[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