[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19515]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 171
[CGD 94-010]
RIN 2115-AE75
Standards for Damage Stability of New Domestic Passenger Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comments; notice
of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the rules, on standards for
damage stability, that it adopted on December 10, 1992. Amended rules
are necessary to relieve certain vessels of an unforeseen regulatory
burden. The amended rules proposed here would relieve those vessels of
that burden and yet minimize the potential for capsizing and other
casualties caused by inadequate damage stability.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 11, 1994. A
public hearing will be held from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. on September 30,
1994. More information about this public hearing is available from the
person identified in for further information contact.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA, 3406) [CGD 94-010], Coast Guard Headquarters,
2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or delivered to room
3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-
1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia L. Carrigan, Marine Technical
and Hazardous Materials Division (G-MTH-3), room 1308, Coast Guard
Headquarters, telephone: (202) 267-2988, telfax: (202) 267-4816.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request For Data, Views, and Arguments
This notice encourages the submission of comments on the proposed
changes to 46 CFR 171.080(e). It is the Coast Guard's goal to implement
regulations that will best address both the safety, and the operational
needs, of all vessels. All new domestic passenger vessels, as defined
in 46 CFR 171.045, must now meet the standards for damage stability in
46 CFR 171.080(e). These standards were based on one developed by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) for any passenger vessel
allowed to carry 12 or more passengers on an international voyage
(under a ``SOLAS Passenger Ship Certificate''). The Coast Guard again
seeks advice from owners and operators of vessels, naval architects,
shipyards, its own inspectors, classification societies' inspectors,
consumers, crews of vessels, and others involved in affected vessels'
compliance with Sec. 171.080(e), either as it stands or as this
proposed rule would amend it. Interested persons are invited and
encouraged to participate by submitting written data, views, and
arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses, identify this notice [CGD 94-010], identify the specific
paragraph of the section to which each comment applies, and include
supporting documents or sufficient detail to indicate the reason for
each comment. The Coast Guard will acknowledge receipt of comments if a
stamped, self-addressed post card or envelope is enclosed with the
comments.
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in the drafting of this final rule
are Patricia L. Carrigan, Project Manager, Office of Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection and Patrick J. Murray, Project
Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Background and Purpose
Regulatory History
On February 13, 1990, the Coast Guard published [55 FR 5120] a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Stability Design and
Operational Regulations. During the 60-day comment period, the Coast
Guard received 28 letters. Only 2 of the 28 included comments on the
standards for damage stability of new domestic passenger vessels in the
proposed rule.
On September 11, 1992, the Coast Guard published [57 FR 41812] a
final rule, also entitled Stability Design and Operational Regulations.
This adopted standards from the proposed rule.
On December 10, 1992, the final rule went into effect. Soon
afterward, the Coast Guard received inquiries on the appropriateness of
the standards, now in 46 CFR 171.808(e), for certain new domestic
passenger vessels.
On July 7, 1993, the Coast Guard published [58 FR 36374] a notice
to announce a public meeting on August 5, 1993. This meeting was to
discuss what problems were being encountered in complying with the
standards and what measures might be appropriate.
On August 5, 1993, at the public meeting, discussions occurred on
the application of the standards to certain new domestic passenger
vessels, especially those operating in protected and partially-
protected waters. Comments indicated that some designers were
encountering unexpected difficulties.
The Coast Guard believes that compliance with the current standards
is feasible, and achievable with minimal changes in design. But it also
believes that it can relax those standards on certain waters without
unreasonably degrading safety.
On August 27, 1993, therefore, in response to requests that it
reconsider the standards to apply on certain waters, the Coast Guard
published [58 FR 45264] a notice temporarily suspending
Sec. 171.080(e), for all vessels without SOLAS Passenger Ship
Certificates, and reopening the comment period for 90 days. The delay
would also allow further research by the Coast Guard into the
application of the standard to new domestic passenger vessels.
