Small Passenger Vessel Inspection and Certification

SUMMARY: This Interim Final Rule (IFR) completely revises the

regulations affecting small passenger vessels. It reflects numerous

comments received on both a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and

the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). The Coast Guard

believes that an IFR is necessary to address both the need to publish

an enforceable rule, and allow the public an opportunity to comment on

sections that have been substantially revised from the SNPRM. The

changes in this IFR include: The creation of a separate subchapter K

for small passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or with

overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers; additional

alternatives to certain required lifesaving equipment; greater

recognition of existing industry standards; and the establishment of

new upper limit breakpoints above which a vessel must comply with the

construction and outfitting requirements applicable to a passenger

vessel of more than 100 gross tons. These revisions update the existing

regulations in Parts 175 through 187 to accommodate the advanced

technology, larger size, and increased passenger carrying capacity of

the small passenger vessels built today.

DATES: This IFR is effective on March 11, 1996. The Incorporation by

Reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved

by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 11, 1996. Comments

on this IFR must be received on or before June 10, 1996. The Coast

Guard has determined that the opportunity for oral presentations will

aid in this rulemaking, and will hold at least one public hearing

during the comment period. The Coast Guard solicits recommendations on

dates and locations for a public meeting, and will provide more

information about public hearings by a later notice in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine

Safety Council (G-LRA/3600) (CGD 85-080), U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20593-0001, or

delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except holidays. The telephone number is (202)

267-1477.

Comments on collection of information requirements may be mailed

also to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20503,

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Eric P. Christensen, Project Manager, Office of Marine

Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, (G-MOS-2), phone (202)

267-1181, telefax (202) 267-4570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in the drafting of this proposal are

Lieutenant Eric P. Christensen, Project Manager; Lieutenant Commander

Marc C. Cruder, Project Manager Emeritus, Office of Marine Safety,

Security and Environmental Protection; and Mr. Nicholas Grasselli,

Project Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel.

Requests For Comments

Interested persons are invited and encouraged to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting written views, data, or arguments on the

contents of this IFR. Persons submitting comments should include their

name and address, reference this IFR (CGD 85-080), give the specific

section of the regulations to which each comment applies, and include

supporting documents or sufficient detail to indicate the reason for

each comment. Persons desiring an acknowledgment that their comments

were received should include a stamped, self-addressed envelope or

postcard. This IFR may be changed in light of the comments received.

All comments received before the expiration of the comment period will

be considered before final action is taken on this rulemaking.

Regulatory History

A NPRM, published in the Federal Register (54 FR 4412) of January

30, 1989, contained a proposed revision of subchapter T in 46 CFR. The

NPRM contained a description of the small passenger vessel fleet and

detailed reasons for the proposed revision of subchapter T. The NPRM

also proposed revisions to portions of 46 CFR subchapter S. Subdivision

and Stability, that affect small passenger vessels. The NPRM comment

period was originally scheduled to expire on May 31, 1989, but was

extended to July 31, 1989. The Coast Guard also held six public

hearings on the proposed rulemaking in the cities of: Washington, DC;

St. Louis, MO; New Orleans, LA; San Francisco, CA; Chicago, IL; and

Boston, MA. Over 225 persons attended and 116 members of the public

presented their views on the NPRM at the hearings.

The Coast Guard received over 300 comment letters on the NPRM

providing both support and criticism of the various proposed changes.

Based on the comments received, the Coast Guard published a SNPRM

(59 FR 1994) on January 13, 1994. The SNPRM contained a complete

revision of the proposed regulations affecting small passenger vessels.

The significant changes proposed in the SNPRM included: (1) The

creation of a separate subchapter K for small passenger vessels

carrying more than 150 passengers or with overnight accommodations for

more than 49 passengers; (2) alternatives to certain required

lifesaving equipment; (3) greater recognition of industry standards;

and (4) the establishment of new upper limit breakpoints above which a

vessel would have to comply with the construction and outfitting

requirements applicable to a passenger vessel of more than 100 gross

tons. During the 150 day comment period, the Coast Guard received over

160 letters raising over 900 separate issues. Seven public hearings

were held on the SNPRM in the cities of: New London, CT; Seattle, WA;

Chicago, IL; Annapolis, MD; Tampa, FL; Cincinnati, OH; and Long Beach,

CA. Over 225 persons attended and 80 members of the public presented

their views on the SNPRM at the hearings.

Background and Purpose

Subchapter T contains the regulations for the inspection and

certification of small passenger vessels including construction,

outfitting of lifesaving and fire protection equipment, machinery and

electrical installations, and operational requirements. These

regulations were initially promulgated in the Federal Register of 5

October 1957 (22 FR 7949). Subchapter T originally regulated vessels of

19.8 meters (65 feet) or less in length, measuring more than 15 but

less than 100 gross tons, and carrying more than 6 passengers. The

major revision to subchapter T was made in 1963 when the scope of the

regulations was broadened to include vessels of more than 19.8 meters

(65 feet) in length, measuring less than 100 gross tons, and

[[Page 865]]

carrying one or more passengers (28 FR 9733). Only minor revisions have

been made to subchapter T since 1963. Significant changes have occurred

over the past 30 years affecting the small passenger vessel fleet

including: (1) Statutory changes; (2) increases in vessel size and

passenger carrying capacity; (3) increases in the services offered by

the owners and operators of small passenger vessels; (4) expansion of

vessel routes; and (5) technological advances. Consequently, subchapter

T requires updating to reflect these changes.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

This IFR completely revises the regulations affecting small

passenger vessels. It reflects numerous comments received on both the

NPRM and the SNPRM. Comments that are generally applicable to more than

one part of the proposed regulations are discussed under ``General

Comments to the SNPRM.'' Specific comments on each regulation in

subchapter T, subchapter K and Parts 170, 171, and 173 of subchapter S

are discussed under ``Comments on Particular Provisions of the SNPRM,''

in numerical order by the section number proposed in the SNPRM.

Numerous comments were editorial in nature, and were considered in

developing this IFR. However, non-substantial and editorial changes are

not discussed in this preamble.

Comments on the Supplemental Notice of January 13, 1994

(a) General Comments to the SNPRM

While the comments generally recognized the regulations proposed in

the SNPRM were a substantial improvement over the regulations proposed

in the NPRM published in 1989, there was concern that several areas

were not sufficiently addressed. These included:

1. Executive Order 12866

The Comments received questioned whether the SNPRM complied with

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. The comments

quoted from four areas of the Executive Order, and claimed that the

SNPRM:

(1) did not ``consider incentives for innovation, consistency,

predictability, the cost of enforcement and compliance (to the

government, regulated entities, and the public), flexibility

distributive impacts, and equity'';

(2) was not based on the best reasonably obtainable information

concerning the need for, and consequences of the intended regulations;

(3) did not specify performance specifications in lieu of behavior

or manner of compliance; and

(4) was not tailored to impose the least burden to society by

taking into account the cumulative cost of regulations on the regulated

entities.

The Coast Guard generally agrees and as a result:

(1) The IFR includes more alternatives and equivalences than were

proposed in the SNPRM.

(2) The Coast Guard reexamined its casualty statistics, and

concluded that the casualty statistics included in the document A Study

of Lifesaving Systems for Small Passenger Vessels and those referred to

in the draft Regulatory Evaluation do not, on their own, appear to show

sufficient need for some of the proposed changes. However, the genesis

of this rulemaking results from more than casualty statistics.

Therefore, the IFR was revised and the regulations eased to more

closely reflect the focus of the small passenger vessel casualty

history, and reduce the emphasis on the perceived risk of casualties

yet to come.

(3) The IFR has also been revised to reduce the prescriptive

language intended to regulate behavior, and to incorporate performance

based specifications. This is particularly true in the areas of

Structural Fire Protection for vessels carrying more than 150

passengers, and in the operations sections in parts 122 and 185.

(4) The Coast Guard did not fully examine the cumulative cost of

regulation prior to publication of the SNPRM. The SNPRM had been

drafted before Executive Order 12866 was issued. However, the Coast

Guard is sensitive to the small passenger vessel industry's concerns

about being overregulated, or regulated out of business due to these

cumulative costs. As a result, the revisions to the IFR were designed

to reduce the cumulative impact of regulations. These revisions are

estimated to substantially reduce the cost of this rulemaking when

compared to the regulations proposed in the SNPRM, and thereby

contribute to reducing the cumulative cost of regulation.

2. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA, enacted on July 26, 1990, has not been fully applied to

vessels in the marine transportation environment. Regulations for

ferries, excursion boats, and other vessels were reserved and not

addressed in the final rule published by the Department of

Transportation on September 6, 1991 (56 FR 45530). Comments pointed to

the extreme liability that vessel operators may be subject to by not

complying with this act because compliance is at times in direct

conflict with existing Coast Guard regulations.

Although the Coast Guard agrees with many of the comments received

on this issue, specific regulations addressing the ADA are not included

in this rulemaking. There are no Department of Transportation

regulations or Access Board guidelines specifically covering access to

vessels at this time. The Coast Guard understands the industry's

concerns in this area. Since the Department of Transportation

anticipates a future rulemaking on this issue, the Coast Guard is

currently working with the Department to study the feasibility of how

to apply the requirements of the ADA to passenger vessels.

3. High Speed Craft (HSC) Code

The definition of Dynamically Supported Craft (DSC) used in the

SNPRM was based primarily on the International Maritime Organization

(IMO) ``Code of Safety for Dynamically Supported Craft'' (DSC Code).

Recognizing the unique design and operational characteristics of DSC,

the DSC Code was developed by IMO to provide a level of safety for DSC

on international voyages equivalent to that provided by load line

requirements and the International Convention for Safety of Life at

Sea, 1974, as amended by the articles of Protocol of 1978 and the

amendments of 1981, and 1983 (SOLAS). Recently, the DSC Code was

revised to address the growth in both size and type of advanced marine

craft that has occurred since adoption of the DSC Code in 1977. The

revised code is titled ``International Code of Safety for High Speed

Craft'' (HSC Code). New criteria based on speed and volumetric Froude

number are used to delineate those craft to which the code applies from

other more conventional craft. This IFR incorporates defining criteria

for High Speed Craft (HSC) that are consistent with the new IMO HSC

Code.

The HSC Code was developed to address the design and operation of a

wide range of advanced marine vehicle types. HSC designs include air

cushion vessels, hydrofoil vessels, side wall vessels, and other types

of craft essentially within the spectrum existing between ships and

aircraft. Many existing regulations were not practicable or sufficient

for design or safety reasons. Due to their high speeds,

maneuverability, normal dynamic support, airplane like operations,

necessary light weight, and unique machinery, HSC may need alternative

[[Page 866]]

requirements. Other vessels, such as certain catamarans, may also have

operating characteristics different enough from conventional

displacement vessels to necessitate alternative measures to ensure safe

and proper operation. These characteristics include high speed, the

need for lightweight structure, and a planning mode of operation.

In order to establish a level of safety equivalent to displacement

vessels, the HSC Code contains specific provisions in many areas

including advanced methods of design and analysis; weather conditions

that might restrict operations; areas of operation; radio

communications; evacuation of passengers; rescue services; and vessel

maintenance. To prevent piecemeal application of the HSC Code, which

might result in a system imbalance that is hazardous to passengers, the

HSC Code states that full compliance with all applicable provisions of

the code is required if the HSC Code is to be used as an equivalency to

the international conventions.

The Coast Guard position is that, in general, the provisions of the

HSC Code are only suitable for vessels that are of lightweight

construction with a need to operate at the high speeds typical of an

HSC. Vessels that meet the definition of an HSC are not required to

comply with the HSC Code; however, this Code may be proposed as an

equivalent standard for vessel design, construction, and operational

requirements under new Sec. Sec. 114.540(b) and 175.540(b). The HSC

Code is not considered equivalent to SOLAS or the U.S. regulations for

vessels which do not meet the definition of an HSC. The Coast Guard is

no longer proposing to incorporate the provisions of the HSC Code by

reference by listing it in Sec. Sec. 114.600 and 175.600.

One comment noted that the regulations should specifically indicate

in which sections the HSC Code would be an acceptable equivalent. The

comment also noted that the HSC Code should only be applied in its

entirety to avoid creating potential ``imbalances.'' The Coast Guard

agrees. This IFR provides, in those areas where the HSC Code does not

contain specific provisions or items are left to the satisfaction of

the Administration, the requirements of subchapters T and K apply. It

also provides that the HSC Code can only be used in its entirety as an

equivalency since it is based on a ``systems engineering'' approach to

design. In general terms, the use of the HSC Code as an equivalency

will supplant the sections of the CFR that it addresses. The HSC Code

is intended to be an option for equivalency to the requirements of

subchapter T and K, and a vessel designer may determine if it is

advantageous to apply the Code in place of the corresponding subchapter

T and K sections.

Another comment pointed out that the required speed of the craft

should meet the IMO HSC Code criteria rather that the speed/length

formula from the DSC Code. The Coast Guard agrees that the definitions

of HSC used in these regulations should be consistent with the

international criteria. The use of term DSC is discontinued and the

term HSC is adopted to maintain consistency with the IMO HSC Code.

One comment expressed concern that the proposed definition of DSC

included an overly large population of moderate speed planing vessels

as a result of the speed formula in the SNPRM. The Coast Guard notes

that these crafts have been approved in the past using these rules and

have had an acceptable safety record. The comment went on to state that

proposed Sec. 182.130(a), excluded the use of American Boat and Yacht

Council (ABYC) rules for DSC's. The Coast Guard disagrees. Section

182.130(a) applies to propulsion and machinery. The ABYC rules are

referenced in the regulatory text, and have been satisfactorily applied

to DSC in the past.

Vessels meeting the HSC definition in the IFR that will be

certified for international voyages must comply with the provisions of

the HSC Code, or otherwise, all applicable provisions of SOLAS. This is

in keeping with the intent of the HSC Code. Vessels meeting the HSC

definition in this IFR that will not be certified for international

voyages, would be required to comply with the applicable U.S.

regulations, but may request substitution of the HSC Code for

applicable U.S. regulations. Vessels that meet the HSC definition in

this IFR, which will not be certificated for international voyages, and

which the owners choose to design in compliance with the applicable

U.S. regulations in lieu of the HSC Code, may be subject to additional

requirements determined by the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine

Inspection (OCMI). The cognizant OCMI may require operational controls,

or additional safety equipment under new Secs. 115.110, 116.700(a),

16.800(f), 121.100(b), 176.110, 177.700(a), 177.800(f), and 184.100(b).

For example, seat belts, which are specified in the HSC Code but are

not specifically required on all small passenger vessels by subchapters

T or K, may be required by the cognizant OCMI on a case-by-case basis.

The above sections are further discussed in the comments for each

specific section.

The Coast Guard is retaining proposed Sec. Sec. 114.540(b) and

175.540(b) to state that the Commandant may accept the provisions of

the HSC Code as an equivalent to the applicable requirements in

subchapter T or K. Requests to use the HSC Code as an equivalent to the

regulations will be handled on a case-by-case basis by the Marine

Safety Center, and will be carefully evaluated to ensure that system

safety, as envisioned in the HSC Code is maintained. Where the HSC Code

does not contain provisions equivalent to the specific requirements

proposed in subchapters T and K, or where the Code leaves

determinations up to the Administration, such as the specific wiring

requirements in Sec. Sec. 120.340 and 183.340, a vessel would be

expected to comply with the requirements in the applicable U.S.

regulations.

The SNPRM proposed restrictions on routes for DSC. The proposed

sections, Sec. Sec. 115.110(b) and 176.110(b), have been removed. The

OCMI may restrict routes for vessels built and operated under the HSC

Code, and may impose additional requirements if necessary to ensure

safety.

