Overview
Title
Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the M/V LA BORINQUENA
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Coast Guard gave a special permission slip to a boat called M/V LA BORINQUENA because its lights are in tricky spots and can't be moved without messing up the boat's design, so it can use different lights instead to keep things safe.
Summary AI
The Coast Guard has issued a certificate of alternative compliance for the vessel M/V LA BORINQUENA because it cannot fully meet certain lighting requirements set by international regulations without changing its design. This certificate allows the vessel to operate with an alternative lighting configuration that closely follows the rules. The announcement of this certificate is required by law to be published in the Federal Register. The decision was made by the Chief of the Prevention Division of the Coast Guard's Seventh District.
Abstract
The Coast Guard announces that the Chief of Prevention Division, Seventh District has issued a certificate of alternative compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), for the M/V LA BORINQUENA (O.N. 1345507). We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. Due to the construction and placement of the forward and aft masthead lights, M/V LA BORINQUENA cannot fully comply with the light provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and construction. This notification of the issuance of these certificates of alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety mission.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Federal Register document details the issuance of a certificate of alternative compliance by the U.S. Coast Guard for the vessel M/V LA BORINQUENA. This certificate allows the vessel to diverge from international regulations for lighting on the ship due to construction limitations. Issuing such a certificate is part of routine regulatory processes that accommodate vessels with special design needs. But while the document provides key information, several aspects merit further discussion and clarification.
General Summary
The document pertains to the Coast Guard's decision to issue a certificate of alternative compliance to the vessel M/V LA BORINQUENA. The certificate is necessary because the vessel’s design does not allow for full conformity with the lighting provisions as stipulated by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS). Specifically, the positioning of the forward and aft masthead lights is incompatible with the rules without altering the ship's design. The certificate permits the vessel to use an alternative lighting arrangement that closely adheres to international guidelines. This decision underscores the Coast Guard's commitment to maintaining safety while allowing for practical design accommodations.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document raises several issues:
Lack of Cost Details: It does not discuss any financial implications associated with obtaining the certificate, leaving a gap regarding potential costs involved in compliance.
Technical Jargon: The use of legal and technical language, citing specific laws and code sections (U.S.C and CFR), might be challenging for those unfamiliar with maritime regulations.
Compliance Explanation: There is ambiguity about how the vessel’s construction specifically prevents full compliance. Clarifying this would help the general public understand the necessity of such certificates.
Process Transparency: The process for issuing these certificates could benefit from more transparency. While the text references the Chief of Prevention Division's role, the criteria and potential subjective judgments are not detailed. Additionally, there are concerns about fairness, as the process seems to rely on subjective assessments by Coast Guard officials.
Broad Public Impact
The issuance of such certificates impacts the public indirectly by ensuring that vessels operate safely on waterways while accommodating unique design needs. It demonstrates regulatory flexibility, highlighting how international rules can adapt to practical situations without compromising safety.
From a safety perspective, the Coast Guard ensures that even vessels that cannot fully comply with international regulations for technical reasons are still as aligned as possible with those standards. This is crucial for maintaining maritime safety for both domestic and international navigators.
Stakeholder Impact
Shipowners and Operators: This regulation highlights a potentially positive outcome for ship designers and operators who require design flexibility without being penalized for non-compliance due to practical limitations. They gain official recognition of their alternative practices, ensuring their operations remain legitimate and safe.
Regulatory Agencies: The process provides the Coast Guard with a mechanism to maintain safety standards while accommodating innovation in ship design, allowing them to balance safety with practicality.
General Maritime and Boating Communities: For those involved in maritime activities, such regulatory actions help ensure that special vessel designs continue to operate safely, which is vital for the overall safety of seafaring activities.
In conclusion, while the document provides a necessary regulatory update and serves an important function in maritime safety, addressing certain ambiguities and enhancing clarity could further benefit both stakeholders and the broader public awareness.
Issues
• The document does not mention any specific costs associated with the issuance of the certificate of alternative compliance, making it unclear if there is any spending involved.
• The language surrounding the compliance issue due to the 'positions of the forward and aft masthead lights' could be clarified to explain exactly why the vessel's construction prevents full compliance with 72 COLREGS.
• The requirements for applying for a certificate of alternative compliance may be detailed in cited sections (e.g., 33 CFR 81.5, 33 CFR 81.9), but these are not provided in the document, which could leave some readers needing more information.
• The document contains legal and technical jargon, such as references to specific U.S.C. and CFR sections, which may not be easily understandable by the general public.
• The document does not state explicitly what it means by 'closest possible compliance,' which could lead to ambiguity about the actual compliance status of the vessel.
• There could be a potential concern about fairness or transparency in the process of issuing certificates of alternative compliance since it involves subjective determinations by the Chief of the Prevention Division.