Standards for Damage Stability of New Domestic Passenger Vessels

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