In addition to the above comments received concerning the HSC Code,

the Coast Guard received one comment concerning the proposed

requirements for the location of passenger and crew accommodation

spaces in subchapters T and K (Secs. 177.700, 177.800 and 116.700,

116.800 respectively). The comment noted that the relationship between

the deck and deepest load line is acceptable, but no further

``regulation like'' policy should be applied without opportunity for

comment. This IFR adopts the regulations proposed in the SNPRM

concerning the location of accommodation spaces without change. For

subchapter T and K vessels, the requirement for crew and passenger

accommodation space location follow the breakpoints for application in

Table 114.100(f), with the exception that vessels more than 19.8 meters

(65 feet) in length with overnight accommodations for more than 49

passengers must comply with subchapter H requirements. Subchapter K'

vessels (vessels carrying more than 600 passengers, or with overnight

accommodations for more than 150 passengers, or 200 feet or greater in

length) must also comply with subchapter H requirements for crew and

passenger accommodation space location.

[[Page 867]]

(b) Comments on Particular Provisions of the SNPRM

Parts 114 and 175 General Provisions

Sections 114.110 and 175.110 General applicability. Three comments

stated that the passenger breakpoint between subchapter K and K' should

be raised from 600 to 1000 passengers because the adoption of

subchapter H standards for construction, lifesaving, and fire fighting

is overly burdensome. One comment stated, ``Provisions of subchapter H

are written to govern large passenger ships carrying overnight

passengers and are not reasonable for vessels that do not carry

overnight passengers.'' The Coast Guard disagrees. The 600 passenger

breakpoint was based on comments on the NPRM and existing subdivision

breakpoints. The Coast Guard believes that the application of

subchapter H for construction, lifesaving, and fire fighting standards

is appropriate for the risks associated with high capacity passenger

vessels, including vessels of less than 100 gross tons. Additionally,

the guidelines contained in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular

(NVIC) No. 8-93 ``Equivalent Alternatives to 46 CFR subchapter H

Requirements Related to Means of Escape, Safe Refuge Areas, and Main

Vertical Zone Length'' provides guidance on compliance with certain

structural fire protection provisions of subchapter H in order to

reduce the burden to industry.

Several comments stated that the use of gross tonnage as a criteria

for regulations should be eliminated. As gross tonnage thresholds are

established by statute, changes based on these comments are beyond the

scope of this rulemaking.

Sections 114.400 and 175.400 Definitions of terms used in this

subchapter. Many definitions in these sections have been revised based

on comments received on other sections.

In response to a comment which recommended that the space

designations in Tables 116.415 (b) and (c) should be consistent with

those in subchapter H, many definitions relating to the application of

the structural fire protection tables in Sec. 116.415 have been

amended. The discussion of the changes to Sec. 116.415 provides

additional information, including the rationale behind amendment of the

structural fire protection tables.

Accommodation spaces have been divided into two categories, low

risk and high risk. Low risk accommodation spaces are defined as

accommodation spaces that contain a fire load of not more than 15

kilograms per square meter (3 pounds per square foot). High risk

accommodation spaces are defined as those with a fire load greater than

15 kilograms per square meter (3 pounds per square foot). Furnishings

in low risk accommodations spaces are limited by the definition in

Sec. 114.400 to fire resistant furnishings, while furnishings in high

risk accommodation spaces are not limited to those with fire resistant

construction; see the discussion of Sec. 116.427 for additional

information.

Additionally, washrooms and toilet spaces have been removed from

the definition of accommodation space in subchapter K, and grouped into

the category of low risk service space (type 8). Washrooms and toilet

spaces typically have a very low fire load, and it is appropriate to

include them in a space category that would require a lesser degree of

structural fire protection. Toilets and washrooms are considered type 8

spaces in subchapter H.

One comment on Sec. 116.415 stated that food and drink service bars

could be considered a ``low risk service space'' and that they should

be included in the definition of ``accommodation areas,'' and not be

subject to the structural fire protection restrictions for a

``galley.'' The Coast Guard concurs, and a provision is included in the

definition of an accommodation space to indicate that a microwave or

other similar ``low heat'' cooking appliance is permitted in an

accommodation space. This is consistent with interpretations of SOLAS.

A definition is added for the term ``area of refuge.'' This

definition recognizes that an area of refuge is intended to serve as a

safe area where passengers can wait, in the event of an emergency,

until they can disembark. This definition explicitly states that the

standards for protection of areas of refuge are performance oriented,

in that the areas of refuge need only provide a safe haven for as long

as they may reasonably be expected to be occupied. The maximum time

limit of one hour for an area of refuge is consistent with structural

fire protection requirements that do not require any boundaries with

fire endurance of over one hour. It is not the Coast Guard's intent

that this definition add any additional requirements to those proposed

in the SNPRM for an area of refuge.

The definition of ``atrium'' is amended to clarify that atriums are

only permitted in accommodation spaces.

In response to a comment that indicated that the structural fire

protection requirements for an ``auxiliary machinery space'' as defined

in subchapter H are less stringent than those proposed in the SNPRM, a

definition is added that is consistent with subchapter H. For

application of the structural fire protection tables, these areas would

be included in the category of ``voids, fuel tanks, and water tanks,''

instead of the category ``machinery space,'' if the space contains a

fire load of less than 2.5 kilograms per square meter (0.5 pounds per

square foot).

The definition of a ``balcony'' is amended because of changes in

Sec. 116.439. See the discussion on Sec. 116.439 for additional

information.

The definition of a ``cargo space'' is amended to specifically

state that a vehicle space is included in this category for purposes of

application of the structural fire protection tables.

The definition of a ``fire control boundary'' is amended by adding

``C'-class'' to the definition. See the discussion on Sec. 116.415 for

additional information.

The definition of ``fire load'' is amended to delete reference to

``wood equivalent weight'' to make the definition consistent with Coast

Guard policy contained the revision to NVIC No. 6-80.

The definition of ``hazardous condition'' is added to Secs. 114.400

and 175.400 as a result of the revision to the casualty reporting

requirements contained in Secs. 122.202 and 185.202, respectively. See

the discussion on Secs. 122.202 and 185.202 for additional information.

Definitions of ``high risk service space'' and ``low risk service

space'' are amended to make these spaces consistent with type (8) and

(9) spaces in subchapter H, respectively. The definition of ``High risk

service spaces'' includes the same spaces as ``galleys, main pantries,

storerooms, and workshops'' as found in subchapter H; and the

definition of ``low risk service spaces'' includes the same spaces as

``washrooms, toilet spaces, and isolated pantries'' in subchapter H.

Small or large pantries and storerooms may be included in either

category depending on fire load.

One comment suggested that the temperature cutoff for a galley

should be increased from 121 deg. C (250 deg. F) to 232 deg. C

(450 deg. F). The Coast Guard does not agree. Many cooking oils have a

flash point below 232 deg. C (450 deg. F), and therefore require the

level of fire protection associated with a galley.

Several comments stated that the definition of ``major conversion''

should be changed because it was too restrictive and not consistent

with the definition used in 46 CFR 28.50 for commercial fishing

vessels. In addition, the comments believed that paragraph (1) of

[[Page 868]]

the definition would be subject to inconsistent interpretation by the

Coast Guard, and result in the upgrading of an existing vessel to more

stringent standards even for slight changes to the vessel's structure.

Two comments suggested that a percentage (5-10%) be assigned to the

changes in length, breadth, and height for determining when a change is

a major conversion. One comment stated that the changing of gross

tonnage should not be used as a measure of determining a major

conversion because of the way it can be manipulated in the tonnage

rules. The Coast Guard partially agrees. The definition of ``major

conversion'' for commercial fishing vessels was derived from the

definition contained in 46 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2101, and

modified to reflect the unique nature of commercial fishing vessels. In

order to reduce the confusion associated with creating new definitions

the Coast Guard decided to adopt the more flexible definition contained

in 46 USC 2101 as written. This revision allows for minor changes to

the structure and carrying capacity of a vessel. The Coast Guard

believes that since every vessel is different, the determination of

what is a major conversion should be made on a case-by-case basis, by

the Commandant, taking changes to the dimensions and effects on

stability into consideration rather than assigning an arbitrary

percentage.

The definition of ``means of escape'' is amended by replacing the

term ``passageways'' with ``corridors'' to make it consistent with

subchapter H.

The definition of ``passenger'' is updated to reflect the changes

made in the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993, and the definition of

``passenger for hire'' was added.

The definition of a ``stairtower'' is amended to clarify that all

stairways in a stairtower must be contained in a common enclosure.

A definition of ``safety areas'' is added that is consistent with

subchapter H.

Sections 114.560 and 175.560 Appeals. Several comments stated that

these sections should be revised to require the Coast Guard to respond

to appeals within 30 days of receipt. The comments believed that since

the Coast Guard imposes a 30 day response time on industry, it is only

reasonable that the Coast Guard respond in kind. The Coast Guard

disagrees. These sections reference 46 CFR 1.03, and that part is not

under revision at this time. However, the Coast Guard will consider

actions to correct the perceived lack of timely response.

Sections 114.600 and 175.600 Incorporation by reference. One

comment was received from the National Fire Protection Association

indicating that the standards proposed for adoption by reference were

not the most recent edition, and suggested that the most recent edition

of each standard be adopted. The Coast Guard concurs, as the most

recent standards typically allow greater flexibility by recognizing new

design technology. Sections 114.600 and 175.600 have been amended to

adopt the most recent editions of standards where appropriate.

Additionally, several new standards have been added to these sections

due to amendments to other sections. See the discussion on other

sections as appropriate for the rationale behind these additions.

1. Parts 115 and 176--Inspection and Certification

Half of the over 90 comments received on these parts applied to

subchapter T vessels, and focused on the drydock interval requirements

in Part 176 Subpart F. Within Subpart F, comments specifically

addressed the reduced interval of one year for hulls of wood

construction over 20 years old.

Some comments believed the 20 year age requirement was arbitrary

and not supported by fact or casualty statistics. Others believed that

age had nothing to do with the condition of a well maintained vessel,

regardless of the hull material. Still others claimed that if Coast

Guard inspectors knew what they were looking at, ill-maintained vessels

would be found, and all wood vessels would not have to be targeted.

The reduced drydock interval for wood vessels over 20 years old is

a reflection of the casualty history cited in the Coast Guard study A

Study of Lifesaving Systems for Small Passenger Vessels. As noted in

this study, wood vessels accounted for over 90% of all casualties

resulting in the loss of the vessel or a loss of life. Of the wood

vessels included in the study, the average age was approximately 26

years old. Those specifically reported as flooding, foundering, or hull

failure casualties average 38 years old.

These statistics notwithstanding, the Coast Guard agrees with the

comments that a reduced drydocking interval should not be required for

all wooden vessels, as the degree and extent of vessel maintenance

certainly figures into the structural condition of any wood vessel.

Since the EL TORO II casualty in December, 1993, the Coast Guard has

revised Navigational and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 1-63

``Notes on Inspection and Repair of Wooden Hulls'' to provide more

detailed and current guidance on the inspection of wooden hulls. This

should enable Coast Guard OCMIs to better target the marginally

maintained wooden vessels within their zones, and allow them to reduce

the drydock inspection interval on select vessels when there is

sufficient cause or evidence of lack of maintenance.

As a result of the Coast Guard's NVIC revision, the industry's

comments, and the changes in the lifesaving equipment requirements in

Table 180.200(c), the Coast Guard deleted proposed Sec. 176.600(d),

which would have required that wood vessels over 20 years old undergo

an annual drydock exam. In addition, proposed Secs. 115.600(d), and

176.600(e) [now (d)], have been revised to emphasize the OCMI's

existing discretion to decrease vessel drydock intervals as necessary

to monitor a vessel's structural condition.

Forty-seven comments received focused on the wording of

Secs. 115.840 and 176.840. The comments believed that the OCMI was

being given too much authority to require additional tests and

inspections without reasonable cause. A few comments stated that adding

the word ``reasonable'' to the language of this section would satisfy

their concerns.

The Coast Guard does not agree that OCMIs would abuse their

authority, and require additional tests and inspections without

reasonable cause. However, the word ``reasonable'' has been added to

the language of Secs. 115.840, and 176.840.

Several other comments focused on the requirement of the owner or

operator to notify the OCMI whenever a vessel is drydocked or hauled

out above and beyond the required drydock interval. The comments stated

that the requirement to contact the OCMI whenever the vessel is

drydocked, for whatever reasons, contradicted a subsequent section with

a more reasonable notification requirement.

The Coast Guard agrees with comments that proposed Secs. 115.600(e)

and 176.600(f) contradict Secs. 115.612 and 176.612, respectively,

which contain specific requirements for the owner or operator to

contact the OCMI whenever a vessel is drydocked or hauled out for

repairs affecting the safety of the vessel. Therefore the Coast Guard

deleted proposed Secs. 115.600(e) and 176.600(f).

In addition to changes made as a result of comments, the Coast

Guard has modified the requirements for vessels operating as other than

inspected small passenger vessels. Under the Passenger Vessel Safety

Act of 1993, a vessel of less than 100 gross tons may be chartered

without crew as a recreational vessel and carry twelve passengers. The

[[Page 869]]

Coast Guard has clarified the conditions under which an inspected

passenger vessel may operate as an uninspected vessel by revising

Secs. 115.114 and 176.114 to be consistent with the Passenger Vessel

Safety Act of 1993.

2. Parts 116 and 177--Construction and Arrangement

These parts generated the most public comment. Comments on both

parts focused on the proposed plan submittal requirements. The majority

of the comments addressed the structural fire protection requirements

in Part 116, Subpart D, which apply to vessels carrying over 150

passengers, and vessels with accommodations for more than 49 overnight

passengers. Within Subpart D, comments fell into four areas: Use of

polyurethane foam; fire control boundaries; ceiling and interior

finishes; and stairway, stairtower and ladder arrangements.

Sections 116.202 and 177.202 Plans and information required. Over

70 comments objected to the requirement to submit a complete set of

plans to the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)

prior to the start of construction. The comments considered this to be

an unreasonable interference with the private sector, and cited

contractual, financial or other reasons to start construction early.

The majority of the comments suggested that the provisions in proposed

paragraph (c) would adequately cover the owner's or builders's risks of

starting construction early and that the working regarding plan

submittal should be the same as that in existing 46 CFR 177.05-1. The

Coast Guard revised these sections to require only Outboard Profile,

Inboard Profile and Arrangement plans to be submitted prior to the

start of construction. The remainder of the plans must be submitted for

approval before the vessel receives a Certificate of Inspection. In

addition, references in subchapter K to OCMI approval of plans were

removed, and replaced with Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center

approval. The Marine Safety Center has been responsible for the plan

review of vessels: 65 feet in length and greater; carrying over 150

passengers; or a unusual design for several years. The deletion of OCMI

approval clarifies the Marine Safety Center's role as the plan review

center for vessels constructed in accordance with subchapter K.

The remaining comments focus on the increased number of plans

required to be submitted. The comments believed that the increased

number of plans required, from (9) to (25), would delay the Coast Guard

review process, and add expense to the construction of a vessel. The

intent of the rewording in the SNPRM was to better explain the details

already required on plans submitted for review. The intent was not to

require three times the number of plans to be submitted for review. In

response to the comments, the Coast Guard revised these sections, and

has grouped required plan details under general headings similar to

those in existing Sec. 177.05-1.

Section 116.300 Structural design. Several comments expressed

concern that this section did not allow the use of fiberglass reinforce

plastic (FRP) or composite construction. Other comments suggested that

this section should identify a recognized design standard for FRP or

composite construction. The Coast Guard does not wish to prohibit the

use of these materials; however, there is currently no recognized

design standard that provides an equivalent level of safety to vessels

constructed in accordance with this part. Consequently, vessels

constructed of FRP or composite materials and subject to the provisions

of subchapter K are considered to be constructed of ``special

materials.'' These vessels will be considered and reviewed in

accordance with the provisions in Sec. 116.340 for alternate design

considerations. No changes have been made from the proposed

regulations.

Section 116.400 Application. Several comments pointed out that

paragraph (a)(2) should read ``Vessels with overnight accommodations

for more than 49 passengers but not more than 150 passengers'' and that

paragraph (b) should read ``Vessels with overnight accommodations for

more than 150 passengers must comply with Sec. 72.05 of this chapter.''

