[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7495-7499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3628]
[[Page 7495]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
[USCG 98-3324]
Critical Ship Safety Systems Table and Components of a Supplement
Under the Alternate Compliance Program
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of policy concerning critical ship safety systems and
U.S. Supplement review process; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces a policy concerning critical ship
safety systems, the creation of the Critical Ship Safety Systems Table,
and their application to U.S. Supplements developed by classification
societies seeking authorization under the Alternate Compliance Program.
The Coast Guard also announces a policy determination on the components
of a U.S. Supplement.
DATES: Comments are requested by April 14, 1998.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the Docket Management Facility
[USCG-98-3324], U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or deliver them to room
PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the same
address, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
notice. Comments, and documents as indicated in this preamble, will
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif
Building at the above address, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Raymond Petow or LCDR Daniel
Pippenger, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection (G-MSE-1), U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone: (202) 267-2997 for questions
concerning the substance of this notice or Paulette Twine, Chief,
Documentary Services Division, U.S. Department of Transportation,
telephone: (202) 366-9329 for questions concerning the filing and
reviewing of comments.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages submission of written data, views, or
arguments on the Critical Ship Safety Systems Table. Persons submitting
comments should include their name and address, identify this notice
[USCG 98-3324], the specific section of the Table to which each comment
applies, and the reason for the comment. Please submit two copies of
all comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing, to the DOT
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. If you want
acknowledgment of receipt of your comment, enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. The Coast Guard will consider all
comments received during the comment period and may change this policy
in view of the comments.
Background and Purpose
Critical Ship Safety Systems
The Coast Guard, in continuing to improve its Alternate Compliance
Program, and in response to changes in the 1996 Coast Guard
Authorization Act (Pub. L. 104-324) that permit the Coast Guard to rely
on reports from other persons and permit expanded use of vessel
classification societies (46 U.S.C. 3103, 3316), reviewed Subchapters
D, F, H, I, and J of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
to determine critical ship safety systems. The review did not include
Subchapter I-A (mobile offshore drilling units) and Subchapter O
(chemical and gas carriers) as review of these subchapters, using the
same process described here, is ongoing. These results will be
published when the review is completed. This review also did not
include operational requirements for which vessel owners and operators
are still responsible and for which the Coast Guard retains authority
to ensure compliance.
Critical ship safety systems encompass those systems that are
addressed by the applicable regulations in 46 CFR relating to ship
design and construction and, based on subjective and objective risk
assessments, are necessary for the safe operations of vessels. The list
of critical ship safety systems did not include those required by U.S.
Statute.
Subjective assessments were obtained from a wide range of experts
associated with the maritime industry including licensed mariners,
vessel owners and operators, pilots, environmental organizations,
private marine surveyors, and Coast Guard inspectors and plan
reviewers. The assessments rated a list of shipboard systems from
regulatory requirements, proposed by the Coast Guard program managers
with experience in areas of vessel design, operation and inspection.
Examples of systems listed included propulsion, steering, life saving
appliances, and fire protection systems. Respondents were asked to
write in other systems as they saw fit. The experts rated each system's
probability of failure (ranging from not probable to likely) and the
consequence of failure (ranging from negligible to catastrophic). These
two factors were quantified and multiplied together to obtain a
relative risk of system failure. The systems were then rank ordered
based on relative risk of failure as determined using expert opinion.
Objective data was obtained from historical data contained in the
Coast Guard's Marine Safety Information System (MSIS) database. The
data included 500,000 records documenting discrepancies found during
marine inspections, vessel boardings, and marine casualty
investigations conducted during the period of 1986 to May 1997.
Relative risk of system failure was assessed using the underlying
assumption that systems with an historically high number of
discrepancies or casualties were high risk and should be considered
critical. The systems were then rank ordered based on relative risk of
failure as determined using historical data. The high risk items from
each assessment method were then combined to yield a single list of
critical ship safety systems.
