that while the wire diameter is smaller, the number of wires per inch increases and mostly compensates for it. What is sometimes a problem with fine mesh is that corrossion of the screen can be \ more problematic. In corrosive environments he often recommends using nylon mesh. There is little difference in the costs for nylon versus metal mesh.

Note that smooth top screen was designed to reduce fish descaling that occurred as a result of the rough surface of coarser mesh. This is not a problem with fine mesh screen.

Concerning


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44108-44118]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 2 and 8

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0880]
RIN 1625-AC35

Adding the Polar Ship Certificate to the List of SOLAS
Certificates and Certificates Issued by Recognized Classification
Societies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule adds the Polar Ship Certificate to a list of
certificates that certain U.S. and foreign-flag ships will need to
carry on board if they engage in international voyages in polar waters.
This rule also enables the Coast Guard to authorize recognized
classification societies to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on the
Coast Guard's behalf. We are taking this action because the
International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) has been
amended to require certain ships operating in Arctic or Antarctic
waters to have a Polar Ship Certificate. This rule will help ensure
that U.S.-flagged ships that need this certificate--commercial cargo
ships greater than 500 gross tonnage and passenger ships carrying more
than 12 passengers, that operate in polar waters as defined by SOLAS
chapter XIV while engaged in international voyages--will be able to
obtain it in a timely manner.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view comments and material submitted in response to our
proposed rule, as well as documents mentioned in this final rule
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0880 in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``SEARCH.'' Then click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Lieutenant Chris Rabalais, Systems Engineering Division
(CG-ENG-3), Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis, Purpose, and Background
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. 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. Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
GT ITC Gross Tonnage International Tonnage Convention
IMO International Maritime Organization
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1974
MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MSC Maritime Safety Committee
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Polar Code International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters
RA Regulatory Assessment
SBA Small Business Administration
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History

    Coast Guard regulations for inspecting and certificating vessels
are located in subpart 2.01 of title 46 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (46 CFR subpart 2.01). Section 2.01-6 in that subpart
contains provisions for issuing certificates of compliance to foreign-
flagged vessels. Section 2.01-25 identifies certificates required by
the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) on
certain vessels engaged in international voyages. This section also
lists SOLAS certificates the Coast Guard issues to vessels that meet
applicable SOLAS requirements.
    Part 8 of 46 CFR contains Coast Guard regulations for vessel
inspection alternatives. Specifically, 46 CFR 8.320 identifies
international certificates that the Coast Guard may authorize
recognized classification societies to issue on the Coast Guard's
behalf.
    On November 22, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register (81 FR 83786) entitled, ``Adding the
Polar Ship Certificate to the List of SOLAS Certificates and
Certificates Issued by Recognized Classification Societies.'' That NPRM
proposed to amend 46 CFR 2.01-6, 2.01-25, and 8.320. We received two
written submissions in response to the NPRM.

III. Basis, Purpose, and Background

    In 2014 and 2015, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
adopted the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters
(Polar Code) and added its requirements to two existing IMO
Conventions--SOLAS, and the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)--in consideration of hazards and
conditions unique to polar waters, and an expected increase in traffic
in Arctic and Antarctic waters. These additional hazards include
navigation in ice and low temperatures, high-latitude communications
and navigation, remoteness from response resources, and limited
hydrographic charting. Copies of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee and
Marine Environment Protection Committee resolutions discussed in this
paragraph are available in the docket.
    The Polar Code took effect on January 1, 2017, and applies to all
vessels constructed on or after that date. Beginning on January 1,
2018, the Polar Code will also start applying to existing vessels,
based upon the date their SOLAS Certificates were issued.
    One of the requirements for ships subject to the Polar Code is to
carry a Polar Ship Certificate pursuant to SOLAS. The Polar Ship
Certificate attests that the vessel has met applicable requirements of
SOLAS. As a signatory to this convention, under Article I of SOLAS, the
United States has an obligation to ensure compliance with SOLAS
requirements.
    This rule creates a certificate that newly constructed U.S.-flagged
vessels, certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I, will need in
order to travel internationally within polar waters, beginning January
1, 2017. Existing vessels will need the same certificate by their first
intermediate or renewal survey after January 1, 2018. U.S.-flagged
vessels that do not carry a Polar Ship Certificate risk detention,
denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other States.
    This rulemaking is necessary to allow the Coast Guard to create the
new Polar Ship Certificate and add it to the list of certificates
required by SOLAS in 46 CFR part 2. Also, this rule allows the Coast
Guard to authorize recognized classification societies to issue the
Polar Ship Certificate on the Coast Guard's behalf under 46 CFR 8.320.
    Foreign-flagged vessels, certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter
I and operating in polar waters, are also required to carry the Polar
Ship Certificate. However, their certificates will be issued by the
vessel's flag state, or a person or an organization authorized by that
flag state to issue the certificate. The Coast Guard will examine
foreign-flagged vessels during Port State Control boardings to ensure
that they are properly certificated.
    The Coast Guard is authorized to regulate this subject matter under
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3316, and 3703; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, and Executive Order 12234,
``Enforcement of the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea'' (45 FR
58801, Sept. 5, 1980).

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received two written submissions commenting on the proposed rule
published on November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83786). The comments raised
concerns about four specific items, which we address in this section of
the preamble.

