[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14053-14060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0990]
RIN 1625-AB56


Vessel Documentation Renewal Fees

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations to 
separately list an annual fee for renewals of endorsements upon the 
Certificate of Documentation. The Coast Guard is required to establish 
user fees for services related to the documentation of vessels. This 
proposed rule would separately list a fee of $26 to cover the current 
costs of the vessel documentation services provided by the Coast Guard.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our 
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before May 3, 2013 
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG 
2010-0990 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or email Mary Jager, CG-DCO-832, Coast Guard, telephone 202-
372-1331, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing 
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

[[Page 14054]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
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. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0990), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of 
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing 
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your 
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your 
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and 
type ``USCG-2010-0990'' in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit your 
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no 
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic 
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they 
reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your 
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and 
insert ``USCG-2010-0990'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search.'' 
Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do 
not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by 
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground 
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement 
with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management 
Facility.

C. Privacy Act

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

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting 
would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this 
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later 
notice in the Federal Register (FR).

II. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COD Certificate of Documentation
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MISLE Marine Safety Information Law Enforcement
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NVDC National Vessel Documentation Center
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section symbol
SBA Small Business Administration
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Background

    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (the ``Act'') (Pub. 
L. 101-508, Sec.  10401, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388), codified at 46 
U.S.C. 2110, requires that the Coast Guard establish user fees for 
Coast Guard vessel documentation services. In establishing these fees, 
we are required to use the criteria found in 31 U.S.C. 9701, including, 
among other things, that the fees be fair, be based on the costs to the 
government, and reflect the value of the service or thing to the 
recipient, the public policy or interest served. See 31 U.S.C. 9701(b). 
We also set fees at an amount calculated to achieve recovery of the 
costs to the Federal Government of providing the service in a manner 
consistent with the general user charges principles set forth in OMB 
Circular A-25. Under that OMB Circular, each recipient should pay a 
reasonable user charge for Federal Government services, resources, or 
goods from which he or she derives a special benefit, at an amount 
sufficient for the Federal Government to recover the full costs of 
providing the service, resource, or good. See OMB Circular A-25, sec. 
6(a)(2)(a).
    We last promulgated our user fees for vessel documentation services 
on November 15, 1993 (58 FR 60256), found at 46 CFR part 67, subpart Y-
Fees. The fees reflect the Coast Guard's program costs for 1993. Since 
then, these costs have increased. The existing fees do not cover the 
operating and overhead costs associated with our vessel documentation 
and recording activities under 46 U.S.C. chapters 121 and 313. This 
rule proposes to update those fees.
    Specifically, this rule proposes to charge a separate annual fee 
for renewals of endorsements upon a Certificate of Documentation (COD). 
A COD is required for the operation of a vessel in certain trades, 
serves as evidence of vessel nationality, and permits a vessel to be 
subject to preferred mortgages. 46 CFR 67.1. The proposed COD renewal 
fee would more accurately reflect the Coast Guard's current operating 
and overhead costs associated with providing these discrete services. 
While we previously included the cost of providing annual COD renewals 
as part of its overhead costs, the fees collected in relation to these 
costs do not nearly cover our operating and overhead costs associated 
with providing annual COD renewal services. Therefore, the we to break 
out and separately charge an annual renewal fee (shown in Table 67.550-
Fees) to cover the cost of providing the required annual COD renewal 
services.
    The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2010 review of vessel documentation 
user charges, ``Vessel Documentation Biennial User Fee Review,'' is 
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public 
Participation and Request for Comments'' section in this preamble. The 
Biennial User Fee Review

[[Page 14055]]