U.S. Supplement to Class Rules
The Coast Guard applied this list of critical ship safety systems
to the Alternate Compliance Program (ACP) for which a final rule was
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 67525) on December 24, 1997.
The ACP alleviates some of the cost burden on the U.S. maritime
industry resulting from the Coast Guard inspection program by
eliminating duplicate plan review and inspections currently performed
by both the Coast Guard and the classification societies. The ACP
improves international competitiveness of the U.S. merchant fleet by
allowing recognized and authorized classification societies to perform
those inspections necessary for the issuance of a Certificate of
Inspection (COI). The final rule provided details on the recognition
and authorization process for a classification society wishing to
participate in the ACP. The final rule explained that such a
classification society is required to develop and receive Coast Guard
approval of a U.S. Supplement to its rules. The supplement would
contain those regulations applicable for issuance of a COI, which are
not adequately covered by either the class society's rules or
[[Page 7496]]
applicable international standards. A supplement would also contain
U.S. statutory requirements, SOLAS interpretations, and other
regulatory requirements applicable to all ships.
The only U.S. Supplement approved to date--the U.S. Supplement to
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Rules--was partly developed based on
the underlying principle that class rules plus international standards
must achieve a level of safety equivalent to that of Coast Guard
regulatory requirements. Lacking a process by which to develop the
supplement, the comparison to the regulatory requirements of 46 CFR
related to the design and construction of vessels eligible for the ACP
was done using a resource intensive line-by-line approach. Any instance
in which a Coast Guard regulation was found to be inadequately covered
by the combination of ABS Rules and international conventions resulted
in an entry in the supplement. This approach was applied to each and
every Title 46 regulation in Subchapters D, F, H, I, J, N, and O
without regard to the fact that a system required by ABS rules and
international standards may have provided an equivalent level of
safety. As a result, several entries not germane to the safe operation
of ABS classed vessels inspected under the ACP, appeared in the first
U.S. Supplement to ABS Rules.
The line-by-line approach was a time consuming process for both the
classification society and the Coast Guard. Further, the resulting
supplement was likely to include requirements that provided little, if
any, additional safety when the dissimilar standards were combined.
With requests to participate in ACP from Lloyd's Register of Shipping,
Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd, it became apparent that a
more efficient process of preparing and reviewing U.S. Supplements had
to be developed. As such, the Coast Guard is adopting the risk-based
approach described here which focuses on critical ship safety systems.
Differences between class rules plus international standards and Coast
Guard regulations are acceptable provided each critical ship safety
system attains an equivalent level of safety.
The Coast Guard used the list of critical ship safety systems to
develop a table which may be used as a tool during development and
review of U.S. Supplements. The table of critical ship safety systems
was created by comparing the list of critical ship safety systems
developed by subjective and objective risk assessments to international
standards to determine if the standards provided a level of safety for
each critical system equivalent to that of the Coast Guard regulations.
Critical ship safety systems adequately covered by international
conventions were not included in the table. For example, steering gear
systems, 46 CFR 58.25, were deemed to be critical by both subjective
and objective analysis. However, the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, as amended (SOLAS), Chapter II-1, Regulation 29
provides a level of safety for steering gear systems equivalent to the
requirements of 46 CFR 58.25. Consequently, steering gear was not
included in the table.
Although hull structures and stability are identified in the table
as a critical ship safety system, for the purpose of developing a U.S.
Supplement, a different approach was taken to assess whether
classification society structural rules provide an equivalent level of
safety. The structural design of any ship is based on many factors,
including size, service, owner requirements, operating environment, and
cargo, as well as the ship's classification society's calculation
methods and philosophies on the importance of these and other factors.
Classification society rules take these factors into consideration when
determining the minimum required scantlings; which are the dimensions
of the various framework parts of the structure, such as the frames,
beams, flooring, stringers, and hull plating.