Applicability of the SOLAS Polar Code Provisions to U.S.-Flagged
Vessels on Domestic Voyages

    One of the comments noted concerns about wording in the proposed
rule that limits requirements to vessels engaged in international
voyages. On this point, the comment also cited a December 2016 Coast
Guard Polar Code policy letter (CG-CVC Policy Letter Letter 16-06,
available in the docket), which states that U.S.-flag vessels operating
on domestic voyages to ports or places in the U.S. Arctic do not need
to meet the provisions of SOLAS chapter XIV,\1\ but must instead comply
with applicable domestic requirements. The commenter concluded that
this Coast Guard interpretation, reflected in the proposed rule, does
not meet the intent of the IMO in implementation of the Polar Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ SOLAS chapter XIV implements Part I-A, safety provisions, of
the Polar Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We decline to expand the scope of the proposed rule. The proposed
rule is consistent with our view that the SOLAS convention's authority
is generally limited to vessels traveling internationally. Based on the
intent of the SOLAS convention to ensure safe international shipping,
and SOLAS certification as part of voluntary U.S. compliance programs,
the United States will not require U.S.-flagged vessels operating on
domestic routes through Arctic waters to obtain a Polar Ship
Certificate.

Applicability of the SOLAS Polar Code Provisions in Antarctica

    A commenter raised concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the
applicability of the Polar Code in Antarctica, given that these waters
are not under the jurisdiction of the United States or any other
nation. The Polar Code applies to ships engaged in international
voyages that are also operating in polar waters. Polar waters include
both the Arctic and Antarctic waters. Therefore, a U.S.-flagged vessel
that is certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I and is on an
international voyage must have a Polar Ship Certificate if it enters
Antarctic waters.

Time Estimates for Issuance of a Polar Ship Certificate

    The same commenter also questioned our burden hour estimate for the
time required by classification societies to issue the Polar Ship
Certificate. The commenter said that the estimate did not include time
required for technical approvals or verification of compliance with
provisions of the Polar Code.
    Cost estimates for verifications of compliance with the Polar Code
were not included in the regulatory analysis because these hours are
outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking addresses the
issuance of a Polar Ship Certificate, not compliance with substantive
safety and environmental provisions or surveys to evaluate compliance
with those provisions.
    In our NPRM we used an estimate of 40 hours, which we obtained from
a classification society and which includes administrative review,
stamping the documents, and data input. The commenter, who also
represents a classification society, gives a minimum time of 8 to 12
hours for these tasks. We have retained the more conservative 40-hour
estimate.
    The other hours the commenter discusses, 120 to 230 hours to
complete approval work for new construction, risk assessments, and
surveys, represent compliance aspects of the safety and environmental
provisions of the Polar Code. Again, these compliance aspects are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Entry into Force of the SOLAS Polar Code Requirement for Certification

    One commenter stated that the language we used in the NPRM implied
that all U.S.-flagged vessels subject to the Polar Code will be
required to carry a Polar Ship Certificate by January 1, 2017.
    The January 1, 2017 date applies to vessels built on or after that
date. Vessels built before that date need not comply until after
January 1, 2018. Implementation for existing vessels is based on the
first renewal or intermediate survey conducted after January 1, 2018.
(See SOLAS chapter XIV, Reg. 2.2.) For the purposes of the Polar Code,
the Cargo Ship Safety Construction or Passenger Ship Safety Certificate
is typically the survey used to determine the implementation date for
vessels built before January 1, 2017.
    We have made no changes from the proposed regulatory text. The
regulatory text in this final rule is the same as we proposed in the
NPRM.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory
costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation issued, at least
two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost
of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
final rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because
this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum
titled Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (April 5, 2017).
    Our regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
    We only received one comment on our estimates in the regulatory
analysis of the proposed rule. That comment related to the number of
hours used for the creation and issuance of the certificate. However,
the commenter also mentioned some hour burdens that are not associated
with the creation, review, and issuance of the Polar Ship certificate,
and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    In preamble section IV, Discussion of Comments and Changes, we
discuss this public comment regarding our estimate of the time it takes
a recognized classification society to create a polar certificate--
which includes reviewing, printing, stamping of the documents, and data
input--and explain why we retained a more conservative estimate used in
the NPRM as our primary estimate based on industry input. And as
reflected in that discussion, we adopt the costs and benefits in the
regulatory analysis of the proposed rule for this final rule.
    This final rule adds a new Polar Ship Certificate to the list of
existing SOLAS certificates that SOLAS requires to be carried on board
all U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels above 500 GT ITC (the
International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969 or gross
tonnage assigned under this system) \2\ or passenger ships carrying
more than 12 passengers on international voyages operating in polar
waters, generally above 60 degrees north latitude and below 60 degrees
south latitude lines. The IMO adopted the Polar Code in 2014 and 2015
to acknowledge that polar waters impose additional operating demands
and risks.\3\ The United States is signatory to the SOLAS convention
and has an obligation to ensure that all U.S.-flagged vessels certified
in accordance with SOLAS chapter I that engage on international voyages
carry a Polar Ship Certificate when operating in polar waters. Owners
and operators of foreign-flagged vessels subject to SOLAS will have
their Polar Ship Certificates issued by the ship's flag state or a
person or an organization authorized by that flag state to issue the
certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This 500 GT ITC threshold comes from an exception in SOLAS
Chapter 1 for ships that need to be certified in accordance with
that chapter. Regulation 3 of Chapter I has an exception for cargo
ships of less than 500 GT ITC.
    \3\ See Resolution MSC.385(94) and paragraph 7 of the Polar Code
preamble in MSC.385(94)'s appendix. This resolution is available in
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule amends 46 CFR part 2, ``Vessel Inspections,'' subpart
2.01, ``Inspecting and Certificating of Vessels.'' Specifically, we are
adding the Polar Ship Certificate to Sec.  2.01-6, ``Certificates
issued to foreign vessels,'' and Sec.  2.01-25, ``International
Convention for Safety of Life at Sea.''

