[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9916-9920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4825]



[[Page 9915]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Coast Guard



_______________________________________________________________________



46 CFR Chapter I



Emergency Response Plans for Passenger Vessels; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 38/ Thursday, February 26, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 9916]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Chapter I

[USCG-1998-3473]
RIN 2115-AF61


Emergency Response Plans for Passenger Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks public comments on potential rules that 
would require owners or operators of U.S.-flag inspected passenger 
vessels, including small passenger vessels, operating in domestic 
service to develop and exercise emergency response plans. These plans 
would establish ways of mitigating the consequences of collisions, 
allisions, groundings, fires, and other emergencies. The plans' 
elements would address possible emergencies, passengers' evacuation, 
crews' training, and available emergency response and rescue resources 
both on vessels and in their operating areas.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the Docket Management Facility 
[USCG-1998-3473], 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 
rulemaking. 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 same address, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also access this 
docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
    Copies of NVIC 8-93 and NVIC 1-97, referred to in this advance 
notice, are available either from the Coast Guard point of contact 
designated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION or from the Home Page of the 
Coast Guard for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection on the 
Internet at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/genpub.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public docket, 
call Carol Kelley, Coast Guard Dockets Team Leader, or Paulette Twine, 
Chief, Documentary Services Division, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329. For information concerning the 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking provisions, call Lieutenant John 
G. White, Project Manager, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Office of 
Standards Evaluation and Development (G-MSR-2), telephone 202-267-6885.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in the 
early stages of this potential rulemaking by submitting written data, 
views, or arguments on the questions that follow the analysis of 
environmental impact. Persons submitting comments should include their 
names and addresses, identify this advance notice [USCG-1998-3473] and 
the specific section or question in this notice to which each comment 
applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all 
comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 
11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you want 
acknowledgment of receipt of your comments, you should enclose a 
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the 
comment period. If it proposes a rule, it will both consider these and 
invite more.
    The Coast Guard may schedule a public meeting depending on the 
response to this advance notice. You may request a public meeting by 
submitting a comment requesting one to the address under ADDRESSES. The 
request should include the reasons why a meeting would be beneficial. 
If the Coast Guard determines that a meeting should be held, we will 
announce the time and place in a later notice in the Federal Register.

Purpose

    The Coast Guard needs your feedback on the issues addressed in this 
advance notice to help it define the scope of potential rules requiring 
emergency response plans and exercises for inspected passenger vessels 
operating in domestic service. Passenger vessels operate in diverse 
environments and face hazards that may result in what are referred to 
as ``low-probability--high-consequence'' incidents. While the overall 
safety record for inspected passenger vessels is very good, their 
operations are not risk-free. Emergency response planning is a 
cornerstone in developing effective safety management systems that 
address ``low-probability--high-consequence'' incidents. It offers a 
systematic means by which to constantly balance the interaction among 
the elements of management, the work environment, individual behavior, 
and appropriate technology. The primary goal of this potential 
rulemaking would be to obtain industry participation in efforts toward 
emergency planning and coordination. The need for planning is clear in 
light of the pressures and multiple tasks facing personnel when 
confronted by an emergency. Effective planning will prevent confusion, 
mistakes, and the failure to advise key people. Without it--and 
practice--a single incident could easily overwhelm the emergency 
response resources of a vessel and a local community, resulting in 
passengers' injuries.
    Developing universal planning criteria for passenger vessels is 
difficult because of the diversity of the vessel population and 
operating environments. Among the affected vessels are ferries of 
various types, sport-fishing vessels, dinner excursion vessels, cruise 
vessels, riverboat gaming vessels, and offshore gaming vessels. These 
vessels operate everywhere from busy commercial ports located in major 
metropolitan areas to remote sections of rivers or interstate lakes 
away from large cities. Some operate in the same port or municipal 
jurisdiction, while others travel to several ports and routinely cross 
political jurisdictions. Any rulemaking would address these differences 
and provide flexibility according to type and size of vessel, passenger 
capacity, shore-based management structure, availability of resources 
and facilities for search and rescue, routes, number of municipalities 
involved, and traffic and weather.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that many owners and operators of 
passenger vessels have already engaged in contingency planning. For 
example, many owners and operators of cruise vessels have engaged in 
emergency planning by preparing planning documents and by participating 
in related training and exercises. Others, such as riverboat gaming 
vessel operators, have also engaged in the planning process. 
Furthermore, there are cooperative efforts under way between the Coast 
Guard and representatives of the industry to address risk management 
for the industry, of which contingency planning may be one component. 
The Coast Guard intends to build upon such

[[Page 9917]]

efforts during this potential rulemaking by incorporating lessons 
learned from current plans and past exercises and gathering significant 
public input. The Coast Guard is particularly interested in information 
that you can provide on current planning--its scope, successes, 
problems, and so forth. Any rules that resulted would aim at assisting 
the maritime community by clarifying authority and expectations for 
plans and exercises, and by providing a level of consistency between 
ports. Your input will be particularly useful during the early stage of 
any rulemaking arising from this advance notice.