recommended establishment of an annual fee for COD renewals. It also 
recommended establishment of a fee for resubmittals of requests for 
services such as applications, determinations, waivers, etc. We have 
elected not to pursue the latter recommendation at this time, but will 
consider this fee in future studies and possibly in future rulemaking 
actions.
    Presently, we charge several other fees associated with vessel 
documentation and we anticipate that further review (as required by OMB 
Circular Number A-25) of these fees and the cost of service will result 
in additional proposed adjustments to reflect changes in cost and 
provision of services. Any of these additional proposed adjustments 
would be the subject of a separate rulemaking.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Through this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would revise 46 CFR 
67.515 to provide for a $26 fee for annual renewals of endorsements 
upon the COD and to explain that the late fee, which is an existing 
fee, is in addition to the annual COD renewal fee. The proposed fee is 
less than the average annual fee charged by states for similar 
activities leading to vessel registration. Furthermore, the proposed 
fee is less than the annual fee for recreational vessels authorized by 
Congress for collection in 1993 and 1994. During those years, an annual 
fee for recreational vessels was instituted with fees ranging from $35 
to $100. See Public Law 102-582, Title V, Sec.  501(a), Nov. 2, 1992, 
106 Stat. 4909.
    We also propose removing and reserving paragraph (b) in 46 CFR 
67.500, because it states that there is no fee for annual renewal of 
endorsements upon the COD. Lastly, we propose to amend the fee table in 
46 CFR 67.550 to include the annual COD renewal fee.
    We propose the annual COD renewal fee to increase collections by 
the amounts authorized so that the fees we charge would more accurately 
reflect the actual costs to the Coast Guard of providing the annual COD 
renewal services. We estimate that this proposed fee would generate an 
additional $6.1 million annually. The additional collections generated 
through the annual COD renewal fee should offset the costs of providing 
these services.
    According to the Vessel Documentation Biennial User Fee Review, 
which can be found in the Docket for this rulemaking, the full cost of 
vessel documentation services for fiscal year 2009 was $11.3 million, 
while total fees collected totaled $5.3 million, as shown in Table 1. 
Fees are currently collected for 22 activities associated with vessel 
documentation that are listed in Table 67.550 of 46 CFR part 67. 
Currently, no separate fee is collected to cover the cost of processing 
annual COD renewals; that fee was included as overhead in other fees. 
The Biennial Review concluded that a minimal fee for annual COD 
renewals based on the full cost of providing that specific service 
would reliably decrease or eliminate the collections gap.

                                  Table 1--NVDC Costs and Fees Collected, 2009
                                                  [In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Renewal fees
                       Full cost                           Fees collected       collected          Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($11.30)...............................................             $5.30              $0.00            ($6.00)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, we conducted a comprehensive study to more accurately 
calculate the costs involved with the annual COD renewal process. Our 
``Full Cost Study for Renewal of Endorsements on Certificates of 
Documentation'' focuses on the cost of annual COD renewals, updates the 
cost figures, and includes costs for the additional activities required 
to process collections. The cost study is available in the docket where 
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' 
section in the preamble.
    The average number of annual renewals for 2006-2010 was 235,000. 
The renewals accounted for approximately 65,000 commercial and 200,000 
recreational vessels documented by the Coast Guard in 2010. Under this 
proposed rule, we anticipate that the cost for processing annual COD 
renewals and their associated fees would be approximately $6 million, 
as shown in Table 2. The full cost to provide the annual renewal 
service shown in Table 2 includes directly traced personnel costs 
calculated from timed activities, allocated personnel costs based on 
costs associated with personnel directly involved and in supporting 
roles, and other costs such as operating and administrative costs, 
facilities, and information systems costs.
    Since COD renewal and collection services are provided with enough 
frequency, a reliable estimate of the average time involved was 
calculated. Personnel cost is calculated based on an hourly rate that 
represents the cost per hour or part thereof per employee. The employee 
cost is based on hourly rates found in COMDTINST 7310.1M, Coast Guard 
Reimbursable Standard Rates, available at http://uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1M.PDF. The National Vessel Documentation Center 
(NVDC) anticipates that the method for collecting fees will be similar 
to the current process for late renewals, with some additional 
activities for processing the payment (collections) in accordance with 
U.S. law and federal guidance.\1\ The total annual cost to operate the 
NVDC annual COD renewal program and collect fees is approximately $6 
million; the proposed fee reflects this cost, and should close the 
current gap identified in the Biennial Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department of the Treasury publishes regulations and 
guidance for federal agency management of receipts (31 CFR part 206 
and the Treasury Financial Manual (www.fms.treas.gov/tfm/index.html)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the annual renewal fee, we divided the total annual 
costs associated with the renewal program by the average number of 
annual renewals. The directly traced personnel costs are for those 
activities that were included in a timed study. These activities 
represent a small, mostly automated portion of the full process. The 
allocated personnel costs are other direct and indirect personnel costs 
that could not be included in the time study due to complexity of 
activities. Some of this cost is based on additional steps necessary to 
process applications with payments, which, at least initially, will be 
a manual rather than automated process. Other costs are non-personnel 
operating and are also allocated costs. The allocated cost is based on 
a percent of standard personnel costs for positions based on relative 
volume of renewals produced. Table 2 shows these costs.