This rule also amends 46 CFR part 8, ``Vessel Inspection
Alternatives,'' subpart C, ``International Convention Certificate
Issuance,'' Sec.  8.320, ``Classification Society Authorization to
Issue International Certificates,'' at paragraph (b) to include the
Polar Ship Certificate as one of the certificates that the Coast Guard
may authorize a recognized classification society to issue on behalf of
the Coast Guard.
Affected Population
    Since the Coast Guard published the NPRM, two vessels in our
original population of 41 have been re-flagged and are no longer U.S.-
flagged vessels, and one vessel is no longer in service. In addition,
this rule does not apply to domestic vessels that operate in polar
waters if these vessels do not engage in international voyages. This
was not distinguished in the analysis for the NPRM. Based on this
factor and further analysis, the population of affected vessels is now
estimated to be 23. This is the number of U.S.-flagged vessels that
make international voyages in polar waters, which are generally above
and below the 60 degree north and 60 degree south latitudes lines,
respectively, over the past 5 years. This estimate is based on Coast
Guard field data and Coast Guard databases such as the Marine
Information for Safety and Law Enforcement, the Ship Arrival
Notification System, and data from the Navigation Data Center.
    Of the 23 U.S.-flagged vessels that have transited polar waters
during the 5-year period, some entered polar waters in the first year
and not the following year, but returned in subsequent years. The
opposite is also true; some vessels that did not transit polar waters
in the first year of the data period did so in the following years of
the data period.
    Recognized classification societies granted authority from the
Coast Guard under provisions of 46 CFR 8.320(a) will issue the Polar
Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard for U.S.-flagged vessels
that are classed. Although multiple classification societies could
request authorization to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of
the Coast Guard, for the purpose of this analysis, the Coast Guard
assumes that only one classification society will do so for the small
number of classed U.S.-flagged vessels.
Cost Analysis
Classification Societies Cost
    This rule amends 46 CFR 8.320(b) to enable recognized
classification societies to request authorization under Sec.  8.240(b),
to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard. As
reflected in 46 CFR 2.01-25, vessels that are not classed can apply to
the local Coast Guard Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) to
request the Coast Guard to issue the Polar Ship Certificate.
    There are two cost elements associated with a classification
society issuing a Polar Ship Certificate: The cost to review and return
a signed copy of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
recognized classification society and the Coast Guard, and the cost to
create the certificate once the MOA is approved by each party. As
stated in 46 CFR 8.320(c), the Coast Guard will enter into an agreement
with the classification society to issue international convention
certificates such as the Polar Ship Certificate. In this situation, the
MOA represents a delegation letter and is a standard document that
allows a recognized classification society to issue the Polar Ship
Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard.
    Based on Coast Guard data from the Office of Design and Engineering
Standards, we estimate it will take a recognized classification
society's classification and documentation specialist 1 hour to review
the MOA. There is no equivalent labor category in the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics National Industry-
Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for May 2016, so we
used the ``Business Operations Specialist, All Other'' (Occupation Code
13-1199) category for Water Transportation with a North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code of 483000 as a
representative occupation. The mean hourly wage rate for this
occupation is $37.55. Because this is an unloaded hourly wage rate, we
added a load factor to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate. We used BLS'
May 2016 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation databases to calculate
and apply a load factor of 1.52 to obtain a loaded hourly labor rate of
about $57.08 for this occupation.\4\ We also estimate it will take a
recognized classification society attorney 1 hour to review the MOA for
legal sufficiency. Using the BLS' Occupational Employment Statistics
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for May 2016, we
used the category ``Lawyers'' (Occupation Code 23-1011). The mean
hourly wage for this occupation is $67.25. Because this is an unloaded
hourly wage rate, we apply the same load factor of 1.52 as derived
above to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate of about $102.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Information can be viewed at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/naics3_483000.htm. Once on this page scroll down to review the
wage rate for 13-1199 Business Operations Specialists, All Other,
with a mean hourly wage of $37.55. Please see https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes231011.htm, for the mean hourly wage rate for a
lawyer. A loaded labor rate is what a company pays per hour to
employ a person, not the hourly wage. The loaded labor rate includes
the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The load
factor for wages is calculated by dividing total compensation by
wages and salaries. For this analysis, we used BLS' Employer Cost
for Employee Compensation/Transportation and Materials Moving
Occupations, Private Industry Report (Series IDs, CMU2010000520000D
and CMU2020000520000D for all workers using the multi-screen data
search). Using 2016 Q4 data for the cost of compensation and cost
per hour worked, we divide the total compensation amount of $28.15
by the wage and salary amount of $18.53 to obtain the load factor of
about 1.52, rounded. See the following Web sites, https://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/find?fq=survey:[oe]&s=popularity:D and
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cm Multiplying 1.52 by $37.55, we
obtain a loaded hourly wage rate of about $57.08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the one-time cost for the classification society to
review the MOA to be about $162.30, undiscounted. This cost includes a
$3 postage cost to mail the signed MOA to the Coast Guard for approval
and signature [($57.08 x 1 hour) + ($102.22 x 1 hour) + $3 for
postage].
    Based on a recognized classification society estimate, it will take
approximately 40 hours to create and review the Polar Ship Certificate
once the MOA is approved. We received a lower estimate of 8-to-12 hours
from a commenter for work related to this task, but we are maintaining
our more conservative 40-hour estimate we obtained from an industry
source to specifically address hours needed to create and review the
Polar Ship Certificate once the MOA is approved. As with the MOA, a
classification and documentation specialist would create the
certificate. We again used the ``Business Operations Specialist, All
Other'' as a representative occupation. We estimate the one-time labor
cost for a documentation specialist to create the certificate to be
about $2,283.20 (40 hours \5\ x $57.08/hour), undiscounted. Because the
certificate is presented to a vessel owner or operator during the
normal course of a vessel survey, we did not estimate a cost for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Based on an estimate provided by a recognized classification
society to the U.S. Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the total undiscounted cost of the rule to a recognized
classification society to be about $2,445.50 ($2,283.20 document
development cost + $162.30 MOA review cost). See Table 1.