Hazards Faced by Passenger Vessels

    The Coast Guard estimates that there are about 6,100 inspected 
passenger vessels operating in the United States. Of these, about 5,100 
are small passenger vessels inspected under 46 CFR Subchapter T; most 
of these vessels carry fewer than 50 passengers.
    Although the safety record for domestic passenger vessels is very 
good, it cannot reliably predict an absence of serious accidents. 
Passenger vessels do experience fires, groundings, collisions, 
allisions, loss of propulsion, loss of steering control, and other 
equipment failures. For example, from the end of 1992 until the end of 
1996, passenger vessels experienced an average of over 575 such 
incidents a year. Most of these were minor, and very few resulted in 
injuries. However, such incidents--aggravated by other factors such as 
bad weather, strong currents, or heavy vessel traffic--could lead to 
serious injuries indeed. It is difficult to make a general statement 
about risk to passenger vessels because of the variables involved. 
However, the key to effective planning is determining the level of risk 
and taking appropriate steps to address that risk. The Coast Guard is 
interested in your feedback regarding that level and those steps.

Existing Guidance for Planning

    A key component of any future rulemaking would be requirements on 
the scope and content of emergency response plans. The Coast Guard 
would like to learn about any existing guidance for the development of 
plans or other information relevant to preparing plans. There are two 
Coast Guard Navigation and Inspection Circulars (NVICs) that address 
emergency response plans for passenger vessels. Both NVICs provide 
options or alternatives for compliance with certain rules for the 
safety of passenger vessels.
    NVIC 8-93, ``Equivalent Alternatives to 46 CFR Subchapter H 
Requirements Related to Means of Escape, Safe Refuge Areas, and Main 
Vertical Zone Length,'' elaborates equivalent means of egress, safe 
refuge areas, and limitations of length of main vertical zones for 
certain passenger vessels required to meet 46 CFR Subchapter H on 
structural fire protection. Some passenger vessels built to the 
standards of Subchapter H after the publication of NVIC 8-93 practice 
the alternatives provided by the NVIC.
    One alternative provided by NVIC 8-93 involves the preparation of 
an Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP). The EEP tells the master and crew 
what procedures they must carry out in the event of a shipboard fire. 
An EEP is generally in the form of a pamphlet describing the various 
safety features and emergency procedures. It sets out simplified 
diagrams of the vessel's emergency egress and refuge systems and 
explains fire protection equipment. Each member of the crew should be 
familiar with these systems and equipment so they can direct passengers 
to safe refuge in an emergency and can help to contain and combat the 
fire. The Coast Guard verifies the crew's performance during fire and 
lifesaving drills conducted as part of regularly scheduled vessel 
inspections.
    EEPs address issues such as the number of persons in each enclosed 
space and on each part of the weather deck, possible fire scenarios, 
dimensions and capacities of egress components, characteristics and 
capacities of refuge areas, identity of embarkation areas and how 
passengers would be evacuated from those areas, and how passengers 
would be informed of emergency procedures. Because many gaming vessels 
have passengers on board while the vessels are moored, some Officers in 
Charge of Marine Inspection (OCMIs) require addenda to EEPs for gaming 
vessels to address passengers' egress in case of an emergency 
evacuation when moored.
    Although EEPs deal only with fires and need not cover availability 
of and coordination with local emergency resources, passengers' egress 
under EEPs may apply to more comprehensive emergency response plans. 
The Coast Guard is interested in comments from the public regarding 
EEPs and their applicability to these more comprehensive plans. Copies 
of NVIC 8-93 are available either from the Coast Guard point of contact 
designated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION or from the Home Page of the 
Coast Guard for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection on the 
Internet at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/genpub.htm.
    NVIC 1-97, ``Shipboard Safety Management and Contingency Plan for 
Passenger Vessels,'' may be another valuable model for developing 
emergency response plans. The NVIC was developed to provide guidance on 
preparing a Shipboard Safety Management and Contingency Plan for some 
passenger vessels as an alternative to certain survival craft 
requirements specified in 46 CFR Subchapter W. This alternative is 
discussed in the Interim Rule on Lifesaving Equipment published in the 
Federal Register on May 20, 1996 [61 FR 25272].
    NVIC 1-97 offers guidance on preparing plans that address 
contingencies such as medical emergencies, oil spills, fires, 
collisions, allisions, and groundings. It stresses that planners should 
conduct an initial risk assessment addressing navigation and safety in 
a vessel's operating environment (distance from shore, depth of water, 
temperature, current, visibility, proximity of other vessels, 
availability and suitability of onshore or offshore facilities, etc.). 
In general, plans should identify local facilities for firefighting, 
ambulances, and search and rescue, including local telephone numbers 
and contact points, for both underway and dockside situations. Plans 
should also contain protocols for company drills and crew training. The 
NVIC stresses that a plan is necessary because of the multiple tasks a 
vessel's crew may encounter in an emergency. If a crew is properly 
prepared, passengers will more likely be aware of the environment, be 
informed of emergency procedures, and be prepared to follow directions.
    NVIC 1-97 recommends that any plan should be tailored to a 
particular vessel, be easy to use, be understood by management 
personnel of the vessel both on board and ashore, and be updated 
regularly. According to the NVIC, any plan should comprise: Guidance 
assisting a vessel's crew to deal with catastrophic vessel damage; 
procedures to mobilize emergency response teams; procedures for moving 
passengers off the vessel; lists of external organizations that may 
assist; communications; arrangements for passengers with physical or 
mental impairments; and training for personnel with identified roles in 
the plan.
    NVIC 1-97 recommends the following specific components and 
characteristics for plans:
     Plans should inform the vessel's master and crew how to 
handle an emergency and to stop or minimize damage and the effects of 
an emergency.
     Plans should fit the particular vessels for which they are 
developed.
     Plans should establish procedures to get passengers from 
various spaces on