The Coast Guard agrees and has revised this section accordingly.

Section 116.405 General arrangement and outfitting. One comment

discussed the testing of mattresses and proposed the use of California

Technical Bulletin 129 (CAL TB 129), ``Flammability Test Procedure for

Mattresses for Use in Public Buildings.'' The Coast Guard agrees that

materials should not be limited prescriptively, but the use of a

standard based on a single State's regulation is generally not

acceptable in a national and international industry. However, the Coast

Guard will pursue development of similar standards through a recognized

national forum. It is expected that Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) will develop similar

acceptable standards. For example UL 1056, ``Fire Test of Upholstered

Furniture,'' is similar to Cal TB 133, ``Flammability Test Procedure

for Seating Furniture Used in Public Occupancies.'' However, the

International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution A.688(17), ``Fire

Test Procedures for Ignitability of Bedding Components, `` is an

international maritime standard that sufficiently test the ignitability

of mattresses and the associated blankets using a cigarette and an open

flame. The IMO standard does not prohibit the use of polyurethane foam.

In an attempt to harmonize industry standards worldwide, the IMO

standard has been incorporated for the testing of mattresses on U.S.

vessels. The regulatory text is amended to add the alternative of

compliance with IMO Resolution A.688(17). Compliance with the U.S.

Department of Commerce (FF 4-72.16) ``Standard for Mattress

Flammability'' is still acceptable provided the mattress does not

contain polyurethane foam. The proposed complete prohibition on the use

of polyurethane foam is removed.

Section 116.415 Fire control boundaries. Several comments

recommended that an automatic 10 percent extension of the 40 meter (131

foot limit) on main vertical zone (MVZ) length be incorporated into the

regulations because subchapter K vessels do not operate in the same

environment as SOLAS vessels and Coast Guard policy has permitted

extensions of MVZ length. The Coast Guard agrees, in part, and has

added a provision to the IFR which allows the Commanding Officer,

Marine Safety Center to extend the MVZ length to 44 meters (144 feet).

The maximum allowable MVZ horizontal step size has also been changed to

be consistant with current policy. The provisions to allow extension of

MVZ length, although not automatic, will help provide vessel owners

with the necessary design flexibility. The decision to grant an

extension of MVZ length is not automatic and should only be made after

considering the effect on the overall level of safety. Recent

amendments to SOLAS allow the length and width of MVZ's to be further

extended to a maximum of 48 meters (157 feet) provided that the total

area of the main vertical zone is not greater than 1,600 square meters

(17,200 square feet) on any deck; however, SOLAS also requires full

sprinkler systems for passenger spaces. The Coast Guard has also

published guidance applicable to passenger vessels on protected routes

that explicitly details requirements necessary for vessels to be

designed with ``long MVZs.'' This guidance is

[[Page 870]]

published in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) NO. 8-93)

``Equivalent Alternatives to 46 CFR subchapter H Requirements Related

to Means of Escape, Safe Refuge Areas, and Main Vertical Zone Length.''

Subchapter K vessels may, through the equivalency provisions in 46 CFR

114.540, build to the structural fire protection provisions in

subchapter H, part 72.05 and, if on a protected route, the long MVZ

alternative in NVIC 8-93, in lieu of the provisions in 46 CFR Part 116.

The Coast Guard has and will continue to consider proposals for the

extension of MVZ length, beyond regulatory limits, if a proposal

provides an equivalent overall level of safety. Extensions of MVZ

length up to 44 meters (144 feet) will generally be made to allow the

ends of MVZs to coincide with watertight subdivision bulkheads or in

order to accommodate a large public space extending for the whole

length of the main vertical zone. For extensions of MVZ length beyond

44 meters, additional features such as a heat detection system, a smoke

detection system, a sprinkler system and/or additional emergency escape

routes, may provided the necessary compensating provisions for

subchapter K vessels. The type and number of compensating provisions

will be determined on a case-by-case basis if the vessel does not

comply with the published guidance.

Several comments recommended that this section be revised to

incorporate the existing Coast Guard guidance published in NVIC 8-93

and Marine Technical and Hazardous Materials Division Policy File

Memorandum (MTH PFM) No. 3-89 regarding the omission of draft stops in

certain situations. The Coast Guard agrees and has adopted the guidance

into this IFR.

Seven comments disagreed with the proposal in the SNPRM to

eliminate the two categories of accommodation spaces proposed in the

NPRM and replace them with one accommodation space category. One

comment requested that space designations be modified to be consistent

with subchapter H, and one comment requested that Tables 116.415 (b)

and (c) be clearly labeled ``bulkheads'' and ``decks'' respectively. In

response to the comments received, Sec. 116.415 is amended to include a

low fire load option in line with a type 5 space as defined in

subchapter H. Tables 116.415 (b) and (c) are also amended so that space

designations are more consistent between subchapters H and K.

Additionally, the terms ``bulkheads'' and ``decks'' have been added to

the tables as appropriate.

Since the publication of the SNPRM, a new low fire load policy was

developed with extensive industry input and published in MTH PFM No. 1-

94 on November 15, 1994. A copy of this policy may be obtained by

calling Commandant (G-MMS-4) at (202) 267-1076. MTH PFM 1-94 provides

the marine industry with an alternative that supplements the

regulations and provides the minimum structural insulation and bulkhead

classifications for certain vessels containing low risk passenger

accommodation spaces with very low fire loads of not more than 5

kilograms per square meter (1 pound per square foot) fire loading. This

policy primarily benefits builders of aluminum vessels because of the

need to insulate bare aluminum structure for it to be considered

equivalent to steel. MTH PFM 1-94 provides guidelines for the design

and construction of passenger vessels with extremely low fire loading,

fire resistant furnishings and greatly reduced quantities of structural

insulation. This low fire load alternative applies to subchapter K

vessels and the Coast Guard plans to adopt it into the final rule

following an evaluation period currently underway.

The two categories of accommodation and public spaces proposed in

the 1989 NPRM were low risk (fire load of 15 kilograms per square meter

(3 pounds per square foot) or less) and high risk (fire load of 30

kilograms per square meter (6 pounds per square foot) or less). In an

attempt to simplify design and construction requirements, and to

maintain a uniform measure of structural fire protection on small

passenger vessels, these two NPRM categories were revised in the SNPRM

to one designation with a maximum fire load of 37.5 kilograms per

square meter (7.5 pounds per square foot). As discussed above, a number

of comments objected to this proposal and citing the need for both

additional alternatives in the selection of furnishings and for

reductions in structural insulation.

Subchapter H includes three categories of accommodation and public

spaces: those with incombustible veneers and trim and fire resistant

furnishings (type 5), those under 46 square meters (500 square feet)

with combustible furnishings (type 6), and those over 46 square meters

(500 square feet) with combustible furnishings (type 7). As stated in

NVIC 6-80 ``Guide to Structural Fire Protection Aboard Merchant

Vessels,'' rooms containing combustible furnishings are considered to

have a fire load of 50 kilograms per square meter (10 pounds per square

foot): 37.5 kilograms per square meter (7.5 pounds per square foot) of

furnishings, and 12.5 kilograms per square meter (2.5 pounds per square

foot) of passengers' effects.

In this IFR, to simplify the structural fire protection tables from

subchapter H, type 6 spaces [staterooms and public spaces of 46 square

meters (500 square feet) or less with combustible furnishings, and

isolated storerooms] are not included. In Sec. 116.415, for structural

fire protection purposes, accommodation spaces will be differentiated

only on the basis of fire load and type of furnishings. Type 6 spaces,

as defined in subchapter H, would be included in the category of type 7

spaces in subchapter K. The insulation requirements for type 5 and type

7 spaces were taken from the tables in subchapter H.

Nine comments concerned the requirement for ``A-0'' bulkheads and

decks on aluminum vessels in areas separating low fire load spaces

[spaces with a fire load less than 2.5 kilograms per square meter (0.5

pounds per square foot)]. Under the guidance contained in NVIC 6-80,

bulkheads and decks separating water tanks, void spaces containing less

than 2.5 kilograms per square meter (0.5 pounds per square foot), and

ballast tanks from open deck spaces may be constructed of uninsulated

aluminum. The IMO High Speed Craft Code contains a similar provision.

As indicated in the SNPRM, it is the Coast Guard's intent to permit

uninsulated aluminum construction in similar areas on subchapter K

vessels. Therefore, Sec. 116.415 (b) & (c) have been amended to

indicate that C'-Class construction is permitted in boundaries

separating open decks, voids containing less than 2.5 kilograms per

square meter (0.5 pounds per square foot) fire load, water tanks, and

embarkation stations. C'-Class construction must be a noncombustible

structural division that also resists the passage of smoke between

adjacent spaces. The establishment of a C'-Class barrier rating is not

intended to preclude the use of vents for ballast tanks or voids.

One comment noted the proposed requirement that all MVZ bulkheads

meet A-30 construction exceeds the requirements of subchapter H in some

cases, and this requirement should be modified so that it is not more

severe than the one in subchapter H. The Coast Guard agrees in part.

Accordingly, 0116.415(d) is amended to permit A-0 MVZ construction

where a Type 8, 12, or 13 space is on one side of the division. This

approach is also consistent with the MVZ philosophy contained in the

1992 amendments to SOLAS 74.

[[Page 871]]

Two comments requested that higher fire and smoke rated loads or a

reduction in structural fire protection requirements be permitted if a

vessel is fully sprinklered. The Coast Guard does not concur. Active

fire protection systems are generally less reliable than passive fire

protection measures. However, there are instances where an active fire

protection system is considered equivalent to passive measures provided

the expected reliability of the active system does not significantly

affect the overall level of safety. An example where it is acceptable

to substitute active systems for passive measures is the balcony and

atrium requirements contained in 0116.439 and 0116.440. However, fire

casualty experience has demonstrated that sprinklers are not in all

cases an acceptable substitute for limits on fire and smoke rated

loading or basic fire integrity of bulkheads and decks. No changes were

made to the proposed fire load or interior finish requirements when a

vessel is fully sprinklered.

Three comments asked that the proposed requirement in

Sec. 116.415(a)(1) that the hull, structural bulkheads, columns and

stanchions, superstructures, and deckhouses must be composed of steel

or equivalent material be changed to steel or aluminum. As stated

above, boundaries of several low fire risk spaces are now permitted to

be C'-Class construction, which could be met by the use of uninsulated

aluminum. However, as stated in the SNPRM, since aluminum has a much

lower fire endurance than steel, aluminum will require insulation in

areas where there is a substantial fire risk. The requirement for steel

or equivalent is modified to reflect that where specifically permitted

by Tables 116.415 (b) and (c), steel or equivalent is not required, and

noncombustible material may be used.

Section 116.422 Ceilings, linings, trim, interior finish and

decorations. There were numerous comments questioning the necessity for

the proposed requirement that ceiling panels be retained by continuous

flanges of steel or equivalent material on the exposed side of the

panel. This requirement would essentially rule out the use of typical

``snap-in'' type construction. The Coast Guard has reconsidered the

need for this requirement and has deleted it from the regulations.

One comment addressed the use of gypsum wallboard for interior

linings. All construction and interior linings are required to be

noncombustible. Gypsum wallboard is required to be approved in

accordance with Sec. 164.009 in 46 CFR subchapter Q, and listed in

Commandant Instruction M16714.3E (Coast Guard Equipment List). Any

finishings added to the surface must meet the requirements for finish

materials in Sec. 164.012 of subchapter Q. Any reference to a specific

building material, such as ``paper-faced gypsum'' wallboard, is not

necessary and has been removed from the regulations.

One comment expressed concern over the potential loss of strength

of paper-faced wallboard during or after a fire. The Coast Guard

believes that if the wallboard is part of the fire rated wall

construction, this concern is already addressed since the barrier is

required to meet the furnace test requirements in American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E-119 ``Standard Test Methods for

Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.'' If a lining is not

part of the wall for the purpose of fire rating then its fire integrity

is not a concern under the current regulations. Therefore, the

requirements in Sec. 116.422 have been amended to be consistent with

the existing requirements in subchapter H for noncombustible

construction and interior finish.

Several comments suggested changing the flame spread/smoke

generated performance requirements for approved interior finishes in

the ASTM E-84 ``Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building

Materials'' tunnel test from 20/10 to 20/25. The Coast Guard disagrees

and believes that the 20/10 standard maintains an appropriate level of

safety. However, the Coast Guard will consider industry research that

provides data indicating an alternative requirement will not degrade

the current level of safety.

Several comments addressed using other test methods for testing the

flammability of wall lining materials. The Coast Guard notes that

research is being conducted into the feasibility of other test methods,

including International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9705

``Fire Tests--Full-Scale Room Test for Surface Products.'' However, the

International Maritime Organization (IMO) has not yet set the

performance requirements for this test. The test prescribed in

subchapter K will not be changed; however, any similar test procedure,

as outlined by SOLAS, will be considered as an acceptable substitute.

One comment suggested allowing wool carpet to be used as a wall

lining material because of claims that it is self extinguishing in the

vertical direction. Wool could theoretically be used if it met the

requirements for bulkhead linings or veneers including the thickness

limitation and the flame spread and smoke generation rating. These

performance requirements limit the material's contribution to fire

growth and fire severity after flashover. This interpretation is

consistent with the intentions of the performance standards and does

not specifically address any single material.

Section 116.423 Furniture and furnishings. There were numerous

comments regarding the use of California Technical Bulletin 133 (CAL TB

133) and other flammability tests for upholstered furniture. The Coast

Guard is currently researching the acceptability of a number of

flammability tests for upholstered furniture. Research thus far

indicates that UL 1056 is an acceptable alternative wherever fire

resistant furnishings are required. UL 1056 is essentially option B of

CAL TB 133, and it is envisioned that furniture tested to UL 1056 will

be accepted by the state of California and vice versa, thus reducing

the burden on industry. Therefore, Sec. 116.423 is amended to allow the

acceptance of furniture meeting UL 1056 in all accommodation spaces.

Furniture meeting UL 1056 is also acceptable where fire resistant

furnishings or furnishings constructed of approved fire resistant

materials are required.

Several comments objected to the prohibition of polyurethane foam

in furniture and furnishings. The Coast Guard agrees that this

restriction is not necessary and has deleted this requirement from

Sec. 116.405(k). It is noted that furniture meeting the performance

criteria in UL 1056 may contain polyurethane foam. Other uses of foams

will be limited by existing regulations. The requirements in

Sec. 116.423 for furniture and furnishings have been amended to make

them consistent with subchapter H requirements.

Several comments addressed the issue of accepting either small

scale or large scale test procedures for National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) 701 ``Methods of Fire Tests For Flame-Resistant

Textiles and RM Films.'' Either method is acceptable in light of work

done by the respective committee to make both methods consistent.

Section 116.423 is amended to reflect that either the small or large

scale tests will be acceptable.

Section 116.425 Deck coverings. One comment asked that the Coast

Guard reconsider the acceptance of carpets constructed of wool blends

with synthetics. Subchapter H prohibits the use of carpets that are not

wool or equivalent in spaces where fire resistant furnishings are

required. As previously discussed, subchapter K is revised to

[[Page 872]]

allow the construction of either high risk or low risk accommodation

spaces corresponding to type 7 and type 5 accommodation spaces in

subchapter H. Wool or equivalent carpet is still required in low risk

(type 5) accommodation spaces, and in corridors and stairways. Other

types of carpeting, including wool blends, may be used in high risk

(type 7) accommodation spaces.

Also, to be consistent with the format of subchapter H and guidance

in NVIC 6-80, the section on rugs and carpets is moved to Sec. 116.423.

