[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53710-53714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25711]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending 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 will relieve those vessels of that burden and
yet reduce the potential for capsizing and other casualties caused by
inadequate damage stability.
DATE: This rule is effective on April 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA, 3406), U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC
20593-0001, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LCDR Robert Holzman, Marine Technical and Hazardous Materials Division
(G-MTH-3), room 1308, Coast Guard Headquarters; telephone (202) 267-
2988, telefax (202) 267-4816.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Drafting Information: The principal persons involved in the
drafting of this final rule are LCDR Robert Holzman, Project
Manager, Office of Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental
Protection, and Patrick 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.
[[Page 53711]]
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--then in 46 CFR 171.080 (e), now in (f)--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 if any problems were being encountered in complying with
the standards and what if any 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
degrading safety. This is consistent with the Coast Guard's goal of
eliminating any differential induced by the Coast Guard between
requirements that apply to U.S. vessels in international trade and
those that apply to similar vessels in international trade that fly the
flags of responsible foreign nations.
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 standards to new domestic passenger vessels.
On February 25, 1994, in response to the comments received, the
Coast Guard published [59 FR 9099] a notice of intent to issue an NPRM
and in definitely extended the temporary suspension of Sec. 171.080(e),
for all vessels without SOLAS Passenger Ship Certificates.
On August 10, 1994, the Coast Guard published [59 FR 40855] a
second NPRM, with a request for comments and a notice of a public
hearing, entitled Standards for Damage Stability of New Domestic
Passenger Vessels. On September 30, 1994, the first public hearing
occurred. During the 60-day comment period, the Coast Guard received
one letter, which sought both a longer comment period and a second
public hearing. The Coast Guard granted both requests.
On November 4, 1994, the Coast Guard published [59 FR 55232] a
notice announcing the second public hearing and reopening the comment
period. On December 1, 1994, the second public hearing occurred. During
the 120-day comment period, the Coast Guard received 14 more letters
for a total of 15.
Fourteen persons attended the first public hearing, where five of
them delivered spoken comments. Four persons attended the second public
hearing, where none of them delivered spoken comments.
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 into 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 (``Volpe Center'')
to examine at least six more vessels as we had examined a number
earlier in the regulatory process. The six vessels submitted for
examination ply mainly protected and partially-protected waters; they
include gambling vessels, a type not examined closely in the earlier
study. The Coast Guard released a detailed analysis of the failures,
design changes, and economic impact in September 1994, and a copy is
available in the regulatory docket.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard considered both written and spoken comments in the
development of this final rule. There were 15 written comments
submitted to the docket, and there were spoken comments from 5 people
at the two public hearings.
Two commenters asked for an increase in the grace period for this
rule, to protect designs currently on the drawing board. The standards
in this rule have been before the public, with every prospect of
getting adopted, for more than four years; this is generally more than
enough time for prudent designers to integrate them into new designs.
However, because they have changed over those four years, the Coast
Guard here doubles the grace period from three months after publication
to six months.
Two commenters still had some concern with clarifying the
definitions of watertight and weathertight for use under this rule. As
a result, the Coast Guard clarified them in new 46 CFR 171.080(d) (3)
and (4). These definitions are consistent with current policy and
rules.
Another commenter asked that vessels unable, because of the shallow
depth of their operating areas, to sink or capsize be exempted from
these standards. The Coast Guard generally agrees, but this type of
allowance is the proper business of an equivalency ruling by the Coast
Guard Marine Safety Center that will consider the particular features
of every vessel.
One commenter said he did not like the designation, by rule, of
areas as protected, partially-protected, and exposed, which is
generally a matter for the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI).
He stated that, since these designations can vary between ports, he
would have to consult the OCMI ahead of the design to determine which
areas the vessel would be plying. The Coast Guard agrees that the
definitions of areas can vary from port to port. However, with his or
her local knowledge the OCMI is the one best able to designate areas.
And, regardless, a designer already must know his vessel's prospective
route to meet the other standards in current rules.