Vessel Cost
    There are two cost elements associated with vessel owners and
operators: The fee a recognized classification society will charge a
vessel owner or operator for issuing the certificate for U.S.-classed
vessels only, and the cost associated with a crewmember posting the
certificate onboard a vessel. Based on Coast Guard vessel data,
approximately 22 percent, or about 5 out of the 23 U.S.-flagged
vessels, are not classed by a recognized classification society.
    The requirement for the 23 existing ships is to have the
certificate by their first renewal or intermediate exam after January
1, 2018. This is a phased-in approach that will likely phase in the
issuing of the certificates over a period of about 3 years. Therefore,
the Coast Guard would issue the Polar Ship Certificate to vessel owners
and operators of those 5 unclassed vessels as part of its routine
inspection regime. A recognized classification society will issue the
Polar Ship Certificate to the remaining 18 vessel owners and operators
in the first, second, third, sixth, seventh, and eighth year of the
analysis period.
    The Polar Ship Certificate is valid for a 5-year period and, after
this time, the recognized classification society and the Coast Guard
will issue a new Polar Ship Certificate to vessel owners and operators,
depending upon whether a vessel is classed or not classed. Based on
information from a recognized classification society, the cost to issue
a Polar Ship Certificate is $100 if a recognized classification society
issues the certificate (for 18 classed, U.S.-flagged vessels). The cost
of the reissued Polar Ship Certificate is also $100; therefore, it will
cost each U.S.-classed vessel owner and operator $100 after 5 years to
renew the certificate, or in the sixth, seventh, and eighth year of the
analysis period. We assume a 3-year phase-in period for owners and
operators to obtain the certificates. For the purpose of this analysis,
we assume 7 U.S.-flagged vessels owners and operators (6 classed and 1
unclassed) will obtain a certificate in the first year and 8 (6 classed
and 2 unclassed) U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will obtain
one in the second and third years. For reissuance, again, we assume the
same 7 vessel owners and operators will obtain a certificate in the
sixth year and the same 8 vessel owners and operators will obtain one
in the seventh and eighth years each; we divided the population
accordingly to obtain even values.
    Vessel owners and operators will be required to post the
certificate in a conspicuous area onboard the vessel with other
applicable operating certificates. Based on the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) approved collection of information entitled
``Various International Agreement Safety Certificates,'' (OMB control
number 1625-0017), a crewmember equivalent to a U.S. Coast Guard cadet
will post the Polar Ship Certificate on board a vessel. Using the Coast
Guard's Commandant Instruction 7310.1R for loaded hourly wages outside
of the Government, the hourly wage rate of a person outside of the
Government equivalent to a cadet is $29.00. We estimate it takes a
crewmember about 6 minutes, or 0.1 hours, to post the Polar Ship
Certificate at a labor cost of about $2.90 per vessel ($29.00 x 0.1
hours). To post the Polar Ship Certificate, we estimate the total
initial cost of the final rule to 7 U.S.-flagged vessel owners and
operators to be about $20.30 (6 U.S. classed and 1 unclassed vessel x
0.1 hours x $29.00), regardless of whether a recognized classification
society or the Coast Guard issues the Polar Ship Certificate. Owners
and operators of U.S.-flagged vessels will incur this cost again in the
sixth year because a crewmember will review and post the reissued
certificate for the same seven vessels.
    We estimate the initial cost of the rule to vessel owners and
operators to be about $620.30 in the first year [(6 classed vessels x
$100) + (6 classed vessels x $2.90 to post the certificate) + 1
unclassed vessel x $2.90 to post the certificate)].\6\ The cost for the
renewed certificate in the sixth year (or 5 years after the initial
year) will also be $620.30 for these seven vessels. In the second,
third, seventh, and eighth years, we estimate the cost for eight U.S.-
flagged vessel owners and operators to obtain and post a Polar Ship
Certificate to be about $623.20 [(6 classed vessels x $100) + (6
classed vessels x $2.90 to post the certificate) + (2 unclassed vessels
in each of these years x $2.90 each year to post the certificate)]. See
Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Vessel owners and operators for ships built on or after
January 1, 2017, have been required to carry the Polar Ship
Certificate before engaging in international voyages in polar
waters. We have not identified any vessels that would be affected by
this rule that were built after this date and we do not have data to
project how many newly built vessels will be affected or required to
carry a Polar Ship Certificate in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the total 10-year undiscounted cost to be $3,733.40 for
all 23 U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators ($620.30 in the first
and sixth year + $623.20 in the second, third, seventh, and eighth
years of the analysis period). Table 1 shows the cost to both class
society and vessel owners and operators for this rule.