Section 116.427 Fire load of accommodation spaces. Two comments

asked how to account for interior finish in fire load calculations. One

comment suggested a new method of calculating fire load that would

allow the use of wall and surface finishes that are considerably

thicker than allowed in subchapter H. The Coast Guard has great concern

about the contribution of combustible wall lining and surface finishing

materials to a fire in a particular space, and has not relaxed the

requirement in subchapter K for surface finishes to be approved in

accordance with Sec. 164.012. Research continues in this area and new

methods will be introduced when properly researched and validated as to

the level of safety obtained by the method. As proposed in the SNPRM,

all combustibles in a space must be included in the fire load

calculations, including interior finishes.

Nine comments asked for an option to allow the design of a space

for a low fire load with an appropriate reduction in structural fire

protection. The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Sec. 116.427 to

indicate wherever an accommodation space is a low risk accommodation

space (see Sec. 114.400 for definition), fire load calculations must be

submitted to the Marine Safety Center. This section is also amended to

indicate that where a space is designated as a low risk service space,

the OCMI may require the submission of fire load calculations to the

Marine Safety Center. The reason for this change is that amendments to

the definition of a low risk service space permit certain pantries to

be considered as low risk service space if the fire load is less than

15 kilograms per square meter (3 pounds per square foot). When an OCMI

is concerned that the fire load in a pantry categorized as a low risk

service space is higher than 15 kilograms per square meter (3 pounds

per square foot), the OCMI may require the submission of fire load

calculations. See discussion on Sec. 116.415 for additional information

regarding the low fire load option.

One comment suggested that fire load should be calculated on the

basis of gross deck area without excluding aisles and equipment. Since

the method of calculation required by this section computes fire load

by dividing the total weight of combustibles by the total deck area, no

modifications are required.

Section 116.433 Window and airports in fire control boundaries. One

comment concurred with the requirements proposed in this section.

Two comments questioned the proposed minimum height of 900

millimeters (3 feet) for the bottom of a window when adjacent to a

passageway since dinner tables are often installed adjacent to windows

fitted in the sideshell of the vessel. As noted in the preamble of the

SNPRM, the intent of this requirement is to prevent people from

tripping over the frame or lower support structure of a window or

falling through the glass. Similar land based criteria, found in the

NFPA Life Safety Code, requires placement of guards at least 1100

millimeters (42 inches) high in new construction, and 900 millimeters

(36 inches) high in existing construction. Furthermore, the proposed

requirement only applies to windows that are installed adjacent to a

passageway, and the minimum height requirement does not apply if a

storm rail is installed adjacent to the glass. The proposed requirement

was not changed.

Four comments concerned the protection of windows adjacent to an

embarkation station, escape route, or survival craft storage area. Of

the four comments, three said that this requirement is not practicable,

and one said that the requirement should be a minimum. SOLAS requires

that ``special attention'' be given to windows fitted in similar areas,

recognizing that the failure of these windows could impede the

launching or embarkation of life saving appliances. The proposed

requirement was not changed.

One comment said that since glazing material in windows accessible

to passengers and crew should not produce a hazard to passengers and

crew, the tempered glass required by Sec. 116.433 should be a minimum,

and that laminated glass should also be accepted. The Coast Guard

agrees, and Sec. 116.433(a) indicates that either tempered or laminated

glass is acceptable.

Section 116.435 Doors. One comment questioned the need for loading

doors that lead over the side to be fire rated. The Coast Guard's

position is that a door must maintain the integrity of the barrier. The

rating of the barrier is determined by the fire hazards within the

space and the resultant barrier rating determines the rating of the

opening. The U.S. still continues to specify, prescriptively,

requirements for doors in each type of division such as is done in this

section and in Sec. 72.05-25 of subchapter H. The Coast Guard does not

intend to change these requirements at this time. Research continues on

determining the hazards associated with exterior doors and openings

that could allow smoke and flame spread up the outside of the vessel.

One comment suggested accepting UL rated doors as an alternative to

the current Coast Guard requirements. The Coast Guard is currently

researching the acceptance of UL rated doors as an alternative for the

current requirements. If found satisfactory, the Coast Guard will

incorporate UL 10B ``Fire Tests of Door Assemblies'' by reference in

the final rule.

Section 116.438 Stairtowers, stairways, ladders, and elevators.

Many comments were received about the proposed requirement in paragraph

(a) that stairways, stairtowers, ladders, elevators, and landings be

composed of steel, thus prohibiting the use of a aluminum. The Coast

Guard agrees that requiring all stairways to be composed of steel may

be too strict and exceeds the requirements of subchapter H. Subchapter

H requires that all stairways, ladders, and elevators within main

machinery spaces and cargo holds be made of steel; stringers, treads,

platforms, and landings of all stairways, except exterior stairways, be

of solid steel construction; and risers be of approved noncombustible

material. The Coast Guard requires steel because it exhibits good fire

endurance, especially when compared to non-insulated aluminum. Although

aluminum decks and bulkheads can be insulated to provide adequate fire

performance, it is impractical to similarly insulate stairways treads

and support structures. The Coast Guard strongly believes that the need

to ensure vessel designs provide an adequate means of vertical egress

is paramount. The integrity of these egress facilities is required for

both personnel egress and fire fighter access. The Coast Guard has

revised Sec. 116.438(a) to provide additional guidance and to clarify

the requirements for stairtower and stairway material requirements and

to allow the use of noncombustible materials in certain stairway

designs.

One comment suggested rewording Sec. 116.438(e) so it would read as

a positive statement. Paragraph (e) is revised to indicate that curved

and spiral stairs require specific approval of the Commandant.

[[Page 873]]

One comment objected to the zero tolerance allowed for the tread

and the height of riser measurements in an individual flight of stairs.

The Coast Guard agrees. Section 116.438(f) is revised to allow a 4.8

millimeter (3/16 inch) variation in the depth of adjacent treads or in

the height of adjacent risers as allowed in the NFPA Life Safety Code.

One comment requested that the requirement in proposed

Sec. 116.438(i) be changed to allow the inclination of stairways to

exceed 40 degrees for smaller boats. The Coast Guard believes stairways

with very high inclinations are an undesirable design for escapes

because they may be unusable to many passengers, including the elderly,

disabled, those unfamiliar with vessel construction, or those

disoriented by fire, smoke, or other emergency. However, this paragraph

was revised to give the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center

discretion to increase the allowable stairway inclination for

circumstances that have severe space constraints.

A few comments suggested that the proposed requirement in

Sec. 116.438(l) that each main vertical zone have at least one

stairtower for all persons served in the zone, was too arduous for

smaller passenger vessels. The Coast Guard strongly believes that the

need for vertical egress is paramount. However, the Coast Guard

understands that the formal stairtower requirement may be difficult to

satisfy when designing smaller passenger vessels. The Coast Guard has

revised Sec. 116.438(l) to provide alternate stairtower arrangements

for smaller passenger vessels, similar to existing Coast Guard policy

in NVIC 8-93, while still maintaining appropriate means of escape.

Paragraph 116.438(m)(3) is revised to include egress routes to area

of refuge and make the minimum tread width requirement more practical

by taking into account the use of excess landing areas and areas of

refuge to reduce the width of a stairway.

Section 116.439 Balconies. Two comments were received on this

section. Each requested a 10% increase in the permissible equivalent

main vertical zone length over the 40 meters (131 feet) specified in

proposed Sec. 116.415(d)(1)(i). The Coast Guard does not agree. Current

shipbuilding practice in the U.S. passenger vessel industry has evolved

such that many balcony spaces resemble ``two deck atriums,'' where two

decks of approximately equal size are connected by a relatively small

opening between the decks. The original intent of the balcony provision

was to permit a short space that overlooks a larger space, similar to a

balcony in a movie theater, without imposing additional requirements.

Section 116.439(c) permits this arrangement without requiring

additional fire protection measures. When a multilevel space may be

considered a two deck atrium, additional measures are required to

maintain the intended level of safety as discussed below.

Both of the above-mentioned comments also requested the

consideration of other equivalences such as the acceptance of a 46

meter (150 foot) main vertical zone for spaces with low fire loads. The

Coast Guard concurs, and balconies with a main vertical zone length

greater than allowed by Sec. 116.415(d)(1)(i) will be permitted if a

sprinkler system is installed. The requirement proposed in the SNPRM

that the actual length of the space not to exceed the length specified

by Sec. 116.415(d)(1)(i) is retained.

As was noted in the SNPRM, the Coast Guard is concerned that this

provision could be interpreted to allow the joining of two effectively

separate spaces by small openings. Based on this concern, a requirement

has been added in Sec. 116.439(e) that where the balcony area is less

than 93 square meters (1000 square feet), the opening must be protected

in accordance with the criteria of NFPA 13 ``Standard for the

Installation of Sprinkler Systems.'' This standard includes

requirements for draft stops and closely fitted sprinklers around the

opening.

Also, the proposed requirement for a smoke detection system in

balcony areas is withdrawn, since this requirement is in excess of

SOLAS and subchapter H requirements.

These changes harmonize the balcony requirements with land based

criteria and current policy interpretations. These changes also

harmonize the balcony criteria with chapter II-2 regulation 29.1.1 of

SOLAS, which permits balcony openings without size restriction where

both spaces are clearly utilized for the same purpose (e.g., dining or

gaming).

Section 116.440 Atriums. Four comments were received on this

section, each objecting to the proposed requirement for not more than

7.5 kilograms per square meter (1.5 pounds per square foot) fire load.

The Coast Guard concurs, and has withdrawn the proposed fire load

restriction for atriums on vessels with conventional size MVZs.

This section also proposed a requirement for a smoke detection

system in an atrium. In vessels with no overnight accommodations, each

passenger in a large public space, such as an atrium, is effectively a

``smoke detector,'' and can be expected to report fire or smoke via the

manual alarm system required by Sec. 118.400(e)(2). Therefore, the

proposed requirement for smoke detectors in the accommodation space

containing the atrium is withdrawn for vessels with no overnight

accommodations. Additionally, an option is added to permit the smoke

extraction system required by Sec. 116.440(c) to be designed in

accordance with the principles of NEPA 92B ``Guide for Smoke Management

Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Areas.''

One comment stated that a sprinkler system should not be required

if the space has a very low fire load. The Coast Guard does not concur.

Deck to deck integrity has long been regarded as one of the primary

features of the U.S. method of shipboard fire protection. Atriums are

typically very large public spaces with no deck to deck integrity and a

very large number of occupants. Additional fire protection is necessary

to offset the lack of deck to deck integrity and the large number of

passengers that may be simultaneously exposed to the effects of a fire.

The Coast Guard does not believe that a low fire load would

sufficiently offset the potential risk to occupants in the event of a

fire. Additionally, the NFPA Life Safety Code requires that the entire

building containing an atrium be protected throughout by an automatic

sprinkler system. The NFPA Life Safety Code is applicable to land based

occupied structures, which typically constitute a lesser fire risk than

ships since occupants can egress to the street in the event of a fire.

No modifications were made to the regulation based on this comment.

Paragraph (a) of Sec. 116.440 is amended to reflect current Coast

Guard policy on atrium construction.

Sections 116.500 and 177.500 Means of escape. Two comments

considered the dead-end-passageway limit of 6 meters (20 feet) as being

too restrictive because it exceeds the requirements of 12 meters (40

feet) in subchapter H. The Coast Guard disagrees. The Building

Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA) National

Building Code/1993 was used as a guide to determine the maximum length

for dead-end corridors in this subchapter. The limit of 6 meters (20

feet) is actually less restrictive than the SOLAS 1992 Amendments that

prohibit a corridor, lobby, or part of a corridor from which there is

only one route of escape. The proposed limit on dead-end corridor

lengths is appropriate for vessels

[[Page 874]]

regulated by subchapter K. No changes have been made to the rule

proposed in the SNPRM. A separate rulemaking will revise subchapter H

to remove the allowance for dead end corridors.

Several comments requested the removal of the 20 meter (65 foot)

length limit for use of vertical ladders as a means of escape on the

grounds that vertical means of escape have no relationship with the

length of the vessel. The Coast Guard disagrees. Ladders leading to

scuttles are permitted as a means of escape only on vessels of not more

than 20 meters (65 feet) because of space constraints. Ladders are an

undesirable method of escape because they are unusable to many

passengers, including the elderly, the disabled, those unfamiliar with

vessel construction, or those disoriented by fire, smoke, or other

emergency. No changes have been made to proposed Secs. 116.500(l)(1)

and 177.500(k)(1).

Proposed Sec. 116.500(g) and Sec. 177.500(f) are revised to lower

the minimum clear opening of a door or passageway for crew use only to

700 millimeters (28 inches) to be consistent with Sec. 116.438(m).

A comment asked for clarification of the 3.7 meters (12 feet)

maximum dimension requirement in proposed Sec. 116.500(q). The

possibility of a design with long narrow compartments and only one

means of escape could create a situation during an emergency, such as a

fire, where obstruction could cause passengers to travel in the wrong

direction in search of an exit. No changes have been made to this

paragraph.

Section 116.520 Emergency evacuation plan. Nine comments were

received on this section: Two stated that refuge areas should not be

required on subchapter K vessels, and two stated that this paragraph

would require two or more main vertical zones (MVZs) on a subchapter K

vessel.

The intent of this section is not to require more than one main

vertical zone on subchapter K vessels. The requirements in

Secs. 116.520 (a) and (b) to identify possible casualties and

evacuation procedures in each main vertical zones does not require

vessels be constructed with multiple MVZs.

One comment asked that all specific requirements for refuge on

vessels carrying 1,000 or less passengers be deleted. The Coast Guard

disagrees. The Coast Guard is concerned with what would happen to the

passengers if there were no safe refuge area in the event of a fire or

other casualty. A vessel design that leaves little or no room for

passengers to escape from a fire in an accommodation space to outside

portions of the deck or other safe spaces is not prudent.

Safe areas of assembly for all passengers in the event of a fire

are specifically addressed in subchapter H with stairtowers and in NVIC

8-93 with qualified refuge areas. As stated in the preamble to the

SNPRM, Sec. 116.520 does not specify specific standards for an area of

refuge. Section 116.520 of subchapter K provides that an area of refuge

required as part of the emergency evacuation plan must be approved

during plan review. The intent of Sec. 116.520 is performance based, to

have vessel owners and designers identify possible casualties and

design protection measures for refuge areas as appropriate. The

emergency evacuation plan would identify areas of refuge for all

passengers in the event of a fire in, or flooding of, any accommodation

space, and the procedures for abandoning ship. For some vessels the

emergency evacuation plan would be relatively short. For other vessels

a substantial document may be required.

All but one comment said that the proposed requirement for 0.5

square meters (5 square feet) of deck area per passenger in refuge

areas was excessive. Comments suggested the following limits (in square

feet): 2.5 (twice); 2.7 (twice); 3; and 3.5. The Coast Guard concurs

that 0.5 square meters (5 square feet) per person may be excessive on

the smaller vessels typically subject to these regulations. This

section is amended to require a minimum of 300 square millimeters (3

square feet) per person in refuge areas, which is consistent with the

NFPA Life Safety Code's requirement for a minimum of 300 square

millimeters (3 square feet) per person in ``waiting'' areas. The

proposed requirement in the SNPRM that the deck area criteria apply

only to ``public spaces'' is deleted. The deck area criteria applies to

all refuge areas, independent of location.

Sections 116.600 and 177.600 Ventilation of enclosed and partially

enclosed spaces. Several comments suggested removing redundant or

unnecessary ventilation system requirements in proposed Secs. 116.600

(b) and (e). The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the regulatory text

for both Secs. 116.600 and 177.600.

One comment on proposed Sec. 116.600(f) stated that exhaust ducts

fitted over cooking surfaces in snack bars should be exempted from this

requirement. The Coast Guard concurs. A land based standard NFPA 96

``Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial

Cooking Operations,'' specifically prohibits the installation of a fire

damper in exhaust ductwork. Therefore, the requirements in

Secs. 116.600(f) and 177.600(f) have been modified to require that an

exhaust duct over a cooking appliance must be constructed of steel with

a minimum thickness of 11 U.S. Standard Gauge. This requirement is

intended to ensure the integrity of any rated bulkheads penetrated by

the duct. This modification makes this requirement consistent with

SOLAS regulation II-2/23.1.8 that requires exhaust ducts from galley

ranges to be constructed and insulated to A-60 Class construction.