On February 25, 1994, in response to the comments received, the
Coast Guard both published a notice of intent to issue this NPRM and
indefinitely extended the temporary suspension of Sec. 171.080(e), for
all vessels without SOLAS Passenger Ship Certificates [59 FR 9099].
Reasons for Reconsidering Standards for Damage Stability
Even as recently as February 13, 1990, the sudden growth in the
number of excursion vessels and gambling vessels on protected and
partially-protected waters, especially western rivers, was unforeseen.
By December 10, 1992, therefore, when the current standards came into
effect, further research and investigation of the impact of the
standards on these vessels had become necessary.
The Coast Guard extended its work with the Volpe Transportation
Systems Center of the Department of Transportation to examine at least
six more vessels as we had examined a number earlier in the regulatory
process. The six vessels so far submitted for examination ply mainly
protected and partially-protected waters; they include gambling
vessels, a type not examined closely in the earlier study. A detailed
analysis of the failures, design changes and economic impact will be
available in the regulatory docket when the study concludes.
Comments on Final Rule of December 10, 1992
Comments on Final Rule in General
Nine comments conceded that some degree of after-damage stability
is needed. Three comments maintained that the current regulations aim
at ensuring ``total survivability'' rather than a reasonable degree of
safety. Three comments urged that the regulations should not be relaxed
without more evidence that relaxing them is necessary, and even then
not without following the correct legal procedure. Two comments stated
that suspending a regulation already in effect 6 months was unlawful;
they stated further that no balance was achieved in this suspension,
that the suspension favored purely shipyards, owners and operators, and
naval architects, and that no response had arrived from passengers,
crews, or insurance underwriters. One comment, further, stated that 3
years had been necessary to accomplish the regulation, 1\1/2\ months to
emasculate it.
One comment stated that, far from needing a relaxed standard,
vessels on inland rivers might need a standard more stringent than that
of SOLAS. Inland rivers face many dangers not considered in the
development of international standards, including treacherous currents
and heavy traffic. New standards for vessels on these rivers should
actually increase residual buoyancy and reduce heel and trim to
facilitate evacuation.
Two comments questioned the use of the standard from SOLAS for
coastwise domestic routes as well as inland routes. Two more questioned
its use for any domestic route, even for exposed waters.
Response to Comments on Final Rule in General
The Coast Guard agrees that passenger safety is its primary concern
and that the old standards for damage stability were grossly
inadequate. The Coast Guard disagrees that the current standards aim
at, let alone ensure, ``total survivability.'' However, the Coast Guard
is bound to consider seriously the input received from the industry,
and to determine whether these standards are having a greater impact
than intended. The Coast Guard has invited and will continue to invite
comment on these standards from all interested parties, observing that
it cannot force those sectors of the industry not heard from to develop
a position on these standards. However, in everyone's interest, the
Coast Guard makes safety its primary concern in all standards for
vessel design. The Coast Guard followed proper legal procedures in the
suspension of these standards.
The Coast Guard agrees that smaller vessels, with fewer passengers,
should receive less burdensome treatment. However, where these vessels
venture into exposed waters, the hazard to them is much greater than to
large ones.
Responding to reasoned comments, the Coast Guard considers the best
approach one that applies standards in tiers: full rigor for craft most
vulnerable (for whatever reason, including exposure of waters), less
rigor for those less vulnerable. This approach has determined the shape
of this proposed rule.
Comments on Final Rule Citing Particular Provisions
1. Current Secs. 171.080(e)(1) and (e)(2)
Seven comments stated that the standard of a 15 degree range of
stability in paragraph (e)(1) is unreasonable for wide-beam vessels and
should be deleted if the area standard is met. One comment suggested
that the range be limited to the angle developed from application of
wind heel in Sec. 170.070.
Seven comments found paragraph (e)(2) completely unreasonable in
its treatment of watertight closures. Four comments stated that
weathertight closures should not be considered points of flooding in
damage stability.
2. Current Sec. 171.080(e)(3)
Four comments found paragraph (e)(3) to be reasonable.