Because of the numerous factors, philosophies, and calculation
methods, no two societies have the same rules for determining
structural scantlings. Even within the same classification society,
there may be several different ways to determine scantlings. For
instance, an ABS classed tanker or bulk carrier may be designed using
the ABS Rule book or the Safehull program. The ABS Rule book contains
formulas for scantlings that have been developed over years of
experience, whereas the Safehull program, a computer program developed
by ABS, approaches structural design by linking the scantlings to the
structural loadings expected over the life of the vessel. Since the
basis of classification is to determine that a vessel's structure is
fit for its intended purpose, a society generally puts a great deal of
discretion into their rules to handle new or novel designs.
While it is possible to identify a number of major components that
we think should be comparable in scantlings, to dictate specific
requirements for each structure (e.g., plate thickness, longitudinals,
transverse framing) does not take into account such ancillary, but
important, considerations such as corrosion allowances, inspection
intervals, operating areas, coatings, cathodic protection, material
selection/strength, shipyard, operator, crew and all other factors that
have a great deal of influence on the long-term performance of a
vessel's structure. Because of the system's nature of hull design, that
is a hull design must consider all of the structural aspects of a hull
(shell plating, longitudinals, transverse framing, decks, etc.) as a
whole system, and not individually; a comparison of individual
components is difficult since any possible shortcomings of one
component can be offset by another component. For example, thinner
shell plating can be compensated with additional stiffeners.
Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to determine the equivalence of
classification society structural rules through an assessment of the
service history (structural failures documented in reports from
classification society surveyors) of the classed fleet and the approach
taken by the class society towards rule review and updating as
appropriate. The ideal classification society not only maintains an
excellent service history, but also takes an aggressive approach to
rule review and updating by systematically evaluating casualty
statistics and surveyor reports to identify trends and implement
corrective changes before casualties occur. In evaluating a
classification society, the Coast Guard will also compare the society's
rules on structures to the International Association of Classification
Society (IACS) requirements, and where appropriate, review the class
society's reasoning for not adopting the IACS standard.
The stability portion of the critical ship safety systems table
references International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution
A.479(18), Code of Intact Stability for All Types of Ships Covered by
IMO Instruments. The U.S. was a key player in the development of this
international resolution and, therefore, it is accepted by the Coast
Guard as an equivalent to the intact stability requirements in Title 46
CFR. Because SOLAS recommends vessels voluntarily comply with this
resolution, and because the Coast Guard desires to harmonize its
regulations with international standards, IMO Resolution A.479(18) was
chosen as the standard by which to evaluate each class society's
stability requirements.
[[Page 7497]]
Critical Ship Safety Systems Table
The following table contains those critical ship safety systems not
adequately covered by international standards. Class societies must
demonstrate that their class rules provide an equivalent level of
safety to the regulatory cite for each of the critical ship safety
systems. For the structures and stability section, the previously
discussed methods of determining equivalence are applicable. In cases
where equivalence cannot be shown, requirements must be included in the
U.S. Supplement to bridge the gaps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical system Regulation (46 CFR * * *)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCHAPTER D--TANK VESSELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifesaving appliances and 31.36-1.
arrangements.
Guards in dangerous places..... 32.02-15.
Anchors, chains, and hawsers... 32.15-15.
Pressure vacuum relief valves.. 32.20-5.
Pumps, piping and hose for 32.50.
cargo handling.
Bilge systems.................. 32.52.
Inert gas system............... 32.53.
Ventilation and venting........ 32.55.
Fire-extinguishing systems..... 34.05-5(a)(5), (a)(6), & (a)(7).
Carbon dioxide extinguishing 34.15-10(f), 34.15-10(g).
system controls.
Carbon dioxide extinguishing 34.15-15(c).
system piping.
Carbon dioxide extinguishing 34.15-20(i).
system storage.
Carbon dioxide extinguishing 34.15-30(a).
system alarms.
Deck foam system controls...... 34.20-10(a), 34.20-10(e).
Deck foam system piping........ 34.20-15(b).
Water spray extinguishing 34.25-15(b).
system piping.