Two comments on this section disagreed with the prohibition in

proposed Sec. 116.600(g) of the SNPRM against the installation of

wiring, piping, or other materials inside of ductwork. The Coast Guard

agrees, in part. This requirement was added to the SNPRM in response to

a comment on the NPRM that concerned combustibles installed in

ductwork. The requirements in Sec. 116.600(g) and Sec. 177.600(g) have

been modified to indicate that metal piping and electrical wiring

installed in a metal protective enclosure (conduit) may be installed

within ventilation ductwork if it does not interfere with the operation

of fire dampers. The prohibition is retained for exhaust ducts fitted

over a frying vat or grill.

Sections 116.710 and 177.710 Overnight accommodations. One comment

concerned the wording of the regulatory text in Sec. 116.710(b) and

indicated that the proposed wording was subject to misinterpretation of

the ``12 hour rule.'' It was noted that frequently a single crew may

actually be on board longer than 12 hours. The requirement for

overnight crew accommodations applies to situations where an alternate

operating crew is on board, and the vessel will be underway more than

12 hours. The Coast Guard agrees with the recommended clarification,

and believes that paragraph (a) can stand alone, and paragraph (b) only

confused the requirement. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 116.710 and

Sec. 177.710 has been deleted accordingly.

Sections 116.800 and 177.800 General requirements. One comment to

Sec. 116.800(d)(1) expressed concern that the wording could be

interpreted to prohibit lamps and other non-threatening electrical

equipment. The Coast Guard agrees. The Coast Guard does not intend to

prohibit non-threatening electrical appliances or amenities for the

comfort of the passengers in accommodation spaces. The words

``electrical equipment'' in Secs. 116.800(d) and 177.800(d) have been

replaced with the words ``electrical generation equipment or

transformers.''

[[Page 875]]

Sections 116.820 and 177.820 Seating. A comment was received

suggesting that, if necessary, the owner should have the option of

using portable seating to meet the fixed seating criteria of

Sec. 116.820. The Coast Guard disagrees. Seating is used as one way to

determine the number of passengers permitted in accordance with

Sec. 115.113(b)(3) and Sec. 176.113(b)(3) as appropriate. Portable

seating is not precluded by the regulations. However,

Sec. 115.113(b)(3) and Sec. 176.113(b)(3) provide three criterion for

determining passenger capacity based on rail area, deck area, or fixed

seating. The intent of these regulations is to determine the potential

passenger capacity for stability purposes. Portable seating can be

removed permitting a greater number of passengers in a space than may

be considered in stability calculations. If seating is used to

determine passenger capacity it should be permanent and remain in place

during operation. No changes have been made to the rule proposed in the

SNPRM.

Sections 116.960 and 177.960 Guards for exposed hazards. One

comment stated that guards should be installed on all rental houseboat

propellers in order to prevent injuries from propeller strikes. Under

the provisions of the Passenger Vessel Safety Act (PVSA) of 1993 (Title

V of Pub. L. 103-206), certain houseboat-type vessels may come under

the inspection requirements of subchapter T. The Coast Guard conducted

a survey of vessels applying for inspection under the PVSA and found

that rental houseboat operators are choosing to reduce the number of

passengers carried rather than be subject to inspection. In addition,

the Coast Guard has no record of fatal casualties on vessels operated

by licensed masters operating under the authority of their license. No

changes have been made to the rule proposed in the SNPRM. However, in a

notice published May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25191), the Coast Guard solicited

comments from all segments of the marine community and other interested

persons on various aspects of propeller accident avoidance. Based on

the public's response to that notice during the 60 day comment period,

the notice was reopened and the comment period extended to November 7,

1995 (60 FR 40545). Requirements for propeller guards may be addressed

in a separate rulemaking at some point in the future.

Another comment stated that the Coast Guard has ignored two common

areas of personal injury: First, the comment noted that the Coast

Guard, unlike the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),

does not require nonslip surfaces on stairways. Second, it suggested

that open deck hatches should be included as an example of an exposed

hazard under Secs. 116.960 and 177.960 and require a guard. The Coast

Guard understands the comments concerning personal injury. However, it

believes that further study is needed in the areas of nonslip surfaces

and open hatch protection before requirements are promulgated. The

Coast Guard solicits input on the need to incorporate existing

standards, or develop performance based standards for nonslip surfaces

and open hatch protection aboard vessels.

Sections 116.1010 and 177.1010 Safety glazing materials. One

comment stated that glazing materials used on windows accessible to

passengers and crew should not break on contact and should not break

into shards. The Coast Guard agrees that all windows to which

passengers and crew have access should be of appropriate material to

prevent injury due to breakage. No significant changes have been made

to the requirement proposed in the SNPRM.

Section 116.1160 Watertight integrity. One comment noted that

coamings should be eliminated on protected routes to meet the

affirmative requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Coast Guard notes that the application of the ADA to the passenger

vessel industry is still under study by the John A. Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center. It is not possible to fully assess the

need for reduced coamings or other measures until the study is

complete. It should be noted coamings are not required on flush deck

vessels on protected routes; however, coamings are required for a

cockpit or well. The coaming requirement is unchanged, but may be

revised at a later date.

3. Parts 117 and 180--Lifesaving Equipment and Arrangements

The comments on these parts, which apply to both subchapter K and

subchapter T respectively, focused on the proposed requirement to

upgrade primary lifesaving equipment, including a requirement for

vessels on certain routes to install inflatable primary lifesaving

devices. While the comments generally supported the Coast Guard's

consideration of vessel route and water temperature in establishing

lifesaving equipment requirements, there was concern with both the

initial and the required annual inspection costs of inflatable devices.

Also, the comments noted that the casualty data, especially in warm

water, did not support such a costly upgrade. Citing the Coast Guard's

own lifesaving study, and even adding in the fatalities of the recent

EL TORO II casualty, the comments correctly stated that less than one

life per year was lost due to hypothermia on inspected small passenger

vessels over the past twenty years.

The Coast Guard appreciates the high cost of upgrading this

equipment, but considers the present level of primary lifesaving

equipment to be inadequate, particularly for wood vessels in cold water

( 15 degrees Celsius). Wooden vessels make up 24% of the

inspected small passenger vessel fleet yet account for over 90% of the

casualties involving a loss of life or the loss of the vessel. Over 40%

of these casualties involved hull failures on wooden vessels not

required to be subdivided by watertight bulkheads. Because of the

disproportionate number of casualties involving wooden vessels without

watertight bulkheads, the Coast Guard has established a construction

equivalency for small wooden vessels operating in cold water. Wooden

vessels not more than 65 feet, and carrying not more than 49 passengers

built after March 11, 2001, must meet the subdivision requirements

contained in part 179 of subchapter T. Wooden vessels not more than 65

feet, and carrying not more than 49 passengers built prior to March 11,

1996, operating in cold water must either meet a modified subdivision

standard using existing bulkheads or carry increased survival craft

after March 11, 2001. Wooden vessels not more than 65 feet, and

carrying not more than 49 passengers built between March 11, 1996, and

March 11, 2001, have the option of meeting the modified subdivision

standard or carrying increased survival craft upon certification of the

vessel. The Coast Guard developed the optional modified subdivision

standard for existing vessels to reduce the cost of compliance to the

small vessel owner/operator. The Coast Guard believes that most

existing vessels have bulkheads that can be made watertight in

machinery and steering gear spaces. During the development of the

construction equivalency, the Coast Guard contacted small passenger

vessel organizations for their input and comments. The individuals

contacted believed that providing options for the owners and operators

of existing wooden vessels was better than just increasing survival

craft requirements across the board. The Coast Guard solicits comments

on the construction equivalency for wooden vessels.

Overall, the Coast Guard believes the upgrading of primary

lifesaving

[[Page 876]]

equipment is considered necessary to address the effects of hypothermia

and exposure not envisioned by the original regulations; however, the

Coast Guard reexamined the extent to which survival craft requirements

should be increased from existing standards.

Based upon a review of comments and sinking casualties over the

past twenty years, the survival craft requirements of parts 117 and 180

have been reduced in most cases from those proposed in the SNPRM. The

Coast Guard considered other requirements within this rule, such as

EPIRBs, fixed firefighting and detection systems, bilge alarms, and

optional or required subdivision standards. All of these features make

up an entire vessel safety system designed to reduce the risk of a

vessel loss and shorten emergency response time. In addition, based on

reconsideration of the overload capacity of an inflatable buoyant

apparatus (IBA), fewer IBA's are needed to safely accommodate the total

number of persons on board certain vessels.

The Coast Guard has also reduced the survival craft requirements

for vessels fitting into the K category (Over 600 passengers, or over

150 overnight passengers, or over 200 feet in length). The requirements

proposed in the SNPRM for these vessels to comply with the lifesaving

equipment regulations contained in part 75 of subchapter H has been

removed. The Coast Guard believes that the requirements contained in

part 117 of subchapter K properly focus survival craft requirements to

high capacity small passenger vessels.

Several comments stated that the one mile survival craft exemption

should be increased up to five miles. The Coast Guard partially agrees

and has provided reduced survival craft requirements for vessels

operating within three miles of the coast that meet either subdivision

or EPIRB requirements. The one mile exemption still exists with

permission from the OCMI for vessels operating on the Great Lakes. The

one mile exemption also applies to vessels operating on lakes, bays,

and sounds, and rivers routes. The OCMI may also allow further

reductions in survival craft to vessels operating on set schedules with

strict communications requirements.

Overall, the Coast Guard believes these revisions better match the

requirements for primary lifesaving equipment to casualty data and the

perceived increased risk due to the scope of a vessel's operation and

number of passengers carried. In order to simplify interpretation, the

format of tables 117.200(c) and 180.200(c) is changed to align survival

craft requirements with routes currently specified on a vessel's

Certificates of Inspection.

In addition to liferaft requirements, several comments addressed

other sections within parts 117 and 180. These included:

Sections 117.68 and 180.68 Distress flares and smoke signals. Three

comments stated the proposed requirement for a Coast Guard approved

waterproof container for distress signals was too restrictive, and that

pyrotechnics manufacturers provide a variety of waterproof containers

for their products.

The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the requirement that the

container be Coast Guard approved; however, the proposed container

marking requirements are retained in new Secs. 122.614 and 185.614.

Sections 117.71 and 180.71 Life jackets. The comments to these

sections expressed concern that the use of cork and balsa wood

lifejackets would be discontinued without a phase out period. Their

concern focused on the economic impact to vessels that still carry this

type of lifejacket.

The Coast Guard agrees and has placed a three-year-phase-out period

in new paragraph (d) of Secs. 117.71 and 180.71. The Coast Guard will

encourage owners to retire a certain percentage of lifejackets annually

in order to meet the three-year deadline and reduce economic impact.

Sections 117.175 and 180.175 Survival craft equipment. One comment

stated that the liferaft equipment pack designators ``limited service''

and ``ocean service'' should be deleted because they are outdated and

have been superseded by SOLAS compatible standards found in 46 CFR

160.151.

The Coast Guard agrees and has removed references to Sec. 160.051

from this rulemaking in favor of the updated approval found in

Sec. 160.151.

4. Parts 118 and 181--Fire Protection Equipment

The comments on these parts, which apply to both subchapter K and

subchapter T respectively, focused on automatic main engine shutdowns

associated with certain fixed fire extinguishing systems.

Over 25 comments expressed concern that the operator would not be

in complete control of the vessel in an emergency; especially if a

vessel was operating in a high traffic seaway. Even those in favor of

fixed fire extinguishing systems indicated they would rather have a

fire alarm or indicator at the operating station get their attention

first, and allow them to assess their operational situation before the

system is actuated. Many had little faith in automatic devices that

could render the vessel helpless in the case of malfunction.

The Coast Guard believes that clarification of the fixed fire

extinguishing system requirements is needed. Above all, the operator of

a vessel required to install a fixed fire extinguishing system has

alternatives when choosing a system. If an operator desires to be

alerted to a potential fire prior to a fixed system discharge, a

manually activated fixed fire extinguishing system with a fire

detection system is the most likely choice. If, on the other hand, an

operator prefers to have a fully automatic fixed fire extinguishing

system, that is also acceptable. Regardless of the system type, the

automatic shutdown of propulsion machinery and mechanical ventilation

serving the protected space is required when the system is activated to

prevent the depletion of the extinguishing agent and to stop the flow

of fuel or lubricating oil that is a likely source of the fire.

The automatic engine and ventilation shutdown requirements for

fixed fire extinguishing system installations in machinery spaces are

not new and are existing requirements for inspected vessels over 100

gross tons. Further, existing fixed fire extinguishing systems aboard

vessels have an automatic shutdown feature unless the OCMI granted an

exemption for vessels operating in white water or hazardous bar

locations.

Eleven comments stated that fixed fire extinguishing systems should

not be required on diesel-propelled vessels. Based upon these comments

the Coast Guard conducted an extensive review of fires reported on

inspected small passenger vessels over the last 12 years. The review

found that 67% of the 157 fires reported started in the engineroom. Of

the 105 engineroom fires, 98% of the fires occurred on diesel-powered

vessels. Based on this review, no change is made to the rule proposed

in the SNPRM.

The Coast Guard noted that, under certain circumstances, the

installation of a portable carbon dioxide fire extinguisher as a fixed

extinguisher, as allowed by existing Sec. 181.20-5(b), was effective in

combating engineroom fires. Thus, the Coast Guard has reconsidered the

rule proposed in the SNPRM, and will allow the installation of a

portable carbon dioxide fire extinguisher as a substitute for a fixed

system where the amount of carbon dioxide required in a fixed system

can be supplied by a

[[Page 877]]

portable or semi-portable extinguisher. The Coast Guard believes that

smaller vessels and vessels with small compartments requiring fixed

fire protection will benefit most from reinstating this option.

Additonal comments to Parts 118 and 181 identified other areas

besides engine shutdowns and the need for fixed fire extinguishing

systems that required a response from the Coast Guard. These include:

Section 118.300 Fire pumps. Two comments stated that pitot tube

pressure readings should be taken from a fire hose combination nozzle

in the solid stream position. The Coast Guard disagrees. Combination

nozzles should not be used when determining pitot tube pressure because

turbulence within the nozzle will result in an inaccurate reading.

Smooth bore nozzles are best suited for determining pitot tube

pressure.

Sections 118.300 and 181.300 Fire pumps. Several comments objected

to the proposed requirement that the fire pump be capable of remote

operation from the bridge. The comments stated that eye-to-eye contact

between the nozzle operator and the master was required for safety

reasons. The Coast Guard disagrees. Having the ability to start the

fire pump remotely gives the master of the vessel more options with the

use of his or her crew during an emergency. Proper hose handling and

communication between the crew on scene and the bridge will

considerably reduce any danger associated with remotely starting the

pump.

One comment stated that having the fire pump driven off a

propulsion engine is fine until the fixed fire extinguishing system is

activated and shuts down the engine. The comment went on to state that

a propulsion engine that drives a fire pump should be required to draw

its air from outside the space protected, or have a second power source

or pump provided. The Coast Guard agrees with the intent of the

comment; however, as stated previously, the owner or master has options

when selecting a fixed fire extinguishing system. Over 60% of the small

passenger vessel fleet is made up of vessels that do not require a fire

pump because of their small size and passenger capacity. For this type

of vessel, an automatically activated system will tend to be installed

as the primary method for extinguishing a machinery space fire. On the

other hand, larger vessels with larger machinery spaces tend to rely

upon the fixed fire extinguishing system as a last chance to save the

vessel once portable extinguishers and fire main resources have failed.

The Coast Guard believes that the concerns expressed in the comment are

valid, and that owners and operators of vessels required to have fixed

fire extinguishing systems should consider these factors when selecting

a system.