3. Current Sec. 171.080(e)(4)(i)
One comment stated that there should be no standard for passenger
heeling moment, because its author's vessels operate close to shore and
have crews trained in passenger control to avoid extreme heeling
moments. Four comments stated that the standard of a 0.10 meter
righting arm for passenger heeling moment seemed reasonable. Five
comments stated that the standard for passenger heeling moment should
be limited to that for intact stability in Sec. 171.050. One comment
stated that standards for passenger heeling moments are necessary even
for inland waters. One comment stated that the standard for residual
passenger heeling moment exceeds those for intact wind heeling moment
and intact passenger heeling moment. One comment cited a 150-passenger
aluminum ``T-boat'' (small passenger vessel) built in 1988 as a sample
of a typical vessel that cannot comply with the standard for passenger
heeling moment. One comment stated that, of the vessels examined that
met the old damage stability standard easily, four had flooded decks
trying to meet the current one for passenger heeling moment.
4. Current Sec. 171.080(e)(4)(iii)
One comment suggested that we delete the standard for lifeboat
heeling moment since no ``T-boat'' has davit-launched lifeboats.
Response to Comments on Final Rule Citing Particular Provisions
It is unacceptable for standards (whether governing design or
operation) to assume that all vessels will stay close to shore or that
the crew will, in all situations, be able to control passengers so as
to avoid extreme heeling moments. However, a tiered approach, based on
route, will give these factors some weight. Again, equivalency between
standards for intact stability and those for damage stability is not
the goal. Those for intact stability must ensure sufficient stability
in all intact conditions of operation, while those for damage stability
must ensure sufficient stability to keep the vessel afloat and allow
time for safe evacuation of the passengers in all required cases of
damage or inadvertent flooding. The putative 1988-built vessel was not
available to examine for compliance with the standards as, contrary to
the comment, it was never built; the only class of vessels it typifies
is a class of vessels never built. Regardless, the fact that existing
vessels cannot meet a new design standard does not in any way justify
continuing to build new vessels to an old design standard that is
grossly inadequate when a new standard can be easily incorporated into
the design of new vessels. Most ``T-boats'' do not have lifeboats; but
one existing domestic passenger vessel does have davit-launched
lifeboats, and these regulations must consider all possible
eventualities.
Discussion of Major Changes Proposed Here
The changes would incorporate a tiered approach to standards for
damage stability, an approach based on a vessel's route. They would
establish three categories: exposed waters, partially-protected, and
protected. Definitions for these terms appear in Sec. 170.050. On
exposed waters, where a vessel could encounter the greatest force from
wind and waves, the most severe standard would apply. On partially-
protected and protected waters, less rigorous standards would apply.
This tiered approach would be manifest in two specific parts of the
standard: in the range of positive stability beyond the damaged
equilibrium angle that a vessel must attain and in the righting arm
value that the vessel must attain.
A vessel on exposed waters would have to attain a range of positive
stability beyond the damaged equilibrium angle of 15 degrees; on
partially-protected waters, of 10 degrees; and, on protected waters, of
5 degrees. A vessel on partially-protected waters would have to attain
a righting arm value of two-thirds of that for a vessel on exposed
waters; and a vessel on protected waters, one of one-third of that for
a vessel on exposed waters. The proposed rule would clarify what
constitutes a new vessel. It would delete part of current
Sec. 171.080(e)(2). The opening paragraph of new Sec. 171.080(f) now
addresses downflooding and defines the use of weathertight and
watertight openings. Paragraphs (4)(i) and (ii) of new Sec. 171.080(f)
now clarify placement of passengers for calculating heeling moments
involving passengers.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule would not be a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 on Federal Regulation and would not be
significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation [DOT Order 2100.5 (May 22, 1980)]. It has
not been reviewed under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, a Regulatory
Evaluation is available in the docket for inspection or copying where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
The marine industry would incur an estimated annual benefit of
$250,000 as a result of this proposed rule. There is no cost associated
with this rule, which would reduce the number of vessels affected by
current standards.