Water spray extinguishing 34.25-20(a).
system nozzles.
Portable and semiportable 34.50.
extinguishers.
Self-contained breathing 35.30-20(c)(1).
apparatus.
Vapor control system........... Part 39.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCHAPTER F--MARINE ENGINEERING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power boilers: Adoption of 52.01-2.
Section I of the ASME Code.
Power boilers: Automatic 52.01-10.
controls.
Power boilers: Fusible plugs... 52.01-50.
Power boilers: Safety valves 52.01-120.
and safety relief valves.
Heating boilers: Adoption of 53.01-3.
Section IV of the ASME Code.
Heating boilers: Pressure 53.05.
relieving devices.
Pressure vessels: Adoption of 54.01-2.
Division 1, Section VIII of
ASME Code.
Pressure vessels: Standard 54.10-10.
hydrostatic test.
Pressure vessels: Pneumatic 54.10-15.
test.
Pressure vessels: Pressure 54.15.
relief devices.
Piping components.............. 56.10-1.
Fittings....................... 56.15.
Valves employing resilient 56.20-15.
seals.
Bilge and ballast piping....... 56.50-50.
Bilge pumps.................... 56.50-55.
Systems containing oil......... 56.50-60.
Burner fuel-oil service systems 56.50-65.
Gasoline fuel systems.......... 56.50-70.
Diesel fuel systems............ 56.50-75.
Tank vent piping............... 56.50-85.
Materials...................... 56.60.
Welding........................ 56.70.
Pressure tests................. 56.97.
Main propulsion machinery...... 58.05.
Internal combustion engines.... 58.10.
Periodic tests and inspections. Part 61.
Vital system automation........ Part 62.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCHAPTER H--PASSENGER VESSELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifesaving appliances and 70.28-1.
arrangements.
Ventilation.................... 72.15.
Storm rails.................... 72.40-10.
Barriers on vehicular ferries.. 72.40-15.
Guards in dangerous places..... 72.40-20.
Fixed fire extinguishing 76.05-20.
equipment.
Carbon dioxide system controls. 76.15-10(f), 76.15-10(g).
Carbon dioxide system piping... 76.15-15(c).
Carbon dioxide system storage.. 76.15-20(i).
Carbon dioxide system alarms... 76.15-30(a).
Manual sprinkling system piping 76.23-20(b).
Manual sprinkling system heads. 76.23-25(a).
Automatic sprinkling systems... 76.25-1, 76.25-35(e).
[[Page 7498]]
Electric fire detecting system. 76.27-15(b), 76.27-15(e).
Smoke detecting system......... 76.33-20(e), 76.33-20(f).
Manual alarm system............ 76.35-15(b), 76.35-15(d).
Portable and semiportable 76.50.
extinguishers.
Anchors, chains and hawsers.... 77.07.
Emergency equipment............ 77.30.
Fireman's outfit............... 77.35-5(a) & (b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCHAPTER I--CARGO AND MISCELLANEOUS VESSELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifesaving appliances and 90.27-1.
arrangements.
Structural fire protection..... 92.07-1(c).
Ventilation.................... 92.15.
Storm rails.................... 92.25-10.
Guards in dangerous places..... 92.25-15.
Fixed fire extinguishing 95.05-10(d), & (e).
systems.
Carbon dioxide extinguishing 95.15-10(f), 95.15-10(g).
system controls.
Carbon dioxide extinguishing 95.15-15(c).
system piping.
Carbon dioxide extinguishing 95.15-20(i).
system storage.
Carbon dioxide extinguishing 95.15-30(a).
system alarms.
Portable and semiportable 95.50.
extinguishers.
Anchors, chains and hawsers.... 96.07.
Fireman's outfit............... 96.35-5(a) & (b).
Anhydrous ammonia in bulk...... 98.25.
Vessels carrying marine 98.30-3.
portable tanks (MPTs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCHAPTER J--ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generator construction and 111.12.
circuits.
Motors......................... 111.25.