                Table 1--Summary of Classification Society and Vessel Owners and Operators Costs
                                                 [Undiscounted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Cost item                 Unit cost          Labor rate            Hours            Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification Society Certificate  ..............  $57.08...............              40  $2,283.20 (incurred
 Creation.                                                                                in year 1).
Classification Society Review of    ..............  $102.22 (Attorney)...               1  $162.30 (incurred in
 MOA.                                                                                year 1 and includes
                                                                                $3 postage).
                                    ..............  $57.08 (Business                    1
                                                     Operations
                                                     Specialist).
Certificate Fee Charged to Vessel             $100  .....................  ..............  $600 (incurred in
 Owners and Operators.                                                                      years 1 through 3
                                                                                and 6 through 8);
                                                                                $1,800 for 18
                                                                                classed vessels in
                                                                                years 1 through 3
                                                                                and 6 through 8.
Vessel Crewmember Reviews and       ..............  $27..................             0.1  $2.90 (incurred in
 Posts Certificate.                                                                         years 1 through 3
                                                                                and 6 through 8);
                                                                                $20.30 in years 1
                                                                                and 6 and $23.20 in
                                                                                years 2, 3, 7, and
                                                                                8.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Undiscounted Cost         ..............  .....................  ..............  $3,065.80
     (Initial year).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the initial undiscounted cost of the final rule to a
recognized classification society and to 7 (6 classed and 1 unclassed
vessels) U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators to be about $3,065.80
($2,283.20 for the classification society to create the certificate +
$162.30 for the classification society to review the MOA + $600 fee
charged by a classification society to issue the certificate to the 6
classed vessel owners and operators + $20.30 for crewmembers of the
seven classed and unclassed vessels to post the certificate). We
estimate the total 10-year undiscounted cost of the rule to industry to
be about $6,178.90 ($3,065.80 in the first year + $623.20 in the
second, third, seventh, and, eighth years + $620.30 in the sixth year).
See Table 2.
    We estimate the 10-year present value--or discounted cost--of the
rule to industry to be between $5,082.42 and $5,652.42 at 7- and 3-
percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost
to be between $723.62 and $662.64 at 7- and 3- percent discount rates,
respectively. See Table 2.

                                  Table 2--Total Costs of the Rule to Industry
                   [10-Year period of analysis, 7 and 3 percent discount rates, 2017 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Cost
                             Period                               (undiscounted)        7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................       $3,065.80       $2,865.23       $2,976.50
2...............................................................          623.20          544.33          587.43
3...............................................................          623.20          508.72          570.32
4...............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
5...............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
6...............................................................          620.30          413.33          519.49
7...............................................................          623.20          388.10          506.72
8...............................................................          623.20          362.71          491.96
9...............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
10..............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         6178.90        5,082.42        5,652.42
        Annualized..............................................  ..............          723.62          662.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Government Costs
    There are three cost elements associated with this rule for the
Coast Guard: (1) A one-time cost of creating the Polar Ship Certificate
and issuing it (in the initial year, second, third, sixth, seventh, and
eighth years) to a vessel owner or operator if a vessel is not classed
by a class society; (2) reviewing the certificate onboard a vessel as
part of the Coast Guard's routine inspection regime; and (3) a one-time
cost of creating and sending the delegation letter or MOA to a
classification society for signature.
    For the 5 U.S.-flagged vessels that are not classed by a recognized
classification society, the Coast Guard will issue the Polar Ship
Certificate in the first through the third years and the sixth through
the eighth years. Because of the phase-in period, we divided the 5
vessels evenly over 3 years. We determined that 1 vessel will receive
its certificate in the first and sixth years, and 2 vessels will
receive it in the second, third, seventh, and eighth year, with
certificate reissuance occurring during the sixth, seventh, and eighth
years. The two vessels in the second and third years are the same two
vessels in the seventh and eighth years.
    Based on information from the Coast Guard's Office of Vessel
Compliance, we estimate it takes Coast Guard personnel with the average
equivalence of a GS-15 about 40 hours to create and review a Polar Ship
Certificate. Using the Commandant Instruction 7310.1R, we used an
average loaded hourly wage rate of $116.00. We estimate the one-time
cost for the Coast Guard to create the Polar Ship Certificate to be
about $4,640.00 (40 hours x $116.00 hour).
    Based on an OMB-approved collection of information (Control Number
1625-0017), we estimate it takes a Coast Guard Officer the Officer in
Charge Marine Inspection (OCMI), or more specifically, a Lieutenant
with the rank of an O-3, about 30 minutes, or 0.5 hours per vessel, to
review the Polar Ship Certificate for validity and correctness (the
Coast Guard issues and reviews the certificate at the same time during
its normal inspection regime). Using the Coast Guard's Commandant
Instruction 7310.1R for loaded hourly wages, an O-3 has a loaded hourly
wage rate of $79.00. Therefore, we estimate the total undiscounted cost
to the Government to review the Polar Ship Certificate for all 23
affected vessels to be about $908.50 ($79.00x 23 vessels x 0.5 hours),
or about $39.50 per vessel.
    We use the same methodology noted earlier in this preamble with
owners and operators obtaining certificates over a 3-year period (7 in
the first and sixth year and 8 in the second, third, seventh and eighth
year), with the sixth, seventh and eighth years being the renewal
years. Again, 7 inspections (6 classed and 1 unclassed) will take place
in the first and sixth year, and 8 (6 classed and 2 unclassed) in the
second, third, seventh, and eighth year. We estimate the first year
cost to the Government to review the certificate will be about $276.50
(6 classed and 1 unclassed vessels x $39.50). The Government will incur
this cost again in the sixth year when the certificate is reissued. In
years