Small Entities
The Coast Guard has determined that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under Sec. 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not increase the paperwork burden on the
public. The only paperwork involves ship design calculations used in
the development of stability information, but this information is
already subject to review by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 170.110. The
Coast Guard previously submitted the requirements regarding its
collection of this information, developed from these and other
calculations, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.], and the OMB
approved them. The applicable control numbers from OMB are 2115-0095,
2115-0114, 2115-0130, and 2115-0131.
For further information, write or call the Information Requirements
Division, M-34, Officer of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20593, (202) 366-4735.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and has
determined that the rule would not have sufficient implications for
federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This proposed rule would establish standards for damage stability
of new domestic passenger vessels. The authority to establish these
standards in all navigable waters of the United States is committed to
the Coast Guard by Federal statutes. Furthermore, since passenger
vessels tend to move from port to port in the national and
international marketplace, standards for them should be of at least
national scope to avoid unreasonably burdensome variances. Therefore,
the Coast Guard intends this rule to preempt State action addressing
these standards.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
proposed rule and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.c of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. This rule would require a minimal standard
for damage stability of new domestic passenger vessels. It would not
govern how potential pollutants or hazardous materials are carried on
board these vessels, though stabler vessels should reduce the number of
uncontrolled releases of pollutants or hazardous materials into the
environment. It does not result in any--
1. Significant cumulative impacts on the human environment;
2. Substantial controversy or substantial change to existing
environmental conditions;
3. Impacts more than minimal on properties protected under sub-
Sec. 4(f) of the DOT Act as superseded by Public Law 97-449, or
under Sec. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or
4. Inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local laws or
administrative determinations relating to the environment.
A Determination of Categorical Exclusion is available in the
docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 171
Marine Safety, Passenger vessels.
For the reasons set out in this preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend Title 46, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 171--SPECIAL RULES PERTAINING TO VESSELS CARRYING PASSENGERS
1. The citation of authority for Part 171 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. In Sec. 171.080, paragraph (f) is redesignated as paragraph (h),
paragraphs (d) through (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (e) through
(f), new paragraphs (d) and (g) are added, and newly designated
paragraphs (e) and (f) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 171.080 Damage stability standards for vessels with Type I or
Type II subdivision.
* * * * *
(d) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraphs (e) and (f), the
following definitions apply:
(1) New vessel means a vessel--
(i) For which a building contract is placed on or after [Insert
date 90 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.];
(ii) In the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is
laid, or which is at a similar stage of construction, on or after
[Insert date 90 days after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.];
(iii) The delivery of which occurs on or after January 1, 1997;
(iv) For which application for reflagging is made on or after
January 1, 1997; or
(v) That has undergone a major conversion--
(A) For which the conversion contract is placed on or after [Insert
date 90 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.]
(B) In the absence of a conversion contract, the conversion of
which is begun on or after [Insert date 90 days after date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.]; or
(C) That is completed on or after January 1, 1997.
(2) Existing vessel means other than a new vessel.
(e) Damage survival for all existing vessels except those vessels
authorized to carry more than 12 passengers on an international voyage.
An existing vessel is presumed to survive assumed damage if it meets
the following conditions in the final stage of flooding:
* * * * *
(f) Damage survival for all new vessels except those vessels
authorized to carry more than 12 passengers on an international voyage.
A new vessel is presumed to survive assumed damage if it is shown by
calculations to meet the conditions set forth in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (f)(6) of this section in the final stage of flooding and to
meet the conditions set forth in paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of this
section in each earlier stage of flooding. For the purposes of
establishing boundaries to determine compliance with the requirements
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(8), openings that are fitted with
weathertight closures and that are not submerged during any stage of
flooding will not be considered as downflooding points.
(1) Each vessel must have positive righting arms for a minimum
range beyond the angle of equilibrium as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel service Required range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposed waters, oceans, or Great Lakes winter......... 15 degrees.
Partially-protected waters or Great Lakes summer...... 10 degrees.
Protected waters...................................... 5 degrees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Each vessel must not have any opening through which
downflooding can occur within the minimum range specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section.