Sections 118.320 and 181.320 Fire hoses and nozzles. Two comments

stated that consideration should be given to UL approved polycarbonate

nozzles for marine applications. The Coast Guard disagrees. As stated

in the SNPRM preamble, polycarbonate nozzles have not been shown to

have the same corrosion resistance and fire safety properties as brass

when used in a marine environment. Further, these nozzles are not

tested to marine environment standards. The Coast Guard is considering

adopting ASTM Standard F1456 ``Standard Specification for Fire Hose

Nozzles'' as an alternative to Sec. 160.027 of this chapter in order to

give the industry more options when choosing fire hose nozzles.

Three comments asked if a four foot applicator is required with the

fire hose nozzle approved under Sec. 160.027 of this chapter. The

applicator is required as part of the combination nozzle's approval

under Sec. 160.027 of this chapter. However, the Coast Guard has

accepted a different style of nozzle available without an applicator as

equivalent to the nozzle approved under Sec. 160.027 of this chapter.

In order to clarify the alternatives available, Sec. 118.320 is amended

to include a reference to nozzles specifically approved by the

Commandant.

Sections 118.400 and 181.400 Fixed fire extinguishing and detecting

systems when required. References to ``Halon'' and ``carbon dioxide''

have been deleted from the text. This change reflects the development

of alternative fire extinguishing gases, new guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) List, new guidance from the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA 2001 ``Clean Agent Systems'') and the 1994 cessation

of production of new Halon. Guidelines for the application of

alternative gases are under development at the International Maritime

Organization (IMO). Commandant (G-MMS-4) will develop similar guidance

for approval of fixed gas fire extinguishing systems employing gases

other than Halon or carbon dioxide. Alternate gases may include

halocarbons or mixtures of inert gases.

Additionally, this section is revised to indicate that other types

of fire extinguishing systems may be approved by the Commandant. For

example, guidelines for use of water mist fire extinguishing systems

were recently developed by the International Maritime Organization

(Maritime Safety Committee, 64th session, Draft Guidelines for Approval

of Equivalent Fire Extinguishing Systems as Referred to in SOLAS 74 for

Machinery Spaces and Cargo Pump Rooms). It is likely that following

finalization at IMO, the Commandant will accept water mist and other

systems for application on U.S. flag vessels.

Two comments stated that areas with large numbers of people in them

should not need smoke detectors as proposed in Sec. 118.400(e) because

passengers act as smoke detectors.

The Coast Guard agrees. Existing Coast Guard guidance contained in

MTH PFM 1-94, for vessels without overnight passenger or crew

accommodations, allows public spaces that are assumed to be occupied by

a large number of people to only be served by a manual fire alarm. This

exemption has been added to the IFR.

Two commenters stated that the fixed fire extinguishing system

requirement for storerooms containing liquor of 80 proof or higher was

excessive. The Coast Guard partially agrees. The blanket requirement to

have all liquor storage lockers containing liquors of 80 proof or

higher protected by a fixed fire extinguishing system is revised to

include a container volume limit. The volume limit is based on the

National Fire Protection Association's Flammable and Combustible

Liquids Code (NFPA 30) which provides guidance on container and

portable tank storage. For flammable liquids with a flash point below

22.8 degrees Celsius (73 degrees Fahrenheit) and a boiling point above

37.8 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit), glass containers are

limited to 0.946 liters (one quart) capacity, metal containers are

limited to 18.9 liters (five gallon) capacity, and Department of

Transportation Type III non-reusable polyethylene containers are

limited to 9.5 liters (2.5 gallons). The Distilled Spirits Council of

the United States reports in its Recommended Fire Protection Practices

for Distilled Spirits Beverage Facilities that liquors of 80 proof have

a Tag Closed Cup flash point of 26.1 degrees Celsius (79 degrees

Fahrenheit). The Coast Guard believes that a two and one half gallon

limit on individual container capacity meets the intent of NFPA's

nationally recognized practice. This provision is added to the IFR.

Sections 118.410 and 181.410 Fixed gas fire extinguishing systems.

Citing space limitations, a few comments stated the storage cylinders

for fixed fire

[[Page 878]]

extinguishing systems should be able to be located within the space

protected.

This installation method was already allowed in the SNPRM for

spaces less than 170 cubic meters (6,000 cubic feet); however,

automatic operation by a heat actuator is required in addition to

manual operation. Activation due to heat prevents the storage cylinders

from overheating and not functioning as designed.

Four comments expressed confusion over the installation pressure

test required for Halon systems in paragraph (d)(8). Their main concern

was how to heat the piping between the storage cylinders and the

manifold stop valve to 54.4 degrees Celsius (130 degrees Fahrenheit)

for the test.

The Coast Guard attempted to explain in the SNPRM that it was not

the intent of the proposed requirement to heat the piping. To avoid

further confusion, paragraph (d)(8) is revised to indicate that the

piping between the storage cylinders and the manifold stop valve must

be tested for leaks at 4,136.4 kPa (600 psi).

5. Parts 119 and 182--Machinery Installation

The 95 comments on these parts, applying to both subchapter K and

subchapter T, focused on the requirement for diesel engines of over 300

horsepower to be equipped with overspeed trips that would automatically

shut down the engines.

The comments noted that casualty data did not support the added

cost of this installation. Further, the comments opposed any

requirement that would take engine control away from the operator, such

as would be the case with automatic overspeed trips. Some operators

were concerned that vessels transiting busy fairways with heavy vessel

traffic or tricky offshore inlet approaches could lose main propulsion

unexpectedly during critical maneuvers. Others indicated that they

wanted the operator to always have complete control and decision making

power in the event of a casualty or other circumstance. This would

allow a decision to run a diesel engine and get passengers to safety

quickly, rather than automatically shut it down and be ``dead in the

water.'' However, one comment stated that the overspeed trip

requirement should be retained because of the risk to personnel

associated with the destructive force of an overspeeding engine.

The intent of this proposed requirement was to provide a speed

limiting device, independent of the engine's operating governor, to

prevent the engines from overspeeding and flying apart. The requirement

for overspeed trips on diesel engines was based on existing

classification society standards that are routinely applied to all

other Coast Guard regulated vessels except passenger vessels less than

100 gross tons.

The Coast Guard disagrees with the reasoning that an overspeeding

engine can be controlled by the operator in an emergency situation;

however, the Coast Guard agrees that the available casualty data does

not support the need for these devices. Based upon the comments, the

Coast Guard contacted diesel engine manufacturers and found that modern

variable speed operating governors are designed to prevent the engine

from overspeeding by sensing and compensating for sudden ``no load''

conditions, such as the loss of a propeller or associated shafting. The

manufacturers also stated that governor failures are rare due to the

high factors of safety built into the devices. However, the

manufacturers indicated that overspeed trips are standard equipment on

marine diesel engines in the 600 to 800 horsepower range in order to

protect the engines from damage that could result in an overspeed

condition. Therefore, based upon the lack of casualties involving

diesel engine overspeeding and modern governor technology, the Coast

Guard considers this requirement an unjustified burden on the small

passenger vessel industry. The proposed requirement for installation of

overspeed trips on diesel engines of over 300 horsepower has been

deleted from both subchapter K and subchapter T.

Other comments on these sections addressed areas such as water

heaters, keel cooler installations, the acceptance of aluminum,

aluminum fuel piping, fuel tank vent installations, and ventilation of

spaces containing diesel machinery. These include:

Sections 119.320 and 182.320 Water heaters. One comment stated, ``A

wise old man once told me that hot water does not need to be heated.''

The Coast Guard agrees that the use of the word ``hot'' in conjunction

with water heaters is superfluous and has removed all references to

``hot'' from these sections.

Sections 119.422 and 182.422 Keel and grid cooler installations.

Four comments stated that isolation valves should not be required on

keel cooler installations that are integral to the hull and of the same

material and thickness as the hull. The Coast Guard agrees and has

revised these sections to incorporate current policy on integral keel

and grid cooler installations.

Sections 119.430 and 182.430 Engine exhaust pipe installation.

Comments from aluminum boat builders stated that a wet exhaust pipe has

been allowed to be welded to an aluminum bulkhead for years, and that

this practice should continue to be allowed. The intent of these

regulations was not to discontinue the practice of welding exhaust

lines to aluminum bulkheads. The wording of these sections is changed

to allow welding to bulkheads of steel or equivalent materials.

Sections 119.450 and 182.450 Vent pipes for fuel tanks. One comment

stated that fuel tank vent lines should be installed to gradient upward

to prevent fuel from being trapped in the line. The Coast Guard agrees

and has added this language to both sections.

Sections 119.455 and 182.455 Fuel piping. Comments from aluminum

boat builders stated that aluminum fuel piping in machinery spaces was

allowed in the past, and this practice should continue. The Coast Guard

agrees. In comments on the SNPRM the Marine Safety Center stated that

their policy allows aluminum fuel piping of at least Schedule 80 wall

thickness in the machinery spaces of aluminum vessels. This policy is

incorporated into both sections.

Sections 119.465 and 182.465 Ventilation of spaces containing

diesel machinery. Several comments stated that a ventilation duct

extending to the bilge is not needed in spaces containing diesel

machinery. The reasoning ranged from the relative stability of diesel

fuel versus gasoline to mechanical and turbo charger created air flow

through the space. One comment suggested removing the ventilation duct

requirement where forced ventilation can provide 5 air changes in one

minute. The Coast Guard agrees that a duct extending to the bilge level

in a space containing diesel machinery is unnecessary. The

characteristics of diesel fuel fumes that may be found in the machinery

space bilges do not present the same fire and explosion hazards as

gasoline or other fuels having a flashpoint below 43.3 degrees Celsius

(110 degrees Fahrenheit). The proposed requirement to have a

ventilation duct extend to the bilge in a space containing diesel

machinery has been removed from subchapters K and T.

Sections 119.530 and 182.530 Bilge level alarms. Based upon

recommendations from the Coast Guard and NTSB concerning recent

flooding casualties of inspected small passenger vessels, including the

M/V DOLPHIN EXPRESS and EL TORO II, the Coast Guard has increased the

number and type of spaces required to have a bilge

[[Page 879]]

high level alarm installed. A phase-in period is allowed for existing

vessels to meet this requirement. The Coast Guard believes that bilge

high level alarms are an important part of a vessel's total safety

system and has reduced primary lifesaving requirements on most vessels

because of this. Early detection of a flooding problem allows the

master more time to react and possibly correct or repair the problem.

The Coast Guard solicits comments on these additional requirements.

6. Parts 120 and 183--Electrical Installation

The comments received on these parts, applying to both subchapter K

and subchapter T vessels, focused on the proposed requirement for

grounding of dual voltage generators. One comment stated that Coast

Guard personnel ``hit the panic button'' when they see an indication of

a ground at the neutral bus, and that it is much easier to get approval

for a floating neutral system. The comment went on to state that it

should be up to the owner to decide which type of system to use.

The Coast Guard does not agree with industry comments concerning

dual voltage systems; however, the Coast Guard does feel that this

requirement should be clarified. The intent of this provision is to

require that all dual voltage systems be of the grounded type. The

language of these sections is changed to clarify that the current-

carrying neutral bus must be connected to ground. This is consistent

with the Coast Guard's definition of a grounded distribution system in

subchapter J of Title 46 CFR.

On the same topic of grounding electrical systems, one comment

stated that the requirements in Secs. 120.370 and 183.370 of

subchapters K and T respectively, should be broken into three sections

to address general grounding requirements; equipment and conductor

grounding; and grounded distribution systems. The Coast Guard agrees

and has created two new sections in each subchapter (Secs. 120.372,

120.376, 183.372 and 183.376) to accommodate the revisions. No

substantial changes have been made to the content of the sections

proposed in the SNPRM.

The same comment stated that the performance standard for the

design of an interlock for distribution panels and switchboards in

Secs. 120.330 and 183.330 was unattainable, and that the proposed

requirement was more applicable to motor controllers. The comment also

stated that most motor controllers are fitted with an acceptable

interlock to prevent the controller door from opening if the controller

is energized. The Coast Guard agrees and has removed the proposed

performance standard in Secs. 120.330(j) and 183.330(j) from the IFR.

7. Parts 121 and 184--Miscellaneous Systems and Equipment

The comments received on these parts, applying to subchapter K and

subchapter T respectively, focused on the prohibition of open flame

cooking equipment, carriage of nautical publications, posting of

emergency placards, and the expense of Coast Guard approved first aid

kits.

Sections 121.202 and 184.202 Restrictions. The comments noted the

extensive and common use of the product SternoTM for food

preparation in the dinner cruise industry. They considered it perfectly

safe in the supervised context of food preparation, and asked that it

not be prohibited.

The Coast Guard is well aware that SternoTM is used in food

preparation, and did not intend to prohibit its use. The Coast Guard is

more concerned about the storage of excessive amounts of this product,

due to the potential fire hazard. This section is revised to clarify

the intent of this requirement, and allow the continued use of

SternoTM for supervised food preparation and serving.

Sections 121.420 and 184.420 Charts and nautical publications. In

addition, numerous comments criticized the proposed requirement for

carriage of nautical publications since operators are familiar with the

local waters in which they work daily. The Coast Guard partially

agrees. The Coast Guard's intent for these sections was to require on

board reference material for the safe navigation of the vessel. The

Coast Guard understands that a vessel operating on a small protected

body of water or on a short scheduled run will require less

navigational information than a vessel operating on a large sound. This

is why the Coast Guard used the term ``as appropriate for the intended

voyage.'' Based upon several comments, this section is revised to allow

local tide and current tables to be substituted for those published

specifically by the National Ocean Service. Relevant extracts from

publications may be used to meet the requirements of these sections; it

is not necessary to have a complete publication on board.

Sections 121.506 and 184.506 Emergency broadcast placard. A few

comments stated this placard was unnecessary since the master, and in

some cases senior deckhands, are required to be licensed by the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC). The Coast Guard disagrees. In an

emergency, the stress, fear, and anxiety of the moment could, and has,

caused individuals to forget critical information during a broadcast.

The Coast Guard believes that placards serve a vital purpose as a quick

reference and reminder to the master and crew. However, the Coast Guard

removed the prescriptive language from these sections, and relocated it

to new Secs. 121.510 and 184.510 as recommended language. This will

allow the master of the vessel to develop appropriate emergency

broadcast instructions.

Sections 121.710 and 184.710 First aid kits. Comments criticized

Coast Guard approved first aid kits as too expensive and unnecessary on

small passenger vessels. The Coast Guard believes that first aid kits

are necessary on small passenger vessels to provide satisfactory

treatment of small injuries and initial treatment of more severe

injuries requiring professional medical treatment. The proposed

requirement in the SNPRM did not require a Coast Guard approved first

aid kit. An equivalent kit is allowed as long as it contains equivalent

contents and instructions, and is marked ``First Aid Kit''. A minor

change is made to these sections to better clarify the requirements.

8. Parts 122 and 185--Operations

These parts, which apply to both subchapter K and subchapter T

vessels respectively, also generated a substantial amount of public

comment. The focus of the 158 comments received criticized the overly

prescriptive language used to regulate licensed operators and their

crew. The comments focused on the following sections: Navigation

underway; Passengers excluded from the operating station; Loading

doors; Crew training; Crew and passenger list and voyage plan;

Passenger count; Passenger safety orientation; Wearing of lifejackets;

Emergency instructions; Emergency instruction placard format; and

Abandon ship, Man overboard, and Fire drills.

The Coast Guard agrees with the comments that much of the language

in these parts was overly prescriptive, and has revised the language in

these sections to reflect those comments. In addition, changes to the

casualty reporting requirements have required further revision to these

sections. The changes include:

Sections 122.202 and 185.202 Notice of casualty. These sections

are updated to be consistent with a revision to 46 CFR Part 4,

published on August 3, 1994 [59 FR 39469]. As a result of the

[[Page 880]]

update, the requirements in 33 CFR 160.216 for reporting hazardous

conditions have been reprinted in new Secs. 122.203 and 185.203 to

provide complete guidance to the owner or operator in one set of

regulations.