two, three, seven, and eight, the Government will incur a certificate
review cost of about $316.00 (6 classed and 2 unclassed vessels x
$39.50) in each of these years.
    The Coast Guard will also examine the certificates of foreign-
flagged vessels that enter U.S. ports in polar waters as part of its
routine Port State Control vessel boardings. This will take place
during routine Coast Guard examinations and for issuing certificates of
compliance and is a part of the inspection process. Therefore, we do
not estimate a cost to the Government.
    This final rule will also enable a recognized classification
society to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast
Guard. As a result, the Coast Guard and a recognized classification
society will enter into an MOA that delegates authority to the
classification society. This sets forth guidelines for cooperation
between the Coast Guard and a classification society with respect to
initial and subsequent inspections for certifications and periodic re-
inspections or examinations of vessels of the United States, as defined
by 46 U.S.C. 116.
    Based on information from the Coast Guard's Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, Coast Guard personnel with the average
equivalence of a GS-15 will prepare the MOA for delivery to a
classification society. Again, we used an average loaded hourly labor
rate of $116.00 for a GS-15. We estimate it will take Government
personnel about 6.25 hours to prepare and review the MOA. We estimate
it will cost about $3 in postage for the Government to send the MOA to
the classification society.
    We estimate the total cost incurred by the Government for the MOA
to be about $725.00 plus $3 for postage, or a total cost of $728.00,
undiscounted (6.25 hours x $116.00 for the loaded labor rate).
    We estimate the total initial cost to the Government to be about
$5,644.50 ($4,640 to create and review the certificate, $276.50 to
review the certificates for 6 classed and 1 unclassed U.S.-flagged
vessels, and $728.00 for the MOA). We estimate the total 10-year
undiscounted cost to the Government to be about $7,185.00 ($5,644.50 in
the initial year + $316.00 in the second, third, seventh and eighth
years + $276.50 in the sixth year). We estimate the 10-year present
value, or discounted cost of the rule to the Government, to be between
$6374.14 and $6,805.10, using 7- and 3- percent discount rates,
respectively. We estimate the annualized cost to be between $907.53 and
$797.76, using 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. See Table
3.

                               Table 3--Total Costs of the Rule to the Government
                   [10-Year period of analysis, 7 and 3 percent discount rates, 2017 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Cost
                             Period                               (undiscounted)        7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $5644.50       $5,275.23       $5,480.10
2...............................................................          316.00          276.01          297.86
3...............................................................          316.00          257.95          289.18
4...............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
5...............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
6...............................................................          276.50          184.24          231.56
7...............................................................          316.00          196.79          256.94
8...............................................................          316.00          183.91          249.45
9...............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
10..............................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................        7,185.00        6,374.14        6,805.10
        Annualized..............................................  ..............          907.53          797.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

Total Cost of the Rule to Industry and Government
    We estimate the total 10-year combined undiscounted cost of the
rule to industry and the Government to be about $13,364. We estimate
the 10-year present value, or discounted cost of the rule to industry
and the Government, to be between $11,457 and $12,458 at 7- and 3-
percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost
to be between $1,631 and $1,460 using the same discount rates. See
Table 4.

                        Table 4--Summary of Costs of the Rule to Industry and Government
                                   [10-Year period of analysis, 2017 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Type of cost                       Industry       Government      Total cost      Annualized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted....................................       $6,178.90       $7,185.00      $13,363.90  ..............
7%..............................................        5,082.42        6,374.14       11,456.55        1,631.16
3%..............................................        5,652.42        6,805.10       12,457.51        1,460.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
    The primary benefit of this rule is to ensure that vessel owners
and operators have a valid Polar Ship Certificate on board the vessel.
Without a Polar Ship Certificate, a vessel will be subject to
deficiencies, detention, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar
waters of other port States. Adherence to SOLAS will ensure vessels are
capable of operating in the hazards and adverse weather conditions
unique to polar waters.
Alternatives
    When creating this rule, the Coast Guard considered several
alternatives. The previous analysis represents the preferred
alternative, which will help ensure that the United States fulfills its
treaty obligations under SOLAS

regarding the Polar Ship Certificate, and that U.S.-flagged vessel
owners and operators that operate vessels in polar waters will be able
to obtain Polar Ship Certificates and thus operate more efficiently by
avoiding the risk of potential negative actions against their vessel by
foreign countries (such as, detentions, deficiencies, denial of entry,
or expulsions) if their vessel does not have a Polar Ship Certificate
on board.
Alternative 1: Preferred Alternative
    The analysis for this alternative appears in this, ``Regulatory
Analysis,'' section of this preamble.
Alternative 2: No Action Alternative
    In this alternative, the United States would take no action to
issue a Polar Ship Certificate. None of the costs itemized in the
preferred alternative would be incurred, as a result. However, with
this alternative, the United States would not be compliant with its
international legal obligations as a signatory Government to the SOLAS
Convention. Additionally, the lack of appropriate certifications would
likely negatively impact U.S.-flagged vessels on international voyages
in polar waters of other port States. U.S.-flagged vessels could
potentially be subject to deficiencies, detentions, denial of entry, or
expulsion from the polar waters of other port states due to the lack of
proper certificates.
    Because the United States would not meet its international treaty
obligations in this alternative, the Coast Guard rejects this
alternative.
Alternative 3: Large Scale Regulatory Implementation of the Polar Code
    In this alternative, the Coast Guard would implement the entire
Polar Code in one regulatory effort. This would create or modify
regulations throughout 46 and 33 CFR. The affected vessels, operators,
and the Government will also incur the costs and impacts of the
implementation of the entire Polar Code from a single regulatory
effort.
    The Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it would
considerably delay the issuance of the certificate beyond the January
1, 2017 effective date of the Polar Code. As stated previously, U.S.-
flagged vessels could potentially be subject to deficiencies,
detentions, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of
other port states due to the lack of proper certificates.
    By moving forward with Alternative 1, U.S.-flagged vessel owners
and operators will be able to obtain a Polar Ship Certificate much
sooner and thus operate more efficiently in polar waters of foreign
nations by avoiding adverse consequences from not having the
certificate on board.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we
have considered whether this rule will 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. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard prepared this threshold analysis that
examines the impacts of the rule on small entities.
    Based on our analysis of the entities affected by this rule, all of
the 23 affected U.S.-flagged vessels are owned by U.S. entities. To
determine which entities are small, we compiled the data used in this
analysis from publicly available and proprietary sources such as Manta,
ReferenceUSAGov, and Cortera, and from the affected entities' Web
sites. We used available owner's business information to identify the
entities' primary line of business as coded by the NAICS to find
employee and revenue size information. We used this information to
determine whether we should consider a business ``small'' by comparing
it to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) ``Table of Small
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry
Classification System Codes.'' In some cases, SBA classifies businesses
on a standard either based on the number of employees or annual
revenues.\7\ We found that no small government jurisdictions or non-
profits own any of the U.S.-flagged vessels affected by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Readers can access small entity information online at http://www.sba.gov/size/indextableofsize.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We found that 12 companies own the 23 vessels that will be affected
by this final rule. Of the 12 different companies, we found only one to
be a small entity, or about 8 percent, based on SBA's table of small
business size standards. The one small entity that we found has a
primary NAICS code of 483111, or ``Deep Sea Freight Transportation.''
    We estimate the initial cost to each classed vessel owner and
operator (small and not small) to be about $102.90 [$600/6 classed
U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators that have their vessels
classed by a class society + $17.40 (6 classed vessels x $2.90)/6 (cost
for crewmembers of 6 classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators
to post the certificate divided by the number of U.S.-classed vessel
owners and operators. Again, in the sixth year, these 6 classed U.S.-
flagged vessel owners and operators will incur this cost)]. In the
second and third years, the remaining 12 (6 each year) classed U.S.-
flagged vessel owners and operators will incur this same cost, and
again in the renewal years of seven and eight. The 5 U.S.-flagged
vessel owners who own unclassed vessels will only incur a cost of $2.90
per vessel in the each of the years described above. These vessel
owners and operators will incur the same cost in the first (one vessel)
through third years (two vessels in the second and third year each) and
sixth (the same vessel as in the first year) through eighth years (the
same two vessels as in the second and third year in the seventh and
eighth year each) of the analysis period. See Table 5.