[[Page 9918]]

the vessel to an assembly station (stage 1 egress); direct them on to 
the embarkation stations (stage 2 egress); and evacuate them to points 
of safety (stage 3 egress) in an emergency.
     Plans should describe the method and procedure for 
providing timely instructions to passengers.
     Plans should list external organizations that the plan-
holder would call for assistance in emergencies. Among the 
organizations may be governmental agencies, fire departments, 
hospitals, vessel or equipment providers, and contractors offering 
specialized services such as towing and barge services, and trained 
personnel related to control, triage, or recovery.
     Plans should describe the different kinds of training to 
prepare the crew for handling various emergencies.
     Plans should be realistic, practical, and easy to use, and 
understood by company personnel, both on board and ashore.
     Plans should have a designated space to allow for 
recording lessons learned during exercises.
     Plans should be reviewed, evaluated, exercised, and 
updated regularly.
     Plans should be kept in loose-leaf binders to facilitate 
updating.
     Plans should have flow charts or checklists to guide 
personnel through various actions and decisions required during 
incidents.
     Plans should be readily available on board and located 
throughout the vessel so that crew members are aware of their 
responsibilities during each type of emergency.
     Plans should discuss and practice the means of providing 
safety information to passengers such as emergency signals and 
announcements; announcements of evacuation procedures; announcements of 
assistance for disabled, elderly, or young passengers; identification 
of crew members; life jacket instructions; and announcements of 
procedures for disembarking from the vessels in emergencies.
     Plans should include lists of specific acts, taken 
sequentially or concurrently, to counteract each potential emergency 
and prevent or minimize damage. The NVIC recommends acts for the 
following scenarios: vessel's loss of steering or control; collision 
and grounding; fire and explosion; oil spill; bomb threat; flooding; 
abandonment of ship; person overboard; emergency on another vessel; and 
medical emergency.
    NVIC 1-97 also provides guidance on how plans should be exercised. 
It establishes three levels of exercises to ensure the practice of main 
components on a regular basis.
    Level 1 exercises involve the vessel's crew. They emphasize 
developing and practicing the vessel's initial response such as 
alerting key personnel, starting emergency systems, securing 
nonessential machinery, starting evacuation procedures, controlling and 
directing passengers, and deploying on-site personal protective and 
lifesaving equipment. The NVIC recommends conducting Level 1 exercises 
at least once a month.
    Level 2 exercises involve the local response community. Plan 
holders should drill with some or all of the external organizations 
listed in their plans. Tabletop exercises focusing on organizations' 
response management teams are appropriate. Although several 
organizations may participate, plan holders usually design, control, 
exercise, and evaluate their own plans. The NVIC recommends the conduct 
of Level 2 exercises once a year.
    Level 3 exercises involve several plan holders' coming together as 
equals to cooperatively design and execute a response exercise to a 
marine incident.
    The Coast Guard encourages you to review NVIC 1-97 and provide 
feedback on its applicability to comprehensive emergency response 
planning for passenger vessels. Copies of NVIC 1-97 are available 
either from the Coast Guard point of contact designated in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION or from the Home Page of the Coast Guard for Marine Safety 
and Environmental Protection on the Internet at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/
g-m/nmc/genpub.htm. The Coast Guard is also interested in other 
planning guidance that you think may be useful in the development of 
any potential rulemaking.

