Overview
Title
Safety Management Systems for Domestic Passenger Vessels
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Coast Guard is fixing a tiny mix-up in an earlier notice about making boats safer, changing a question reference from “4” to “6” to help people understand better. They're asking if it’s better to change old rules or make all boats follow new safety plans and want to know what others think about the costs and benefits of each option.
Summary AI
The Coast Guard is making a correction to an earlier notice that asked for public comments on using Safety Management Systems to enhance safety on U.S.-flagged passenger vessels. This correction involves fixing a mistake in the January 15, 2021, notice where there was a wrong reference in a list of questions meant for the public. Specifically, they have changed a reference from “question 4” to “question 6” in one of the questions. The corrected question now asks about comparing the costs and benefits of expanding existing regulations versus requiring Safety Management Systems for all passenger vessels.
Abstract
The Coast Guard is correcting an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the Federal Register of January 15, 2021, seeking public comment on the potential use of Safety Management Systems (SMSs) to improve safety and reduce marine casualties on board U.S.-flagged passenger vessels. The ANPRM contained an incorrect internal cross-reference in the list of questions for the public.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a corrective notice from the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register, concerning an earlier notice from January 15, 2021. The original notice invited public comments on whether Safety Management Systems (SMSs) should be implemented on U.S.-flagged passenger vessels to enhance safety and reduce marine accidents. Due to an error, a question intended for public feedback referenced the wrong question number, which this correction aims to rectify.
General Summary
This document serves as a correction to an oversight in a previously published Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) by the Coast Guard. The ANPRM was seeking public input on introducing Safety Management Systems for passenger vessels as a preventive measure against marine accidents. The error involved an incorrect internal cross-reference where "question 4" should have been "question 6". The corrected document asks the public to weigh the costs and benefits of expanding existing regulations compared to mandating SMSs on all passenger vessels.
Significant Issues or Concerns
The primary issue addressed here is the incorrect referral to another question within a list meant for public comment. This could have led to confusion among those attempting to provide meaningful feedback, perhaps affecting the depth and quality of the responses received.
Another concern is the lack of detailed information regarding the costs and benefits that Question 19 asks the public to consider. While this may be elaborately detailed in the overall ANPRM document, it’s less clear for individuals only reading the stand-alone correction notice.
Additionally, the highly technical nature of the document—including legal references and maritime-specific terminology—may not be easily understood by the general public, potentially limiting broader participation in the feedback process.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
Public Impact: On a broad level, this correction aims to streamline the process of public participation in regulatory discussions. By ensuring that the reference to existing regulations is accurate, the Coast Guard allows for more informed comments from the public. This has implications for maritime safety for all who travel on these vessels.
Stakeholder Impact: For stakeholders in the maritime industry, including vessel operators and regulatory bodies, this correction is crucial. Accurate evaluation of the costs and benefits of regulatory changes requires precise data and references. Misleading or incorrect information could unnecessarily skew public perception and, ultimately, decision-making.
Overall, while correcting such a technical error may seem minor, it plays a significant role in ensuring the integrity of public feedback and regulatory processes. This can positively affect decision-making that balances maritime safety and industry needs.
Issues
• The document contains an incorrect internal cross-reference in the list of public questions, which has been corrected. Although this has been addressed, it may have caused initial confusion for the public providing comments.
• There is no detailed information about the costs and benefits mentioned in Question 19. While this text might be contextually understood within the ANPRM document, it could be clearer for someone only reading the correction notice.
• The document's language and structure appear to be typical for a Federal Register entry, but some terms and references may be complex for individuals without knowledge of maritime regulations or legal terminology.
• No specific organizations or individuals are mentioned that could suggest biased treatment or favored spending.