  Table 5--Summary of Costs per Vessel Throughout the 10-Year Period of
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Classed U.S.-      Unclassed U.S.-
             Period                 flagged Vessels     flagged Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial and Sixth Year..........  6.................  1.
Years 2, 3, 7, and 8............  6 (each year).....  2 (each year).
Cost............................  $102.90 (each year  $2.90 (each year
                                   per vessel).        per vessel).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: As described in the text, years six, seven, and eight are renewal
  years. The one unclassed U.S.-flagged vessel that received a
  certificate in the first year is the same vessel in the sixth year.
  The two unclassed U.S.- flagged vessels that receive a certificate in
  years two and three are the same ones in years seven and eight. The
  same rationale applies to classed U.S.-flagged vessels.

    Based on the databases that we searched, the only small entity that
we found in our analysis did not have revenue information, but had
employee information. This vessel owned by the small entity is a
classed vessel, which means the owner of this vessel will incur a cost
of $102.90 in the initial year and again in the sixth year of the
analysis period when the reissuance of the certificate takes place. We
believe the estimated impact on the affected entity is not a
significant economic impact.
    Based on the preceding analysis and noting that the NPRM received
no public comments suggesting this rule would be a significant economic
impact on small entities, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    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

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) requires
that the Coast Guard consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the
1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not
collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an
information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
    This action amends the existing information collection requirements
that were previously approved under OMB Control Number 1625-0017.
    As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information''
comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and
other similar actions. The title and description of the information
collections, a description of those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of
data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection.
    The summary of revised 1625-0017 collection follows:
    Title: Various International Agreement Safety Certificates.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0017.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: These Coast Guard-issued
certificates are used as evidence of compliance with SOLAS by certain
U.S.-flagged vessels on international voyages. Without the proper
certificates or documents, a U.S. vessel could be detained in a foreign
port. SOLAS applies to all mechanically propelled cargo and tank
vessels of 500 or more GT ITC, and to all mechanically propelled
passenger vessels carrying more than 12 passengers that engage in
international voyages. By IMO's definition, an ``international voyage''
means a voyage from a country to which the Convention applies to a port
outside the country, or vice versa.
    SOLAS currently requires one or more of the following certificates
to be carried on onboard certain passenger and cargo ships engaged in
international voyages (46 CFR 2.01-25):
    (1) Passenger Ship Safety Certificate and Record.
    (2) Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate.
    (3) Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate and Record.
    (4) Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate (issued by Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)).
    (5) Nuclear Passenger Ship Safety Certificate.
    (6) Nuclear Cargo Ship Safety Certificate.
    (7) Safety Management Certificate.
    (8) International Ship Security Certificate.
    (9) High-Speed Craft Safety Certificate.
    The Coast Guard is adding the Polar Ship Certificate to the list of
certificates that it can issue.
    Need for Information: In 2014 and 2015, in resolutions MSC.385(94)
and MEPC.264(68), IMO adopted the Polar Code. The Polar Code raises the
safety standards for commercial ships operating in or transiting
through polar waters, both Arctic and Antarctic, and enhances
environmental protection for polar waters that include coastal
communities in the U.S. Arctic. As a signatory to SOLAS, the United
States has a treaty obligation to ensure compliance with SOLAS
requirements.
    All mechanically propelled passenger vessels carrying more than 12
passengers that engage in international voyages and all mechanically
propelled cargo vessels of more than 500 GT ITC that engage in
international voyages and operate within polar waters as defined by the
Polar Code will be required to have the Polar Ship Certificate. The
Polar Ship Certificate is valid for 5 years.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure that U.S. marine
inspectors can issue certificates required by SOLAS Polar Code
provisions and that these certificates are being carried on all covered
vessels. Additionally, this rulemaking will add the Polar Ship
Certificate to the list of certificates that classification societies
can issue on behalf of the Coast Guard in consideration of hazards and
conditions unique to polar waters and a potential increase in traffic
in Arctic and Antarctic waters. These additional hazards include
navigation in ice and low temperatures, high latitude communications
and navigation, remoteness from response resources, and limited
hydrographic charting.
    We calculate the hour burden on an annual basis to review and post
the Polar Ship Certificate, which takes into account the reissuance of
the certificate every fifth year. The estimated burden is 1/10 of an
hour or 6 minutes. About 5 vessels (23 total vessels/5 years) annually
equates to 30 minutes or 0.5 hours for the hour burden. Equivalently, 7
classed and unclassed U.S.-flagged vessels (6 classed and 1 unclassed)
x 6 minutes in the first and sixth years + 8 classed and unclassed
U.S.-flagged vessels (6 classed and 2 unclassed) x 6 minutes in the
second, third, seventh and eighth year for a total of 276 minutes
divided by 46 vessels (7 in the first and sixth years and 8 in the
second, third, seventh, and eighth year of the analysis period).
Because vessel owners and operators will have 3 years to obtain a
certificate, we divided the population essentially into thirds, with 7
in the first and sixth years and 8 in the second, third, and seventh
and eighth years.