[[Page 14056]]



                                      Table 2--Cost Inputs for Renewal Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Average
                                                                                     number of       Cost per
                                                                    Total cost     renewals  per      renewal
                                                                                       year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly traced Personnel Costs.................................      $2,044,500         235,000           $8.70
Allocated Personnel Costs.......................................       1,695,799         235,000            7.21
Other Costs.....................................................       2,157,209         235,000            9.17
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       5,898,508         235,000           25.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These numbers may not total due to rounding.

    This total cost to the Coast Guard is shown by the following 
equation: the total cost divided by the average number of renewals 
($5,898,508/235,000 CODs = $25.08/COD), which results in an annual 
renewal fee of $25.08, which is rounded up to the next dollar, $26. 
This allows us to recover the full cost of providing this service.
    When formulating this proposal, we also considered an alternate 
methodology to calculate the annual COD renewal fee. This alternative 
fee was derived from taking the average of the fees charged by each 
state on an annual basis. The average fee, on an annual basis, for the 
50 states and the District of Columbia is approximately $42. This 
average, multiplied by the number of annual renewals, yields a value of 
approximately $10 million. Since the annual collections under this 
methodology would exceed the cost of providing the service, and full 
cost results provided a more reasonable fee, we rejected this 
alternative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our 
analyses based on 14 of 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 both 
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of 
promoting flexibility. Two additional executive orders were recently 
published to promote the goals of Executive Order 13563: Executive 
Orders 13609 (``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'') and 
13610 (``Indentifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens''). Executive 
Order 13609 targets international regulatory cooperation to reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements. Executive Order 13610 aims to modernize the regulatory 
systems and to reduce unjustified regulatory burdens and costs on the 
public.
    Initially, this proposed rule had been designated a ``significant 
regulatory action,'' although not economically significant, under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM was 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. However, upon review, 
the Office of Managagement and Budget determined that this NPRM is not 
a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' as supplemented by Executive 
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' and does 
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 
6(a)(3) of that Order. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the 
costs and benefits of the proposed rule to ascertain its probable 
impacts on industry.
    The cost outlined in this proposed rule would represent a transfer 
payment from the public to the government to offset the costs to the 
U.S. Coast Guard to provide COD renewal services. The following table 
summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposed rule.

            Table 3--Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                       Estimate (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Costs (Transfer Payments)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Costs (undiscounted     $6.1
 rounded values).
10-year Present Value Monetized Costs    42.9
 (rounded values, 7% discount rate,
 discounting begins in first year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Qualitative Benefits...................  This proposal would allow the
                                          Federal Government to recoup
                                          its costs for administering
                                          COD renewals, enabling the
                                          Coast Guard to continue
                                          offering these services to the
                                          public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, this proposed rule would require an annual 
renewal fee for all endorsements on the CODs. This fee, which is based 
on the costs that the Federal Government currently incurs to process 
renewals, along with additional costs due to increased need in labor 
and capital costs, would cost each vessel owner $26 per renewal.
    The renewal fee that would be charged to the public under this 
proposed rule is based on the full cost to the Federal Government to 
provide this service. The renewal fee would

[[Page 14057]]

allow the Federal Government to recoup those costs. The purpose of the 
renewal fee is to ensure that this service is self-sustaining. As such, 
the renewal fee would be determined by dividing the full, annual cost 
of providing the service by the average number of renewals over the 
past 5 years. The full, annual cost of providing this service includes 
all current costs, such as labor, capital, and overhead, plus 
additional labor and capital costs that will be required to process the 
additional fees collected. The following figure summarizes the annual 
cost estimate of the proposed rule. See the ``Discussion of Proposed 
Rule'' section and Table 2 for more detail on the data used for this 
estimate.