Sections 122.304 and 185.304 Navigation underway. This section was

severely criticized as an effort to deliberately take away the common

sense and judgment of licensed operators. These proposed sections were

adopted from the navigation regulations for vessels of 1,600 gross tons

or more, operating on the navigable waters of the U.S. Additionally, it

responded to an NTSB recommendation following the PILGRIM BELLE

casualty. Although this language has been used for some time, small

passenger vessel operators would not necessarily be familiar with these

regulations. These sections are valid reference sources that outline

what is considered safe navigation by professional mariners. However,

their applicability may vary depending on the vessel size and service.

Therefore, these sections have been revised and condensed to a more

general outline of navigational considerations that are intended as a

quick reference for small vessel operators who have not received more

formal training associated with unlimited deck licenses.

Section 122.306 Passengers excluded from the operating station.

The comments to this section expressed concern that the master had no

options to allow passengers to visit the wheelhouse. Some operations

consider allowing a small number of passengers in the wheelhouse a good

public relations tool that adds to the enjoyment of the cruise. The

Coast Guard agrees that the master should have discretion as to whether

passengers are allowed in the wheelhouse. The revised language to this

section provides the master of the vessel with an option to clear the

operating station when passengers may distract the navigating crew from

their responsibilities.

Sections 122.335 and 185.335 Loading doors. This section, which

was incorporated into existing subchapter T in December 1992, has its

origin in the HERALD OF FREE ENTERPRISE ferry accident. Although

closure of loading doors underway is valid, the types of vessels in the

domestic small passenger fleet are distinctly different in both design

and service to the English Channel ferry that spawned this regulation.

This section is revised in the IFR, and the language eased to allow

doors other than bow visors to be open at the discretion and judgment

of the operator in protected and partially protected waters. The

requirement for logbook entries is removed based on its limited safety

value.

Sections 122.420 and 185.420 Crew training. These sections were

criticized as too restrictive and the comments stated that

establishment of training schedules should be the responsibility of the

master of the vessel. The Coast Guard partially agrees with the

comments. The Coast Guard believes that training crew members to

respond to emergency situations is of paramount importance to vessels

operating with passengers on board. However, the Coast Guard recognizes

the reality of a part-time, high-turn over workforce. The requirement

to provide training to a crew member when first hired and prior to

working on a vessel for the first time is not changed from that

proposed in the SNPRM. The requirement for bimonthly follow-up training

is revised to require training at least quarterly. This will allow the

operator of the vessel to schedule training for all crew members,

including steward and galley staff within a three month time period.

The Coast Guard has also added a requirement to log or otherwise

document required drills and crew training. Documenting drills and

training serves two distinct purposes. First, documenting drills allows

the master, or person in charge of the vessel, to maintain a record of

drills conducted to better focus future training needs. Second, the

documentation of drills and training provides the Coast Guard inspector

with a quick means to determine compliance with the regulations. The

Coast Guard believes that this new requirement will impose little

burden to the industry because professional operations with established

training programs already maintain records. The Coast Guard solicits

input from the industry on the value and impact of this new

recordkeeping requirement.

Sections 122.502 and 185.502 Crew and passenger list and voyage

plan. This section is revised to ease the costly requirement for

passenger lists required by 46 USC 3502. The Coast Guard has reexamined

the language of this statute, and revised these sections by

interpreting coastwise trade as meaning a vessel that operates

overnight, or embarks or debarks passengers to another vessel or at a

port other than at the port where the voyage originated. This

interpretation of coastwise trade relieves vessels operating beyond the

Boundary Line from one port and returning to that same port, on the

same day, without stopping over at another location from the

requirement to maintain a list of all passengers on board. The Coast

Guard also eased the requirements by which the passenger list is left

ashore. The vessel operator now has the option of verbal or written

communication of the list to a shoreside berth or representative of the

vessel.

The requirements for a voyage plan have been moved to Secs. 122.503

and 185.503 in order to retain the applicability found in the SNPRM.

The voyage plan will still apply to vessels making an ocean or

coastwise voyage and certain Great Lakes voyages. The voyage plan was

criticized for being too restrictive by not allowing operators to

improvise when searching for fish or whales. It was not the Coast

Guard's intention nor was it implied in the SNPRM that a voyage plan be

so detailed as to restrict a vessel's operation. A voyage plan need

only be a general area of operation while underway, and an estimated

time of return. The Coast Guard's position on the need for voyage plans

has not changed from the SNPRM.

Sections 122.504 and 185.504 Passenger count. Although this

section, which in the SNPRM applied only to vessels on Lakes, Bays, and

Sounds, and Rivers routes, received similar comments as the passenger

list requirements, these counts serve a real purpose in Coast Guard

Search and Rescue Operations. The first thing On-Scene Coordinators do

is determine how many persons they are looking for or ascertaining that

all persons have been located at the scene of the casualty. This was

the case as recently as the EL TORO II casualty of December 1993. The

requirement has therefore been retained in the IFR, but the language

eased to additionally allow for verbal communication of the required

count to a representative of the owner or operator, rather than

``deposited ashore in a well marked location'' as originally written in

the SNPRM. The intention is that someone associated with the vessel

operation, other than those aboard, have passenger count information

available that can be relayed to the Coast Guard when necessary.

Section 122.506 and 185.506 Passenger safety orientation. Several

comments to these sections stated that an extensive pre-departure

announcement would invoke an uneasiness among passengers. The Coast

Guard believes that a pre-departure announcement is required to reduce

confusion and fear in passengers when an emergency situation does

develop. However, these sections have been revised to reduce the amount

of information required to be passed to the passengers. Through

increased crew training requirements, vessel personnel will be better

able to control and direct

[[Page 881]]

passengers during an emergency. The requirement to provide a lifejacket

donning demonstration has been revised to allow the master to make an

announcement that any passengers wishing instruction on proper

lifejacket donning techniques can contact a crewmember for a

demonstration.

The abbreviated announcement is retained as an alternative to the

full-length announcement. The Coast Guard believes that the abbreviated

announcement and safety placard are better suited to vehicle and other

ferry type operations where safety demonstrations are impractical and

passengers may be located in their vehicles away from passenger areas.

Overall, these sections now closer resemble the existing

requirement in Sec. 185.25(d), which satisfies several comments stating

that the existing wording should be retained.

Sections 122.508 and 185.508 Wearing of Lifejackets. The intent of

this section was to raise the sensitivity of the master with regard to

donning of lifejackets, and raise the priority of donning lifejackets

in certain hazardous and deteriorating operating conditions. The

comments received on this section were focused on paragraph (c), which

permitted passengers and crew to don lifejackets whenever desired. The

Coast Guard agrees with comments received that required lifejackets are

part of the vessel's emergency gear, and should not be compromised by

allowing passengers to don them in other than master directed

circumstances. The text in this section is revised to reflect the

discretion and judgment of the master, rather than list specific

instances where the Coast Guard believes lifejackets should be donned.

Paragraphs (b) concerning the location of passengers on the vessel, and

(c) concerning donning of lifejackets at will have been deleted.

Sections 122.510 and 185.510 Emergency instructions. This section

is revised in the IFR. Further, the intent of the emergency

instructions was revisited, and the provision to create a placard and

post it for the information of the passengers is deleted, since

emergency actions are the responsibility of the licensed master and his

crew.

Sections 122.512 and 185.512 Emergency instructions format. The

comments to these sections focused on the prescriptive detail of the

language to this section and the need to generalize this section. The

Coast Guard disagrees. It is not the Coast Guard's intent to dictate

the actions of the master and crew of a vessel during an emergency

situation. Every vessel is different and if certain parts of the

emergency instructions are not applicable to a certain vessel, then the

Coast Guard will allow the deletion of those parts. The Coast Guard

hopes that vessel masters and owners will take the time to develop a

more detailed set of emergency instructions that are vessel specific.

These sections have been retained and re-titled as a recommended

minimum checklist for the master and crew of a vessel during an

emergency.

Sections 122.520 Abandon ship and man overboard drills and

training. The comments to this section focused on the need for random

weekly drills. Citing scheduling problems and the overkill of weekly

drills, the comments stated a relaxation of the drill requirements

should be considered. The Coast Guard agrees. The revision to this

section allows the master to schedule monthly drills in order to get

the most participation from the crew, including steward and galley

staff. The master is not restricted from conducting more drills as

needed. As discussed previously under crew training, the Coast Guard

has added a documentation requirement to required drills and training,

and solicits input from the industry on the value and impact of this

new documentation requirement.

122.520 and 185.520 Abandon ship and man overboard drills and

training. Additional comments to both Secs. 122.520 and 185.520 asked

that the requirement to launch a davit launched liferaft every four

months be removed due to cost considerations. The Coast Guard partially

agrees. Specialized training is required for launching a liferaft with

a davit arrangement; however, the hands on portion of lowering an

inflated liferaft may be better accomplished during annual servicing.

Paragraph (f) of both sections is revised to require quarterly training

on davit launched liferafts, but the requirement to inflate a liferaft

when practicable is deleted.

122.524 Fire fighting drills and training. Citing the same concerns

as the abandon ship and man overboard drills, the Coast Guard has

revised this section to allow the master to schedule monthly drills. As

discussed previously under crew training, the Coast Guard has added a

documentation requirement to required drills and training, and solicits

input from the industry on the value and impact of this new

documentation requirement.

122.614 and 185.614 Portable watertight container for distress

flares and smoke signals. These sections in subchapters K and T

respectively, are added because the proposed requirement in

Secs. 117.68 and 180.68 for the Coast Guard approved container was

deleted.

122.728 and 185.728 Testing and servicing of EPIRBs. Paragraph (c)

is added to require the documentation of the monthly EPIRB operational

test required by these sections. The Coast Guard solicits comments on

the addition of this requirement.

9. Part 170--Stability Requirements For All Inspected Vessels

Two comments to this part addressed the periodic lightweight survey

requirements contained in Sec. 170.210, which were suspended on

December 10, 1992 [57 FR 58406]. The comments stated that paragraph (e)

of Sec. 170.210 would have to be modified if the regulation is

reinstated. The Coast Guard agrees. After a comprehensive review of all

the current regulation projects, the Coast Guard decided to withdraw

the lightweight survey project, along with selected other projects, and

focus its available resources on higher priority projects. Since the

suspended lightweight survey requirements will not be reinstated in the

near future, no changes are required in this section at this time.

One comment stated that the word ``maximum'' should be deleted from

paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 170.173 because it is misleading. The Coast

Guard agrees and has made this change for the IFR.

In addition to changes based upon comments, the Coast Guard has

made other changes to Part 170 based upon a review of the stability

regulations. These include:

Section 170.170 Calculations required. The Coast Guard has adjusted

the angle of heel permitted for sailing vessels when determining the

minimum required metacentric height. Because the vessel's angle of heel

is limited to one-half of the freeboard of the vessel when applying the

criteria for metacentric height (GM) in existing Sec. 170.170, some

sailing vessels have had to limit the number of passengers they can

carry. The existing criteria were initially developed for mechanically

powered vessels that were of ordinary proportions and form, with flush

decks, and carried cargo below the main deck. The changes in the IFR

will allow sailing vessels to be heeled up to the deck edge, or to a

maximum heel of 14 degrees, whichever is less, because a sailing vessel

has a greater range of stability and a greater angle of downflooding

than the type of vessel for which the criteria were initially

developed.

Section 170.265 Class 3 doors; required locations. The Coast

Guard's revision to Sec. 170.265(d)(2) corrects errors that occurred

when 46 CFR 73.35-15(d) was redesignated as

[[Page 882]]

subchapter S. The factor of subdivision value was incorrectly stated as

0.05 instead of 0.5.

Section 170.270 Door design, operation, installation, and testing.

The revisions to paragraph (d) specify circumstances when watertight

door indicators are required under Sec. 170.255(e). The change is

consistent with Sec. 179.330(b) in the IFR.

10. Part 171--Special Rules Pertaining To Vessels Carrying Passengers

Based upon the Coast Guard's review of this Part, a correction has

been made to proposed Sec. 171.122 regarding coaming heights. In the

SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to remove Sec. 171.124 because it

duplicated requirements in Sec. 179.360. Removal of Sec. 171.124 also

removes Table 171.124. However, Sec. 171.122 references Table 171.124

for coaming height requirements. Therefore, Table 171.124 is

redesignated as Table 171.122.

11. Part 178--Intact Stability and Seaworthiness

Comments on this part expressed concern over the clarity of

drainage calculations proposed in the SNPRM under Sec. 178.450, and

suggested that the proposed requirements were excessive requirements

for cockpit vessels. The Coast Guard agrees, and therefore to account

for this, the relative size of the vessel compared to size of water

entrapments, such as cockpits and bulwarks on the weather deck, has

been acknowledged through the addition of a recess and weather deck

ratio.

The Coast Guard has reviewed the drainage formula, and noted a lack

of requirements for bulwarks outside well deck and cockpit areas. Thus,

bulwarks in the last two thirds of the vessel but not in way of a well

deck or cockpit are accounted for using the same method as that used

for a well deck. Bulwarks in the forward one third of the vessel may

not form a well with the deckhouse which could retain water. The Coast

Guard solicits input from the industry on the changes to Sec. 178.450

in subchapter T.

12. Part 179--Subdivision, Damage Stability, and Watertight Integrity

The comments on this part focused on the watertight coaming

requirements in Subpart C. While the comments supported easing these

requirements, particularly for vessels on protected routes, they

recommended complete elimination of requirements for coamings. The

comments claimed that coamings are the main cause of passenger ``trip

and falls'' and prevent modification of vessels to comply with the

Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Coast Guard appreciates the concerns over passenger ``trips and

falls,'' but considers the danger of downflooding, particularly on

vessels with high passenger capacity, to be an overriding concern.

Therefore, a minimum watertight coaming requirement is maintained in

this IFR, and this section has not been changed.

As discussed under Parts 117 and 180, as of March 11, 2001, vessels

constructed of wood will have to meet the subdivision standards

contained in this Part.

Organization of Subchapters T and K

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

Subchapter Subchapter

Subject area K part T part

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

General Provisions............................ 114 175

Inspection and Certification.................. 115 176

Construction and Arrangement.................. 116 177

Intact Stability and Seaworthiness............ N/A 178

Subdivision, Damage Stability and Watertight

Integrity.................................... N/A 179

Lifesaving Equipment and Arrangements......... 117 180

Fire Protection Equipment..................... 118 181

Machinery Installation........................ 119 182

Electrical Installation....................... 120 183

Control and Miscellaneous Systems............. 121 184

Operations.................................... 122 185

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

Metric (SI) Conversion

The IFR has been revised to include metric units using the

International System of Units (SI) for all measures with the exception

of Nautical Miles (NM) and Knots. English units immediately follow the

metric conversions in parenthesis throughout the regulations.

Solicitation for Comments

As previously stated under ``COMMENTS ON PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF

THE SNPRM,'' the Coast Guard is soliciting input on five requirements

established in this IFR. Section 180.200 now includes a construction

equivalency for wooden hull vessels. Sections 119.530 and 182.530 now

include more spaces requiring high bilge level alarms in order to

increase their effectiveness. Sections 122.420, 122.520, 122.524,

185.420, 122.520, and 122.524 now include provisions to log or

otherwise document required drills and training. Sections 122.728 and

185.728 now include a provision to log the required monthly test of the

Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB). Section 178.450 has

been revised to take cockpit size and bulwark arrangements into

consideration when calculating drainage areas. In addition, the Coast

Guard is soliciting input on one other topic discussed under Sections

116.960 and 177.960 ``Guards for exposed hazards.'' Persons desiring to

comment on any of the above sections should submit their comments to

the Coast Guard where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Regulatory Evaluation

This IFR is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget under that order. It is significant under the regulatory

policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR

11040; February 26, 1979). A draft regulatory evaluation was prepared

for the SNPRM based on comments to the NPRM and placed in the

rulemaking docket. The evaluation contained information on the

methodology and data sources used in determining costs and benefits,

details on the costs and benefits of over 70 changes, alternatives to

proposed changes, cost for sample small passenger vessels, and a

profile of the small passenger fleet and its casualty history. The

Coast Guard

[[Page 883]]

received several comments criticizing the draft evaluation for

containing outdated costs, the risk assessment methodology and cost/

benefit analysis.