    Proposed Use of Information: The Polar Ship Certificate attests
that the vessel has met applicable requirements of SOLAS to the
satisfaction of the U.S. Government. Without the certificate, U.S.-
flagged vessels could be detained in foreign ports as being unsafe.
    Description of the Respondents: Respondents are the owner, agent,
Master, operator, or person in charge of a U.S.-flagged vessel that
transits in polar waters while engaged in an international voyage.
    Number of Respondents: The existing OMB-approved number of
respondents is 413. This rule will not change the number of respondents
because the vessel population that will be affected is a subset of the
existing number of respondents; this rule is not adding new respondents
to this collection.
    Frequency of Response: The existing OMB-approved number of
responses is 912. This rule will increase the number of responses by
about 8 annually (23 vessels/3-year renewal period) to 920.
    Burden of Response: The existing OMB-approved burden of response is
6 minutes, or 0.1 hours, or the time it takes for a crewmember of a
vessel to post the Polar Ship Certificate onboard the vessel.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved total
annual burden is 94.4 hours. Due to rounding, this rule will increase
the burden hours annually by one hour. The estimated total annual
burden will be 95 hours annually.
    As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard can enforce the collection of information requirements in this
rule, OMB will have to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect
this information.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(``Federalism'') if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132
and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements as described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that Coast Guard regulations regarding vessel design, construction,
alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel
qualification, and manning issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C.
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 are within fields foreclosed from regulation
by the States. See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 90 (2000)
(stating ``Congress has left no room for state regulation of these
matters.''). This rule adds the Polar Ship Certificate to the list of
certificates required, if applicable, by SOLAS. Also, this rule adds
this certificate to the list of SOLAS certificates that the Coast Guard
may authorize recognized classification societies to issue on behalf of
the Coast Guard. The issuance of international certificates is within
the sole purview of the Coast Guard to regulate pursuant to 46 U.S.C.
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101; 33 U.S.C. 1230 and 1231, Executive Order
12234; and the principles discussed in Locke. Thus, the regulations are
consistent with the principles for federalism and preemption
requirements in Executive Order 13132.

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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 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 analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''). This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175 (``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments''), because it will 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 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.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
will be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example,
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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
(COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f),
and concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration

supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    This rule involves: (1) Adding a Polar Ship Certificate to the list
of certificates required, if applicable, by SOLAS; and (2) adding the
Polar Ship Certificate to the list of SOLAS certificates that the Coast
Guard is allowed to authorize recognized classification societies to
issue on behalf of the Coast Guard. This action constitutes editorial
or procedural changes concerning vessel documentation requirements
(that is, issuance of Polar Ship Certificates) and the delegation of
authority for issuing such certificates. Thus, as reflected in the
Record of Environmental Consideration, this rule is categorically
excluded under chapter 2, Section B, Paragraph 2 Categorical Exclusions
(CEs) and Figure 2-1 (Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions), paragraphs
(34)(a), (b), and (d) of COMDTINST M16475.1D. This rule promotes the
Coast Guard's maritime safety and environmental protection missions.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 2

    Marine Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 8

    Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions
(Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Vessels.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
46 CFR parts 2 and 8 as follows:

Title 46--Shipping

PART 2--VESSEL INSPECTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 2 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 622, Pub. L. 111-281; 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1903; 43
U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2110, 3306, 3703; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(77), (90), (92)(a),
(92)(b); E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1-
105.

Sec.  2.01-6  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  2.01-6(a)(1), after the words ``passengers in U.S. ports''
and before the words ``holds a valid'', remove the word ``and''; and
after the text ``Passenger Ship Safety Certificate'', add the text ``,
and, if applicable, holds a valid Polar Ship Certificate''.

0
3. Amend Sec.  2.01-25 by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(x) and (a)(2)(x) to
read as follows:

Sec.  2.01-25   International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea,
1974.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (x) Polar Ship Certificate.
    (2) * * *
    (x) Polar Ship Certificate.
* * * * *

PART 8--VESSEL INSPECTION ALTERNATIVES

0
4. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 8 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1903, 1904, 3803 and 3821; 46 U.S.C.
3103, 3306, 3316, and 3703; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1 and Aug. 8, 2011 Delegation of Authority,
Anti-Fouling Systems.

0
5. Amend Sec.  8.320 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(13), remove the word ``and'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(14), remove the period at the end of the paragraph
and add, in its place, ``; and''; and
0
c. Add paragraph (b)(15).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  8.320   Classification society authorization to issue
international certificates.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (15) Polar Ship Certificate.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 18, 2017.
J.G. Lantz,
Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017-20155 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P