Eight commenters expressed varying concerns with the vagueness of
the proposed standard on passenger heeling moment. These concerns
ranged from a belief that the same standard on heeling moment, applied
to the same vessel, could make a vessel both pass and fail, to a belief
that the wind heeling and passenger heeling moments should be applied
simultaneously, not separately. The Coast Guard finds much merit in the
commenters' concerns with the wording of this paragraph. The best
solution is to remove the interpretive language from this section. In
removing this language the Coast Guard has employed a liberal constant;
this maintains the new formulation of the reworded paragraph in general
agreement with the intent of the interpretive language. The reworded
paragraph reduces the passenger heeling moment in paragraph (f)(4)(i)
for all vessels used in the research by the Volpe Center (``Volpe
study'').
One commenter asked for a further reduction of the heeling moments
for specific types of vessels operating 20 or fewer miles from land.
The Coast Guard
[[Page 53712]]
does not believe any further reduction of this standard is warranted.
This position is borne out by the Volpe study as well as by comments
from those who checked the proposed standards against designs of
existing vessels.
Two commenters noted concerns with the application of passenger
heeling moment to vessels that, because of their arrangements, do not
have either port or starboard egress for passenger evacuation. These
vessels generally do have either forward or aft egress, use of which
would subject the vessel not to the transverse heeling moment but
rather to a longitudinal trimming moment. The Coast Guard agrees that
vessels with neither port nor starboard egress should be exempted from
the requirement of transverse heeling moment and should be subject
instead to one of longitudinal trimming moment. Therefore, a new
paragraph (f)(5) gives vessels that fit this criterion the option of
being exempt from the requirement of transverse heeling moment in
(f)(4)(i) if they show enough longitudinal trimming moment during an
equivalent forward or aft egress.
One commenter questioned the origin of the value of 7 degrees for
the angle of equilibrium. As far as we can determine, this value was
incorporated into domestic regulations and international standards more
than fifty years ago, based on experience. It seems to have been a
judgment call to define an acceptable safety margin and minimize
passenger discomfort and panic that, through many years of satisfactory
use, has proved acceptable.
One commenter asked why the value of righting area in paragraph
(f)(6)(iii)(A) was 0.035 m-rad instead of 0.0175 m-rad, the latter
value agreeing with the value in the load-line rules in 46 CFR subpart
42.20. The value in 46 CFR subpart 42.20 does not have the same basis
as the one here and applies to a wider range of vessels with varying
services. An increase of 8 degrees in the allowable angle of
equilibrium for a passenger vessel, due to an increase in the righting
area of only 0.0025 m-rad from the standard 0.015 m-rad, is
unacceptable. The increase of 0.020 m-rad is acceptable, and is
equivalent for the increase of 8 degrees in the allowable angle of
equilibrium. Still, the Coast Guard does acknowledge merit in a
requirement that a vessel with an increase of only 2 degrees in the
final angle of equilibrium has to achieve only an equivalent increase
in the righting-arm area rather than an increase of the full 0.20 rad.
So the Coast Guard has changed this paragraph to allow a corresponding
increase in the area for those vessels with an increase in the final
angle of equilibrium.
One commenter opposed the values for righting area and range of
stability--given in paragraph (f)(8), for intermediate stages of
flooding--on the grounds that these values are much more stringent than
those for the final stage of flooding. The Coast Guard generally checks
intermediate stages of flooding only for those vessels whose stability
is marginal or whose stability, because of their arrangement, may be
critical during intermediate stages of flooding. The Coast Guard agrees
that these values should reflect the reduced value used in paragraph
(f)(1), and has changed the values in (f)(9) to correspond with those
in (f)(1).
One commenter expressed concern over the standards for
oceanographic vessels sailing on international voyages but not carrying
SOLAS Certificates. The Coast Guard has clarified the wording to show
that these vessels would have to meet the requirements in paragraph
(f).