Crews' Training

    As discussed in NVIC 1-97, crews' training is an important 
component of emergency response planning. If crew members are properly 
trained in emergency procedures, they will likely help evacuate 
passengers from the vessel and mitigate the emergency. It is important 
that crew members be familiar with their positions and roles during an 
emergency, and have the opportunity to practice these roles on a 
routine basis. The Coast Guard is interested in learning about training 
programs you may be involved in that address the safety of passengers, 
and what you believe are key components of such programs.

Regulatory Assessment

    At this early stage in what is still just a potential rulemaking, 
the Coast Guard has not determined whether any future rulemaking may be 
considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 
12866 or the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Transportation [44 FR 11030 (February 26, 1979)]. The Coast Guard 
anticipates that any future rulemaking will require an assessment of 
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866.
    Any future rulemaking may have substantial effects on owners and 
operators of passenger vessels who have yet to develop and implement 
emergency response plans, and it may generate substantial public 
interest. The primary economic impact of any rule would be on those 
owners and operators who would have to comply with any new 
requirements. Because there are no such requirements now, we cannot 
quantify the full extent of the economic and operational impacts now. A 
primary purpose of this advance notice is to help the Coast Guard 
develop a proposal and determine the costs and benefits of any new 
requirements, to the extent that they exceed current statutory and 
regulatory requirements or current industry practices. We expect that 
the public response to the questions and issues addressed in this 
notice will help us in writing a proposed rule and a draft regulatory 
assessment. We seek your feedback on what costs you incur by developing 
and exercising emergency response plans as well as what economic 
incentives you envision for complying with such requirements.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the 
Coast Guard must consider whether any potential rulemaking, if it led 
to an actual rule, would have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. ``Small entities'' include small 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned 
and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental 
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    Because there are not yet any new requirements, the Coast Guard 
cannot yet determine potential effects upon small entities. 
Accordingly, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discussing the 
impact of this potential rulemaking on small entities has not been 
prepared. However, the Coast Guard anticipates that any future 
rulemaking may have potential impacts on small businesses, and State 
and local

[[Page 9919]]

governments. The Coast Guard expects that comments received on this 
advance notice will help it in determining the number of potentially 
affected small entities, and in weighing the impacts of various 
regulatory alternatives for the purpose of drafting new requirements.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard 
wants to assist small entities in understanding this advance notice so 
that they can better evaluate the potential effects of any future 
rulemaking on them and participate in the rulemaking. If you believe 
that your small business, organization, or agency may be affected by 
any future rulemaking, and if you have questions concerning this 
notice, please consult the Coast Guard point of contact designated in 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. The Coast Guard is particularly interested in 
how any future rulemaking may affect small entities. If you are a small 
entity and believe you may be affected by such a rulemaking, please 
tell how, and what flexibility or compliance alternatives the Coast 
Guard should consider to minimize the burden on small entities while 
promoting passenger safety.

Collection of Information

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.], the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule that 
contains a collection-of-information requirement to determine whether 
the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by 
its collection. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of 
information'' includes reporting, record-keeping, monitoring, posting, 
labeling, and other, similar actions.
    The Coast Guard cannot yet estimate the paperwork burden associated 
with this potential rulemaking because it has not yet proposed any new 
requirements. However, at a future stage, it may require that owners 
and operators of certain passenger vessels develop and maintain 
emergency response plans. It expects that comments received in response 
to this advance notice will help it in estimating the potential 
paperwork burden, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. After 
estimating the burden and deciding to go ahead with the rulemaking, it 
would submit the proposed record-keeping requirement to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. The Coast Guard is interested 
in your input regarding potential collection-of-information burdens 
imposed by any future rulemaking.

