[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