b'Historically, weve requests are routed to CG-CVC through the OCMI, but FOGHORN FOCUS unlike special consideration authorities, a single exemption observed a substantialapproval may be applicable across multiple OCMI operat-spike in plan review ing zones. submittals between MSC PLAN REVIEW PROCESSThe first step in any vessel construction, repair, or modifi-early February and latecation is to notify the OCMI. In the case of new construc-tion projects, the notification should be provided via an May as operators prepareApplication for Inspection, Form CG-3752. The OCMI works with the vessel representatives to determine which for their busy summer plans need to be submitted for review and whether the plans can be reviewed locally or if they should be submit-seasons. If operations ted to the MSC. Potentially required plans are listed in 46 CFR 116.202 and 46 CFR 177.202, and once directed by allow, submitting plansthe OCMI, should be submitted to the MSC by email to MSC@uscg.mil. Additionally, Marine Technical Note 01-outside this busy 03 Change 2, Guidance on Submitting T-Boat Plans to the Marine Safety Center, elaborates upon required plans for window may yield Subchapter T vessels and provides a convenient checklist expedited responses. for increased clarity for all involved parties. Submitters can typically expect to receive a response with-in 30 calendar days; however, equivalency requests, com-plex designs, and novel applications can take substantially construction of ships and shipboard equipment. In caseslonger because the staff must conduct research to evaluate where the MSC does not have authority to grant equiv- the proposal. Plans submitted by a professional engineer alencies,CG-ENGhastheauthoritytoconsiderandunder NVIC 10-92 Change 2, Coast Guard Recognition approve equivalencies. For a novel vessel design, this mayof Registered Professional Engineer Certification of Com-include a Design Basis Agreement (DBA), which establish- pliance with Coast Guard Requirements, may receive a es a regulatory framework for design requirements wherereduced scope of review, and thus typically receive a re-standard regulatory frameworks would not appropriatelysponse within 14 days. If you are submitting plans under address safety concerns. DBAs often leverage pre-existingNVIC 10-92 please ensure that is clearly indicated in the regulations, guidance, and codes which would otherwisesubmission email.not be applicable to the vessel.While the MSC aims to provide a response within 30 days, CG-CVC:Develops and promulgates policies and stan- plans that do not demonstrate compliance with applicable dards regarding inspection, enforcement, and operationalregulations will be returned for revision and will need to aspects of maritime safety and security. CG-CVC main- be corrected and resubmitted. When planning vessel mod-tains authority to grant exemptions to a specific regulationifications, it is important to allocate sufficient plan review based on unusual vessel-specific circumstances or arrange- time to avoid potential construction delays or impacts on ments. Mitigating measures are typically employed to re- commercial operations. Multiple resubmissions are often duce the consequences of noncompliance, but potentiallynecessary to correct or clarify original submittals, especial-to a lesser threshold than would be expected to demonstrately for first-time or infrequent submitters. These resubmis-an equivalent level of safety as the practicality of imple- sions can significantly extend the overall project approval menting the requirement may be considered. Exemptiontimeframe. We strongly recommend using the Plan Review FOGHORN 12'