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this advance notice under the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. From the 
information available at this time, the Coast Guard cannot determine 
whether this potential rulemaking would have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 
Potential issues include introducing some level of standardization of 
requirements for emergency response plans among Federal, State, and 
local governments. Because some passenger vessels move from port to 
port in the national marketplace, separate requirements for each port 
could be economically burdensome and even unsafe. The Coast Guard 
specifically seeks public comment on the federalism implications of 
this potential rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates

    Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act [Pub. L. 104-4], the Coast 
Guard must consider whether this potential rulemaking would result in 
an annual expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually 
for inflation). The Act also requires (in Section 205) that the Coast 
Guard identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and, from those alternatives, select the least costly, 
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objective.
    Currently, several States and local governments operate passenger 
ferries and may have to comply with any future requirements. They could 
bear unfunded mandates in that they would incur costs to develop and 
exercise emergency response plans for those ferries. Privately-owned 
vessels, fire departments, ambulances, police, etc., could incur costs 
as well. The Coast Guard is interested in comments addressing the 
import of any such requirements for unfunded mandates.

Environment

    The Coast Guard anticipates that any potential rulemaking would be 
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation in 
accordance with Commandant Instruction M16475.1B. Any such rulemaking 
should enhance the safety and survivability of passengers on board 
passenger vessels, and should enhance the effectiveness of search and 
rescue. Therefore, this potential rulemaking should have no 
environmental impact. The Coast Guard invites comments addressing 
possible effects that any such rulemaking may have on the human 
environment, or addressing possible inconsistencies with any Federal, 
State, or local law or administrative determinations relating to the 
environment. It will reach a final determination regarding the need for 
an environmental assessment after receipt of relevant comments.

Questions

    We especially need your help in answering the following questions, 
although additional information is welcome. In responding to each 
question, please explain your reasons for each answer so that we can 
carefully weigh the consequences and impacts of any future requirements 
we may propose.
    1. What are the primary hazards faced by passenger vessels? Do 
current regulations, industry programs, and voluntary initiatives for 
emergency response planning adequately address them? Why or why not?
    2. Which vessels currently have emergency response plans?
    3. What vessels should have emergency response plans? What factors 
determine whether or not a passenger vessel should have an emergency 
response plan? (Possible factors to consider may include, but are not 
limited to, availability of local resources for emergency response, 
vessel type, vessel route, local weather, vessel traffic, passenger 
capacity, etc.)
    4. What information should a response plan contain? Should vessels 
that face different levels of risk (passenger capacity, vessel route, 
vessel traffic, etc.) have different types of plans?
    5. Should vessels that operate in larger metropolitan areas with 
many available resources for emergency response have plans like those 
vessels operating in relatively isolated areas? Or should port and 
routes determine the scope and content of plans but not affect the 
requirement to have them?
    6. Have you already prepared an emergency response plan for a 
passenger vessel? If so, please describe the planning process. If 
possible, please cover the following issues: (a) what prompted the 
preparation of the plan; (b) what guidance you used to develop the 
plan; (c) what contingencies the plan addresses; (d) how the plan 
addresses coordination with shoreside resources for emergency response; 
(e) what kind of training is in place for the vessel's crew and its 
shoreside support personnel; (f) how often you have

[[Page 9920]]