The SNPRM identified the three most significant monetary cost/

benefit items of this rulemaking as:

1. Liferafts or inflatable buoyant apparatus for certain vessels;

2. Passenger/crew lists; and

3. Fixed fire extinguishing systems in machinery spaces.

As a result of the comments received on the draft evaluation and

the SNPRM as a whole, the Coast Guard has significantly reduced the

cost of this rulemaking by incorporating the following changes in the

IFR:

1. Reducing the number of vessels required to carry inflatable

survival craft; and

2. Revising passenger and crew list requirements.

In addition, the Coast Guard has made other significant changes in

the IFR that will result in reduced costs to the small passenger vessel

industry. For example:

1. Providing more options to meet structural fire protection

requirements:

2. Eliminating the requirements to install overspeed trip devices

for main propulsion engines and generators; and

3. Deleting the requirement to have wooden vessels more than 20

years old drydocked annually.

In order to address the impact these changes have had on the cost

to this rulemaking, the Coast Guard has included an addendum to the

draft regulatory evaluation addressed in the SNPRM. The addendum

updates the changes in cost associated with the elimination of some of

the inflatable lifesaving equipment and requirements to maintain

passenger and crew list for certain vessels. In order to provide

consistency, the Coast Guard retained the methods of calculating the

total and Average Annual Cost (AAC) of the requirements from the draft

assessment. However, the information used to calculate the number of

vessels affected and the cost of required equipment were updated to

provide an accurate estimate.

The Coast guard believes that by adopting these changes, it is

reducing the overall costs to the industry of this rule by 63%. The

draft regulatory assessment estimated that the small passenger vessel

industry would incur an AAC of $9.71 million as a result of the SNPRM.

Based upon the addendum to the draft regulatory assessment, the Coast

Guard estimates the small passenger vessel industry will incur a

direct, average annual cost of $3.59 million as a result of this IFR.

As stated above, the most significant cost reductions can be found in

the revisions to the lifesaving equipment and passenger and crew list

requirements.

By significantly reducing the number of small passenger vessels

required to install and maintain inflatable lifesaving equipment, this

IFR will reduce estimated costs to the industry for this equipment by

61% from that proposed in the SNPRM. The draft regulatory assessment

calculated that under the requirements in the SNPRM, the AAC for

installation and maintenance of liferafts and inflatable buoyant

apparatus was $4.87 million. The addendum to the draft regulatory

assessment calculates the AAC for this equipment to be $1.90 million.

The reduction in cost is directly attributed to the decrease in the

number of vessels required to carry inflatable survival craft. For

example: the requirement for inflatable liferafts (the highest cost

inflatable survival craft) proposed in the SNPRM would have affected an

estimated 1,300 vessels. In contrast, the requirements in the IFR for

inflatable liferafts affect less than ten existing vessels.

By significantly reducing the number of small passenger vessels

required to comply with the passenger and crew list requirements, this

IFR will reduce estimated costs to the industry for maintaining these

lists by 84% from the requirements proposed in the SNPRM. The draft

regulatory assessment calculated that the AAC for maintaining a list of

all passengers and crew on vessels operating on coastwise or oceans

routes to be $1.03 million. The addendum to the draft regulatory

assessment calculates the AAC for this requirement to be $0.16 million.

Those vessels not required to keep a passenger and crew list need only

maintain a count of all passengers and crew onboard. As stated in the

draft regulatory evaluation, the Coast Guard believes the legislatively

mandated requirement to maintain a passenger and crew count does not

impose a significant cost.

The Coast guard believes that the overall cost reduction measures

contained in this IFR will not have a substantial effect on the

benefits calculated in the draft assessment. The Coast Guard has

significantly reduced the cost of this rulemaking by focusing the

requirements for high cost items such as inflatable lifesaving

equipment strictly to vessels operating in cold water offshore with a

large number of passengers, and vessel types involving the greatest

number of casualties. In doing so, the Coast Guard maintains that an

average of 3 lives per year will be saved because of the requirements

contained in this IFR. In addition, the Coast Guard believes that the

$0.3 million cost benefit due to the installation of fixed fire

extinguishing systems, and the $2.0 million cost benefit due to

unquantified savings in areas such as search and rescue and injuries

prevented are still valid in light of the changes to the requirements

proposed in the SNPRM.

The Department of Transportation General Counsel's memorandum of

March 14, 1995, noted that $2.7 million per fatality averted is a

reasonable estimate of society's willingness to pay for reduced risk of

fatalities and injuries. Based upon this figure and the previously

stated cost benefits, the Coast Guard estimates this rulemaking will

produce an annual benefit of $10.4 million in lives and property saved,

and injuries prevented.

The Coast Guard does not believe that the areas it is seeking

additional comments, discussed previously under ``SOLICITATION FOR

COMMENTS,'' will have a significant impact on the regulatory evaluation

and addendum. Therefore, the Coast Guard adopted the regulatory

evaluation with the addendum as its final regulatory evaluation. The

addendum to the draft regulatory assessment has been prepared and

placed in the rulemaking docket for inspection or copying where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through 612),

the Coast Guard must consider whether this rule is likely to have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

``Small entities'' include independently owned and operated small

businesses that are not dominant in their field and that would

otherwise qualify as ``small business concerns'' under section 3 of the

Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).

Small passenger vessel operators comprise firms in the Standard

Industrial Code (SIC) categories 4482 and 4489, which are,

respectively, ferries and water transportation of passengers, not

elsewhere specified. According to 13 CFR 121, the size standard of

small businesses in these categories is less than 500 employees. About

92% of small passenger vessel operators fall into the small business

category. The total number of small passenger vessels affected by this

rulemaking is initially 5,564, many of which are owned or managed by

small entities. There are currently 405 vessels that carry more than

150 passengers and are subject to higher cost requirements such as

structural fire protection measures. The Coast Guard believes that

[[Page 884]]

few small entities operate this group of vessels. The Coast Guard also

believes that the average annual cost of this rulemaking is skewed

upward because of these vessels. In order to reduce the impact of the

regulations on vessels owned or managed by small entities, alternatives

have been proposed that are intended to reduce the cost. These

alternatives include route restrictions (i.e., vessels choosing to

operate less than one mile from shore) and recognition that a vessel

with subdivision is less likely to sink. As stated previously under

``COMMENTS ON PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE SNPRM'' and ``REGULATORY

EVALUATION'' the Coast Guard has significantly reduced the cost of this

rulemaking by focusing the requirements for high cost items such as

inflatable lifesaving equipment strictly to high risk vessels and

vessel types involving the greatest number of casualties. Requirements

for existing vessels to be retrofitted to meet the new standards were

limited to those areas where the greatest benefits may be realized

based upon available casualty data.

The type of vessel which the Coast Guard believes is likely to be

operated by a small entity and on which the regulations would have the

greatest cost impact, are vessels on oceans or coastwise routes that

are permitted to carry only a few more passengers than the maximum of

six that may be carried on uninspected vessels. This group of vessels

is primarily composed of sport fishing vessels carrying passengers on

chartered trips. Some of these are only operated on a part-time basis.

The owners of vessels operated part-time would be affected the most,

since such vessels make only a limited number of trips from which they

can recover the cost of the proposed regulations. These vessels may opt

to drop certification and operate as uninspected passenger vessels as

an alternative to compliance with this rulemaking. The number of

vessels in this category is estimated to be less than 170 vessels.

This IFR will also have an impact on wood hulled vessels operated

on an ocean or coastwise route in cold water [areas where the average

mean low water temperature is below 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees

Fahrenheit)]. As stated previously under ``COMMENTS ON PARTICULAR

PROVISIONS OF THE SNPRM,'' these vessels account for 90% of small

passenger vessel casualties involving the loss of life or loss of the

vessel. The bulk of the cost to these operations will be the purchase

and servicing of inflatable buoyant apparatus, or the often lower one-

time cost of installing watertight bulkheads. Some operators of wood

hulled vessels may find that they have to alter the scope of their

vessel operation, either by carrying fewer passengers or by operating

on a more restricted route, in order to remain financially sound. The

Coast Guard estimates that the number of wooden vessels affected makes

up not more than 320 vessels, or less than 6% of the inspected

passenger vessel fleet.

The Coast Guard estimates that about 490 small passenger vessels

operated by small entities, or about 9% of the small entities affected

by this regulation are expected to experience significant costs.

Based on the discussion above, and previous discussions on the cost

reductions contained in this IFR, the Coast Guard has determined that

this proposed rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rule contains collection-of-information requirements. The

Coast Guard submitted the requirements contained in the SNPRM to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h)

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB

approved them.

As a result of changes to the SNPRM based upon comments and a Coast

Guard review of recordkeeping requirements, several deletions and

additions have been made to the collection of information requirements.

The Coast Guard believes that the logbook and recordkeeping

requirements contained in Secs. 122.260(a)(2), 122.304(c), 122.315,

122.335, 185.260(a)(2), 185.315, and 185.335 of the SNPRM did not

contribute to the overall safety of the vessel, and therefore removed

them from the IFR. However, as previously discussed in ``Comments on

SNPRM Citing Particular Provisions,'' the Coast Guard has added

recordkeeping requirements to Secs. 122.420, 122.520, 122.524, 122.728,

185.420, 185.520, 185.524, and 185.728 in order to easily verify

compliance with crew training and equipment testing requirements

contained in the IFR. The Coast Guard believes that most professional

operators presently conducting crew training and drills are already

documenting the training in some form. Further, marginal operators will

be more inclined to comply with the crew training requirements if they

are required to provide documentation to the Coast Guard inspector

during annual inspections. The Coast Guard submitted a revised

Information Collection Budget (ICB) request to OMB for approval. The

new ICB requested 13,294 fewer hours than the 418,902 approved by OMB

for the SNPRM. The decrease in requested burden hours is the net result

of (1) the revisions to the crew and passenger list requirements

(-12,397 hours annually) and the navigation underway sections (-2,720

hours annually) and (2) the addition of crew training and drill log

requirements (1,823 hours annually) previously discussed in ``Comments

on SNPRM Citing Particular Provisions.'' Overall, the new ICB request

represents an increase of 126,904 burden hours over the 278,704 hours

approved by OMB prior to the publication of the SNPRM in 1994.

This IFR contains collection of information requirements in the

following sections of 46 CFR: 115.105(a), 115.202, 115.204, 115.302,

115.306, 115.310, 115.500(a), 115.612, 115.700, 115.704, 115.710,

115.810(b), 115.920(c), 115.930, 116.202, 116.330, 116.340, 116.610(e),

118.610, 119.460(e), 120.220(d), 120.320 (d) and (e), 121.420, 121.506,

122.202, 122.206, 122.208, 122.220, 122.230, 122.280, 122.282,

122.340(c), 122.402, 122.420, 122.502, 122.503, 122.504, 122.506,

122.510, 122.514, 122.515, 122.516, 122.518, 122.520, 122.524, 122.602,

122.604, 122.606, 122.608, 122.610, 122.612, 122.702, 122.704(c),

122.728(c), 176.105(a), 176.202, 176.204, 176.302, 176.306, 176.310,

176.500(a), 176.612, 176.700, 176.704, 176.710, 176.810(b), 176.920(c),

176.930, 177.202, 177.330, 177.340, 178.210, 178.220, 178.230, 181.610,

182.460(e), 182.610(f), 183.220(d), 183.320 (d) and (e), 184.420,

184.506, 185.202, 185.206, 185.208, 185.220, 185.230, 185.280,

185.340(c), 185.402, 185.420, 185.502, 185.503, 185.504, 185.506,

185.510, 185.514, 185.516, 185.518, 185.520, 185.524, 185.602, 185.604,

185.606, 185.608, 185.610, 185.612, 185.702, 185.704(c), and

185.728(c).

The corresponding control numbers are displayed in Secs. 114.900

and 175.900 of this IFR.

Persons desiring to comment on any of these information collection

requirements should submit their comments both to the OMB and to the

Coast Guard where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Federalism

This proposed rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has

been determined that this proposed rulemaking does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

[[Page 885]]

Environmental Impact

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this

proposal and concluded that, under section 2.B.2. of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion

Determination statement has been prepared and has been placed in the

rulemaking docket.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Parts 114, 175

Incorporated by reference, Marine safety, Passenger vessels,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Parts 115, 176

Fire prevention, Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Parts 116, 117, 119, 171, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182

Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Parts 118, 181

Fire prevention, Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Parts 120, 183

Electric power, Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Parts 121, 184

Communications equipment, Marine safety, Navigation (water),

Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Parts 122, 185

Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Drugs, Hazardous materials, Marine

safety, Navigation (water), Passenger vessels, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 170

Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 173

Marine safety, Vessels.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard has

amended Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations by: adding subchapter K;

redesignating and adding Parts 114 through 139, reserved in subchapter

J, in subchapter K; amending Parts 170, 171, and 173 of subchapter S,

and by amending subchapter T as follows.

1. Subchapter K is added to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER K--SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS CARRYING MORE THAN 150 PASSENGERS

OR WITH OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS FOR MORE THAN 49 PASSENGERS

Part

114 General provisions.

115 Inspection and certification.

116 Construction and arrangement.

117 Lifesaving equipment and arrangements.

118 Fire protection equipment.

119 Machinery installation.

120 Electrical installation.

121 Control and miscellaneous systems.

122 Operations.

PART 114--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.

114.100 Purpose.

114.110 General applicability.

114.112 Specific applicability for individual parts.

114.120 Vessels on an international voyage.

114.122 Load lines.

114.400 Definitions of terms used in this subchapter.

114.540 Equivalents.

114.550 Special consideration.

114.560 Appeals.

114.600 Incorporation by reference.

114.800 Approved equipment and material.

114.900 OMB control numbers.

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; 49

CFR 1.45, 1.46; 114.900 also issued under authority of 44 U.S.C.

3507.

Sec. 114.100 Purpose.

The purpose of this subchapter is to implement applicable sections

of Subtitle II of Title 46, United States Code, which require the

inspection and certification of small passenger vessels.

Sec. 114.110 General applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this

section, this subchapter applies to each vessel of less than 100 gross

tons and less than 61 meters (200 feet) which:

(1) Carries more than 150 passengers; or

(2) Has overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers.

(b) A vessel of less than 100 gross tons that either carries not

more than 150 passengers, or has overnight accommodations for not more

than 49 passengers, and that is not more than 61 meters (200 feet) in

length, may comply with the provisions in subchapter T (Small Passenger

Vessels) of this chapter.

(c) A vessel of less than 100 gross tons must comply with Parts 72

and 76 of subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of this chapter, and with

the applicable requirements for marine engineering and electrical

systems contained in subchapter F (Marine Engineering) and subchapter J

(Electrical Engineering) of this chapter, if it is:

(1) A vessel that carries more than 600 passengers;

(2) A vessel with overnight accommodations for more than 150

passengers; or

(3) A vessel of more than 61 meters (200 feet) in length that

carries more than six passengers.

(d) Unless otherwise provided, an existing vessel that is not

required to comply with a requirement in this subchapter may comply

with the regulation that was applicable to the vessel on March 10,

1996.

(e) A vessel required by this subchapter to meet applicable

sections of subchapter H shall follow the phase-in schedule for certain

equipment and requirements found in this subchapter.

(f) This subchapter does not apply to:

(1) A vessel operating exclusively on inland waters that are not

navigable waters of the United States;

(2) An oceanographic research vessel;

(3) A boat forming part of a vessel's lifesaving equipment and that

is not used for carrying passengers except in emergencies or during

emergency drills;

(4) A vessel of a foreign country that is a party to the

International Convention for t

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.