(3) Each vessel must have an area under each righting arm curve of
at least 0.015 meter-radians, measured from the angle of equilibrium to
the smaller of the following angles:
(i) The angle at which downflooding occurs; or
(ii) The angle of vanishing stability.
(4) Each vessel must have within the positive range a righting arm
(GZ) equal to or greater than the GZ as calculated below:
TP10AU94.051
Where--
C=1.00 for vessels on exposed waters, oceans, or Great Lakes winter
C=0.75 for vessels on partially-protected waters or Great Lakes summer
C=0.50 for vessels on protected waters
GZ=0.10 meter or as calculated by the formula above, whichever is
greater.
=intact displacement
Heeling moment=greatest of the heeling moments as calculated in
paragraphs (i) through (iv) below.
(i) The passenger heeling moment is calculated assuming--
(A) Each passenger weights 75 kilograms;
(B) Each passenger occupies 0.25 square meter of deck area; and
(C) All passengers are distributed, on available deck areas
unoccupied by permanently affixed objects, toward one side of the
vessel on the decks where passengers would move to enter lifesaving
equipment or leave the vessel in case of flooding, and so that they
produce the most adverse heeling moment.
(ii) The heeling moment due to asymmetric escape routes for
passengers, if the vessel has asymmetric escape routes for passengers,
is calculated assuming--
(A) Each passenger weighs 75 kilograms;
(B) Each passenger occupies 0.25 square meter of deck area; and
(C) All passengers are distributed, on available deck areas
unoccupied by permanently affixed objects, toward one side of the
vessel on the decks where passengers would move to enter lifesaving
equipment or leave the vessel in case of flooding, and so that they
produce the most adverse heeling moment.
(iii) The heeling moment due to launching of survival craft is
calculated assuming--
(A) All survival craft, including davit-launched liferafts and
rescue boats, fitted on the side to which the vessel heels after
sustained damage, are swung out if necessary, fully loaded and ready
for lowering;
(B) Persons not in the survival craft that are swung out and ready
for lowering are distributed about the center line of the vessel so
that they do not provide additional heeling or righting moments; and
(C) Survival craft on the side of the vessel opposite that to which
the vessel heels remain stowed.
(iv) The heeling moment due to wind pressure is calculated
assuming--
(A) A wind pressure of 120 Newtons per square meter;
(B) The wind acts on an area equal to the projected lateral area of
the vessel above the waterline corresponding to the intact condition;
and
(C) The wind lever arm is the vertical distance from a point at
one-half the mean draft, or the center of area below the waterline, to
the center of the lateral area.
(5) Each vessel must have an angle of equilibrium that does not
exceed--
(i) 7 degrees for one compartment flooding;
(ii) 12 degrees for two compartment flooding; or
(iii) 15 degrees for one or two compartment flooding where--
(A) The vessel has an area under each righting arm curve, when the
equilibrium angle is between 7 degrees and 15 degrees, of at least
0.035 meter-radians, measured from the angle of equilibrium to the
smaller of the angle at which downflooding occurs or the angle of
vanishing stability; and
(B) The vessel has positive righting arms for at least 20 degrees
beyond the angle of equilibrium.
(6) The margin line of the vessel must not be submerged when the
vessel is in the equilibrium condition.
(7) Each vessel must have a maximum angle of equilibrium that does
not exceed 15 degrees during each earlier stage of flooding.
(8) Each vessel must have a maximum righting arm of at least 0.05
meter and positive righting arms for a range of at least 7 degrees
during each earlier stage of flooding. Only one breach in the hull and
only one free surface need be assumed when meeting the requirements of
this paragraph.
(g) Damage survival for vessels authorized to carry more than 12
passengers on an international voyage. A vessel is presumed to survive
assumed damage if it is shown by design calculations to comply with the
damage stability required for that ship by the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended, chapter II-1, part B,
regulation 8.
* * * * *
Dated: August 3, 1994.
Joseph J. Angelo,
Acting Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 94-19515 Filed 8-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