Figure 1. Total Annual Costs (Undiscounted)

Total Annual Proposed Cost = Renewal Fee x Average Number of Annual 
Renewals = $6.1 Million = $26 x 235,000 renewals.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Value may not total due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefit of this proposed rule is to allow the Federal 
Government to recoup its costs for administering COD renewals, enabling 
the Coast Guard to continue offering these services to the public.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    For this proposed rule, we reviewed size and ownership data of 
affected entities by using data provided by the NVDC and public and 
proprietary data sources for company revenue and employee size data. We 
determined that there are approximately 18,164 entities owning 65,534 
commercial vessels that would be impacted by this proposed rule.\3\ 
These entities include businesses and government jurisdictions. The 
remaining vessel population is comprised of recreational vessels that 
are not included in this initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
because these vessels are owned by individuals and individuals are not 
considered to be small entities for the purpose of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Data provided by the National Vessel Documentation Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To conduct our analysis, we chose a random sample of 400 affected 
entities.\4\ We were able to find revenue or employee size data for 88 
of these entities using Web sites, such as MANTA and ReferenceUSA. This 
included 83 businesses and five government jurisdictions. We did not 
find any small not-for-profit organizations that are independently 
owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A sample size of 400 provides a 95 percent confidence level 
at a confidence interval of 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the size of the 83 businesses with available revenue 
or employee size data, we used the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes to identify the line of business 
for the entities in our sample and compared the data found to the small 
business size standards determined by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).\5\ Of the entities with data, 70 are considered small by SBA 
size standards and 13 exceeded SBA size standards for small businesses. 
We also assume that those entities without data available are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ SBA has established a Table of Small Business Size 
Standards, which is matched to the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) industries. A size standard, which is 
usually stated in number of employees or average annual receipts 
(``revenues''), represents the largest size that a business 
(including its subsidiaries and affiliates) may be to remain 
classified as a small business for SBA and Federal contracting 
programs. See http://www.sba.gov/size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the size of the five affected government 
jurisdictions, we used the definition from the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act Sec.  601(5), which classifies small government jurisdictions as 
jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. Of the five 
government jurisdictions, one has a population of less than 50,000, and 
would therefore be considered small.
    As such, we estimate that more than 95 percent of all entities that 
would be affected by this proposed rule are small entities. We do not 
anticipate a significant economic impact to these small entities as a 
result of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would require that all 
entities renewing the endorsements on their COD pay an annual renewal 
fee of $26 per documented vessel. This proposed rule impacts a diverse 
set of industry sectors with a wide range of fleet sizes and revenues. 
Table 4 provides example data for three affected small businesses that 
represent the upper, lower, and median values for revenue, fleet size, 
and cost found within the sample population. Our research shows that 
those entities with the largest fleets, as thus a greater incurred 
cost, also have the highest reported revenue in our sample.

               Table 4--Example Revenue, Vessel Count, and Cost for Three Affected Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Small entity                                      Small entity
               Category                   representing lower          Small entity          representing upper
                                                bound             representing median             bound
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue per Entity...................  $15,000................  $336,000...............  $12,000,000*
Vessel Count.........................  1......................  2......................  6.
Costs per Entity.....................  $26....................  $52....................  $156.
Percent Impact of Renewal Fees on      Less than 0.2%.........  Less than 0.02%........  Approximately 0.0013%.
 Revenues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The small entity with this revenue is classified under NAICS 336611, Ship Building and Repairing, and has
  an SBA size standard of 1,000 employees. This means entities in this industry with 1,000 or fewer employees
  would be considered small. This entity has 54 employees and was determined small even though its annual
  revenues are $12 million.

    By multiplying the renewal fee by the number of documented vessels 
owned by each entity analyzed from our sample, we were able to 
calculate the cost per entity from this proposed rule. We then used 
that cost to determine a percentage of revenue impact on the entity by 
dividing the total cost per entity by the revenue. This analysis showed 
that the impact from this proposed rule would be less than 1 percent of 
annual revenue for small businesses in the sample.
    The one small government jurisdiction in our sample operated three 
vessels that would require COD renewals for a total of $78 in annual 
COD renewal fees. Given that the cost to this small government 
jurisdiction is only $78, we expect this proposed rule would not cause 
a significant economic impact.

[[Page 14058]]

    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, 
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, 
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it 
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically 
affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mary Jager, CG-
DCO-832, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1331, email 
[email protected]. 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.