Overcurrent protection......... 111.50.
Circuit breakers............... 111.54.
Wiring materials and methods... 111.60.
Motor circuits, controllers, 111.70.
and protection.
Lighting circuits and 111.75.
protection.
Electric power-operated boat 111.95.
winches.
Electric power-operated 111.97.
watertight door systems.
Hazardous locations............ 111.105.
Emergency power and lighting Part 112.
system.
Fire and smoke detecting and 113.10.
alarm systems.
Automatic sprinkler alarm 113.20.
system.
General emergency alarm systems 113.25.
Internal communications........ 113.30.
Engine order telegraph......... 113.35.
Steering failure alarm systems. 113.43.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structures and Stability
Comment(s)
Structures:
Provide three examples from your classification society records
of major structural failures in classed vessels over the last ten
years along with the corrective action taken.
Provide three examples of major breaches in watertight integrity
in the last ten years along with corrective action taken.
Provide three examples of major fractures in primary or
secondary structural members in the last ten years along with
corrective action taken.
List International Association of Classification Societies
(IACS) requirements not incorporated into classification rules and
discuss why they have not been included.
Demonstrate that Rules meet longitudinal strength requirements
of IACS Uniform Requirements.
Rules should address structural materials requirements,
including acceptable types, chemical and mechanical properties,
certification, and manufacture procedures.
Rules should address structural welding procedures, including
joint design, fitup, filler materials, acceptance standards, repair
procedures, qualification procedures, NDT procedures.
Rules should include sections addressing requirements for
primary and secondary structural members.
Stability: Rules should provide an equivalent level of safety to IMO
Resolution A.479(18), Code of Intact Stability for All Types of
Ships Covered by IMO Instruments.
Supplement Components
The Coast Guard sees the U.S. Supplement as being comprised of
inputs from four distinct areas: critical ship safety systems, U.S.
statutory requirements, interpretations of international conventions,
and regulations applicable to all vessels sailing in U.S. waters.
Statutory requirements are those contained in Titles 33 and 46 of the
U.S.C. which are applicable to all U.S. flagged vessels which are
eligible for participation in the ACP. International interpretations
include those regulations in which the Coast Guard clarifies
requirements of international conventions left to the satisfaction of
the flag state. For example, SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 4.7.2
states, ``Ships shall be provided with fire hoses the number and
diameter of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Administration.''
The Coast Guard provides clarification to this international
requirement in 46 CFR 34.10-10, 76.10-10, 95.10-10, and 108.425 where
fire hose specifications are spelled out for U.S. flagged vessels. The
Coast Guard is working at the IMO to remove vague wording from
international conventions such as
[[Page 7499]]
SOLAS by harmonizing interpretations with other countries. One of the
Coast Guard's long-term goals is to eliminate the need for
administration-specific interpretations to international conventions.
Regulations applicable to all vessels include the navigation safety and
pollution prevention regulations of Title 33 Code of Federal
Regulations. The Coast Guard plans to develop and publish a Navigation
and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) listing statutory requirements,
U.S. interpretations to international conventions, and regulations
applicable to all vessels.
In summary, the Coast Guard will review U.S. Supplements submitted
by class societies seeking authorization under the ACP against four
lists of inputs: statutory requirements, international interpretations,
regulations applicable to all vessels, and the critical ship safety
systems table. Class societies can and should use these four lists to
develop their U.S. Supplement. Anyone seeking information on the
content of these lists can contact LCDR Petow or LCDR Pippenger at the
number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Any item on the lists
relating to ship design or construction that is not adequately covered
by class rules and applicable international conventions must be
included in a U.S. Supplement. Classification societies are in no way
prohibited from using the line-by-line approach (comparing class rules
and international conventions to Title 46 regulations) in developing
their U.S. Supplement. However, the Coast Guard believes the risk-based
approach offers a more efficient means with which to develop a U.S.
Supplement to classification Society Rules.
Dated: January 29, 1998.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 98-3628 Filed 2-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P