exercised the plan during the last 5 years; (g) who participated in 
these exercises; (h) what was the nature of the exercises (table-top, 
full-scale, etc.); (i) how exercise performance was evaluated; (j) how 
often you update the plan; and (k) whether the plan fits with a broader 
plan (port-level plan, company-wide plan, etc.)?
    7. If you have already prepared a plan, how many pages long is it? 
How long did it take you to prepare?
    8. What impacts would any future rulemaking have on existing State-
mandated or voluntary initiatives for emergency response planning? Are 
there non-regulatory alternatives that the Coast Guard should consider? 
If so, what are they, and how would they promote an adequate level of 
passenger safety?
    9. Should a plan developer conduct a risk assessment to focus the 
emergency response plan? Should the plan center on the hazards a 
particular vessel will most likely face rather than on hazards common 
to all passenger vessels?
    10. Should a vessel on a route that crosses several political 
jurisdictions identify emergency resources in each jurisdiction rather 
than prepare a basic plan with a port-specific annex for each port it 
visits?
    11. Are NVICs 8-93 and 1-97 good models for developing plans and 
exercises? Why or why not? Is the information addressed in the NVICs 
similar to that in existing plans? What are the significant 
differences, if any? Are there different standards or guidelines that 
the Coast Guard should rely on when developing any future rulemaking, 
as from States?
    12. Should any future rulemaking prescribe a particular format for 
plans rather than simply focus on elements of plans? Why or why not? If 
any format, which?
    13. When developing any future rulemaking, how should the Coast 
Guard address owners and operators of passenger vessels who have 
already prepared plans? Should it give them credit for these plan? If 
so, how and how much?
    14. What agencies or organizations should review emergency response 
plans to ensure that they meet minimum standards? Should an agency or 
organization approve plans? If so, which agencies or organizations? 
Should State or local authorities conduct reviews or issue approvals of 
emergency response plans for passenger vessels?
    15. Should performance standards that plan holders should be able 
to meet through planning, such as mandatory evacuation times, be 
established? If so, who should establish them (Coast Guard, third 
parties, plan holders, etc.)?
    16. What lessons have you learned when developing and exercising 
existing emergency response plans? Which components of the plans work 
well and which need improvement?
    17. Should ports prepare emergency response plans that address 
risks to passenger vessels from their perspectives? If so, what 
information should be included in such plans? How should such plans 
relate to vessel-specific plans? How should a port-level planning 
program be implemented?
    18. How often should plans be reviewed and updated? What actions or 
events should trigger plans' reviews and updates (time interval, drill 
evaluations, actual incidents, changes in operating area, changes in 
personnel, etc.)?
    19. Should any future rules include requirements that plans be 
exercised? If so, what should be the scope and frequency of the 
exercises and who should participate? Should these requirements differ 
according to vessels' classes, operating areas, etc.? If so, how?
    20. What might induce diverse jurisdictions and agencies to 
participate in exercises? What problems might a vessel's operator face 
in getting full participation in exercises?
    21. Who should organize and control exercises (third parties, plan 
holders, the Coast Guard, etc.)?
    22. How should exercise performance be measured (i.e., time to 
notify resources for response, time to mobilize response, etc.)? Should 
exercise records be maintained? If so, what information should they 
contain?
    23. Should lessons learned from exercises be shared? If so, how? 
Should a system of lessons learned be administered at the national 
rather than the local level? By whom?
    24. How should exercises be scheduled? Who should do the 
scheduling? Should scheduling be done at the local level? At the 
national? At both?
    25. Should there be specific requirements on training for vessels' 
crews and shoreside emergency response personnel? Why or why not? If 
so, what should be the components of the training (passenger safety, 
crowd management, human behavior, etc.)? Who should conduct the 
training?
    26. Should the issuance of a Certificate of Inspection (COI) be 
contingent upon submission of an acceptable emergency response plan and 
participation in emergency response exercises?
    27. Should any future rulemaking require that plans include 
evidence of a commitment of shore-based resources to respond? Is 
obtaining such a commitment practical? Why or why not?
    28. What are the potential costs associated with preparing, 
implementing, and exercising emergency response plans? If possible, 
please break down costs according to different components of planning 
(preparing, drafting, distributing, and updating plans; preparing and 
conducting exercises; incorporating lessons learned; training crews and 
whole companies; etc.).
    29. How would costs vary depending on a vessel's type and size, its 
operating area, and other factors? Would the per-vessel cost to develop 
plans for a fleet of passenger vessels be lower than the cost to 
prepare a plan for a single vessel? What would be the per-vessel cost 
of periodic review and updating of emergency response plans? What would 
be the per-fleet cost?
    30. Is data available regarding the effectiveness of existing 
emergency response plans in improving search and rescue and avoiding or 
minimizing passengers' casualties?
    31. What would be the economic impact of potential requirements for 
planning on ``small entities'', as defined by section 605(b) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 605(b)]? What flexibility or 
alternatives for compliance should any future rulemaking incorporate to 
minimize the burden on small entities while promoting passengers' 
safety?
    32. What would be the economic impact of potential requirements for 
planning on State and local governments (especially small ones) and on 
tribes? What flexibility or alternatives for compliance should the 
Coast Guard consider that would minimize the cost and burden of such 
requirements while promoting passengers' safety?

    Dated: February 19, 1998.
R.C. North,
Read Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety 
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 98-4825 Filed 2-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P