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on state or local 
governments and would either preempt state law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    To determine whether the proposed rule would have an impact on any 
Indian tribal governments, we queried Marine Safety Information Law 
Enforcement (MISLE) to obtain a list of vessels potentially owned by 
Indian tribes. We discovered that there are approximately six different 
tribes with nine vessels that are documented. There are a very small 
number of vessels per tribe and we do not believe that the proposed 
rule would have a substantial impact on any of the tribes. 
Consequently, we have initially determined that this proposed rule does 
not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation 
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes.
    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American 
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal 
Governments to develop rules and to mitigate tribal concerns. Indian 
Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this proposed 
rule or believe that our initial determination is incorrect are 
encouraged to submit information to the docket for review and 
consideration.

K. Energy Effects

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

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category 
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis 
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket 
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' section of this preamble. This proposed rule involves a new 
annual fee for renewals of endorsements upon the COD and falls under 
paragraph 34(a) of the Coast Guard's NEPA Implementing Procedures and 
Policy for Considering

[[Page 14059]]

Environmental Impacts, COMDTINST M16475.1D. We seek any comments or 
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 67

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 46 CFR part 67 as follows:

PART 67--DOCUMENTATION OF VESSELS

0
1. The authority citation for 46 CFR part 67 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 664; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 9118; 46 
U.S.C. 2103, 2107, 2110, 12106, 12120, 12122; 46 U.S.C. app. 841a, 
876; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.


Sec.  67.500  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  67.500, remove and reserve paragraph (b).
0
3. Revise Sec.  67.515 to read as follows:


Sec.  67.515  Application for renewal of endorsements.

    An application fee is charged for annual renewal of endorsements on 
Certificates of Documentation in accordance with subpart L of this 
part.
0
4. Revise Sec.  67.517 to read as follows:


Sec.  67.517  Application for late renewal.

    In addition to any other fees required by this subpart, including a 
renewal fee, a fee is charged for a late renewal in accordance with 
subpart L of this part.
0
5. Revise Table 67.550 to read as follows:


Sec.  67.550  Fee table.

* * * * *

                           Table 67.550--Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Activity                     Reference                Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications:
    Initial Certificate of    Subpart K.................         $133.00
     Documentation.
    Exchange of Certificate   do........................           84.00
     of Documentation.
    Return of vessel to       do........................           84.00
     documentation.
    Replacement of lost or    do........................           50.00
     mutilated Certificate
     of Documentation.
    Approval of exchange of   do........................           24.00
     Certificate of
     Documentation requiring
     mortgagee consent.
    Trade endorsement(s):
        Coastwise             Subpart B.................           29.00
         endorsement.
        Coastwise Boaters     46 CFR part 68............           29.00
         endorsement.
        Fishery endorsement.  do........................           12.00
        Registry endorsement  do........................            none
        Recreational          do........................            none
         endorsement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: When multiple trade endorsements are requested on the same
 application, the single highest applicable endorsement fee will be
 charged, resulting in a maximum endorsement fee of $29.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Evidence of deletion      Subpart L.................           15.00
     from documentation.
    Renewal fee.............  do........................           26.00
    Late renewal fee........  do........................        \3\ 5.00
Waivers:
    Original build evidence.  Subpart F.................           15.00
    Bill of sale eligible     Subpart E.................           15.00
     for filing and
     recording.
Miscellaneous applications:
    Wrecked vessel            Subpart J.................          555.00
     determination.
    New vessel determination  Subpart M.................          166.00
    Rebuild determination--   do........................          450.00
     preliminary or final.
Filing and recording:
    Bills of sale and         Subpart P.................        \1\ 8.00
     instruments in nature
     of bills of sale.
    Mortgages and related     Subpart Q.................        \1\ 4.00
     instruments.
    Notice of claim of lien   Subpart R.................        \1\ 8.00
     and related instruments.
Certificate of compliance:
    Certificate of            46 CFR part 68............           55.00
     compliance.
Miscellaneous:
    Abstract of Title.......  Subpart T.................           25.00
    Certificate of ownership  do........................          125.00
        Attachment for each   do........................           10.00
         additional vessel
         with same ownership
         and encumbrance
         data.
    Copy of instrument or     (\2\).....................           (\2\)
     document.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per page.
\2\ Fees will be calculated in accordance with 6 CFR Part 5, Subpart A.
\3\ Late renewal fee is in addition to the $26.00 renewal fee.



[[Page 14060]]

    Dated: February 21, 2013.
Paul F. Thomas,
Director of Inspections and Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-04866 Filed 3-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P