# Small Passenger Vessel Inspection and Certification

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-213

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** January 10, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 864

## Text

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 s

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-213. Public record. Not legal advice.