One commenter ventured that the proposed rule might adversely
affect safety in a material way. The Coast Guard disagrees and has
determined that the current (suspended) standards can be relaxed
without degrading safety. Those standards provided no increased
increment of safety for vessels operating on protected and partially
protected waters, and imposed unnecessary cost.
One commenter argued that the Coast Guard used the current
(suspended) rule as a datum against which to measure costs and that the
Coast Guard should not have. The commenter is right in the first part
but wrong in the second. The Coast Guard had already justified the
costs of the current (suspended) rule. The proposed rule, made final
here, stands much closer to the current (suspended) rule than to the
predecessor of that rule. So that rule, rather than its predecessor,
represents the proper point of departure for evaluating this rule.
One commenter alleged that the proposed rule would affect vessels
under contract with a value of $334.5m; that, therefore, its effect on
the economy would exceed $100m; and that, therefore, it constituted a
``significant regulatory action'' within the terms of Executive Order
12866. But the correct measure is the marginal effect of the rule, not
the value of the property affected. Otherwise, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) would have to accord full scrutiny to the most minor
of changes to regulations simply because they affect property with a
high value.
One commenter criticized as ``incomprehensible'' the ``choice'' of
the Coast Guard not to review the proposed rule under Executive Order
12866. But, when the preamble stated [at 59 FR 40857] that the proposed
rule had ``not been reviewed under E.O. 12866'', it meant just that the
rule--not being a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
the Order itself--had not been reviewed by the OMB.
Three commenters offered sound advice toward improvements to the
rule, using, for example, roll dynamics. However, because this project
is at the stage of final rule, we cannot accomplish these improvements
(without reopening the rulemaking for public comment, again). These
comments will be considered for possible future rulemaking.
Three commenters also addressed the general application and
implications of these rules. Remarks ranged from opposition to any
reduction of standards to an objection to the imposition of any
standards. Each of these remarks possessed more or less merit. However,
the Coast Guard, having entertained all responses to the proposed rule,
considers that the final rule embodies hard-fought, necessary, legal,
achievable, and acceptable standards for the damage stability of new
passenger vessels.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed
by the OMB. It is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and
Procedures of the Department of Transportation [DOT Order 2100.5 (May
22, 1980)]. Nonetheless, a Regulatory Evaluation is available in the
docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
The marine industry will realize an estimated annual benefit of
$250,000 as a result of this rule. There is no cost associated with
this rule, which reduces the number of vessels affected by current
rules.
Small Entities
The Coast Guard has determined that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
[[Page 53713]]
Collection of Information
This rule will not increase the paperwork burden on the public. The
only paperwork involves ship-design calculations used in the
development of stability information, and this information is already
subject to review by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 170.110. The Coast
Guard previously sought approval for its collection of this
information, developed from these and other calculations, from OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); and the OMB
granted approval. The applicable control numbers from OMB are 2115-
0095, 2115-0114, 2115-0130, and 2115-0131.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and has
determined that the rule will not have sufficient implications for
federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rule will 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 often
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
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 requires minimal standards for
damage stability of new domestic passenger vessels. It will 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, local, or tribal 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 ADDRESS.
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 46 CFR part 171 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 section 171.080, paragraph (f) is redesignated as paragraph
(h), paragraphs (d) and (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (e) and (f),
new paragraphs (d) and (g) are added, and newly designated paragraphs
(e) introductory text 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) of this
section, the following definitions apply:
(1) New vessel means a vessel--
(i) For which a building contract is placed on or after April 15,
1996;
(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 April
15, 1996;
(iii) The delivery of which occurs on or after January 1, 1997;
(iv) Application for the reflagging of which is made on or after
January 1, 1997; or
(v) That has undergone--
(A) A major conversion for which the conversion contract is placed
on or after April 15, 1996;
(B) In the absence of a contract, a major conversion begun on or
after April 15, 1996; or
(C) A major conversion completed on or after January 1, 1997.
(2) Existing vessel means other than a new vessel.
(3) Watertight means capable of preventing the passage of water
through the structure in any direction under a head of water for which
the surrounding structure is designed.
(4) Weathertight means capable of preventing the penetration of
water, even boarding seas, into the vessel in any sea condition.
(e) Damage survival for all existing vessels except those vessels
authorized to carry more than 12 passengers on an international voyage
requiring a SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate. 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
requiring a SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate. 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 (7) of this
section in the final stage of flooding and to meet the conditions set
forth in paragraphs (f) (8) and (9) of this section in each
intermediate stage of flooding. For the purposes of establishing
boundaries to determine compliance with the requirements in paragraphs
(f) (1) through (9), openings that are fitted with weathertight
closures and that are not submerged during any stage of flooding will
not be considered downflooding points.
(1) Each vessel must have positive righting arms for a minimum
range beyond the angle of equilibrium as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required
Vessel service range
(degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposed waters, oceans, or Great Lakes winter................ 15
Partially protected waters or Great Lakes summer............. 10
Protected waters............................................. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) No vessel may have any opening through which downflooding can
occur within the minimum range specified by 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.
(ii) The angle of vanishing stability.
(4) Except as provided by paragraph (f)(5) of this section, each
vessel must have within the positive range the greater of a righting
arm (GZ) equal to or greater than 0.10 meter or a GZ as calculated
using the formula:
[[Page 53714]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR17OC95.004
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;
=intact displacement; and
Heeling moment=greatest of the heeling moments as calculated in
paragraphs (f)(4) (i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The passenger heeling moment is calculated using the formula:
Passenger Heeling Moment=0.5 (n w b)
where--
n=number of passengers;
w=passenger weight = 75 kilograms; and
b=distance from the centerline of the vessel to the geometric center
on one side of the centerline of the passenger deck used to leave
the vessel in case of flooding.
(ii) The heeling moment due to asymmetric escape routes for
passengers, if the vessel has asymmetric escape routes for passengers,
is calculated assuming that--
(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 escape from the
vessel in case of flooding, so that they produce the most adverse
heeling moment.
(iii) The heeling moment due to the launching of survival craft is
calculated assuming that--
(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 swung out and ready for
lowering are distributed about the centerline 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
that--
(A) The wind exerts a 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 lever arm of the wind 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 whose arrangements do not generally allow port or
starboard egress may be exempted, by the Commanding Officer, Marine
Safety Center, from the transverse passenger heeling moment required by
paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section. Each vessel exempted must have
sufficient longitudinal stability to prevent immersion of the deck edge
during forward or aft egress.
(6) Each vessel must have an angle of equilibrium that does not
exceed--
(i) 7 degrees for flooding of one compartment;
(ii) 12 degrees for flooding of two compartments; or
(iii) A maximum of 15 degrees for flooding of one or two
compartments where--
(A) The vessel has positive righting arms for at least 20 degrees
beyond the angle of equilibrium; and
(B) The vessel has an area under each righting-arm curve, when the
equilibrium angle is between 7 degrees and 15 degrees, in accordance
with the formula:
A0.0025(-1)
where--
A=Area required in m-rad under each righting-arm curve measured from
the angle of equilibrium to the smaller of either the angle at which
downflooding occurs or the angle of vanishing stability.
=actual angle of equilibrium in degrees
(7) The margin line of the vessel must not be submerged when the
vessel is in equilibrium.
(8) Each vessel must have a maximum angle of equilibrium that does
not exceed 15 degrees during intermediate stages of flooding.
(9) Each vessel must have a range of stability and a maximum
righting arm during each intermediate stage of flooding as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Required
Vessel service range maximum
(degrees) righting arm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposed waters, oceans, or Great Lakes winter 7 0.05 m
Partially-protected waters or Great Lakes
summer...................................... 5 0.035 m
Protected waters............................. 5 0.035 m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 requiring a SOLAS Passenger Ship
Safety Certificate. A vessel is presumed to survive assumed damage if
it is shown by calculations to comply with the damage stability
required for that vessel by the International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended, chapter II-1, part B, regulation 8.
* * * * *
Dated: October 4, 1995.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-25711 Filed 10-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
