# Small Passenger Vessel Inspection and Certification

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-25599

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** September 30, 1997
- **Citation:** 62 FR 51326

## Text

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adopting, as a final rule with some
changes, the interim final rule which completely revised the
regulations affecting small passenger vessels of less than 100 gross
tons. This rule creates a separate subchapter for small passenger
vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or having overnight
accommodations for more than 49 passengers, provides additional
alternatives to certain required lifesaving equipment, adopts
additional industry standards, and establishes new upper-limit
breakpoints above which a passenger vessel of less than 100 gross tons
must comply with the same construction and outfitting requirements
applicable to a passenger vessel of 100 gross tons or more. It also
updates the regulations to accommodate the advanced technology, larger
size, and increased passenger-carrying capacity of small passenger
vessels.

DATES: This rule is effective October 30, 1997. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on October 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for
inspection or copying at the office of the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 20593-0001 between 9:30 a.m. and
2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-267-1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Eric P. Christensen,
Project Manager, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, (G-
MSO-2), phone 202-267-1181, telefax 202-267-4570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published in the Federal
Register (54 FR 4412) of January 30, 1989, contained a proposed
revision of 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter T, concerning the inspection
and certification of small passenger vessels. The NPRM also proposed a
revision to those portions of 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter S, affecting
the subdivision and stability of small passenger vessels. The NPRM
comment period was originally scheduled to expire on May 31, 1989, but
was extended to July 31, 1989. Public meetings were held on the NPRM in
Washington, DC, St. Louis, New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, and
Boston. Over 225 people attended and 116 presented their views at the
meetings.
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
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) (59 FR 1994) on
January 13, 1994. The SNPRM significantly changed the NPRM by proposing
(1) the creation of a separate, new subchapter (46 CRF chapter I,
subchapter K) just for small passenger vessels carrying more than 150
passengers or having 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 limits 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. Public meetings were held on the SNPRM in New
London, Seattle, Chicago, Annapolis, Tampa, Cincinnati, and Long Beach.
Over 225 persons attended and 80 presented their views at the meetings.
On January 10, 1996, the Coast Guard published an Interim Final
Rule (IFR) in the Federal Register (61 FR 864). During the 150 day
comment period, the Coast Guard received 37 letters containing over 350
comments. Public meetings were held on the IFR in St. Louis, Oakland,
Mobile, and New Haven. Over 130 persons attended and 36 members of the
public presented their views on the IFR at the meetings.

Background and Purpose

Subchapter T contained the regulations for the inspection and
certification of small passenger vessels, including requirements for
construction, outfitting of lifesaving and fire protection equipment,
machinery and electrical installations, and operations. Since the
subchapter's last major revision in 1963, significant changes have
occurred 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) expansions of vessel routes,
and (5) technological advances. Consequently, this rulemaking is
necessary to respond to these changes.

Summary of Changes to the IFR

This final rule adopts, as is, the interim final rule published on
January 10, 1996, with the following notable changes:
(1) Small passenger vessels are no longer grouped into three
categories for regulatory purposes, as provided in the IFR. Separate
treatment of small passenger vessels carrying more than 600 passengers
or having overnight accommodations for more 150 passengers (the group
known as ``K1'' or ``K prime'') has been removed. In this
final rule, all small passenger vessels are grouped into two
categories. Vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or having
overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers are under
subchapter K (46 CFR parts 114 through 122). All other small passenger
vessels are under subchapter T (46 CFR parts 175 through 185).
(2) The only change to the IFR that could have a substantial
economic impact results from the removal of the K\1\ category. It is
the requirement for stairtowers landing areas, which is restored for
vessels having overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers.
However, because this type of vessel was built to the guidelines in
Coast Guard NVIC 11-83 (``Regulations for Very Large 46 CFR Subchapter
T Vessels''), which called for stairtower landing areas in accordance
with subchapter H, this change will have no affect on existing vessels.
In addition, it will provide consistency for boat builders who have
built this type of vessel for the past 13 years.
The remaining changes, for the most part, are made to realign the
text after the removal of the K\1\ category, to correct errors in the
Code of Federal Regulations, and to fine-tune the IFR in response to
comments.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

(a) General.
(1) Eleven comments recommended that the breakpoint between
subchapter K and K' be raised from 600 to 1,000 passengers to be in
line with two compartment subdivision. Two comments noted that over the
course of the rulemaking process, several vessels have been built which
would fall into

[[Page 51327]]

the K' category (600+ passengers). Though not required to be built to
the extensive subchapter H standards (passenger vessels of 100 gross
tons or more) called for in K' these vessels have operated safely for
years, and it was recommended that the breakpoint for these vessels be
increased to 1,000 passengers.
The Coast Guard partially agrees. Two-compartment subdivision
begins at 600 passengers. Of the 450 subchapter K vessels identified in
the IFR, only 35 carried over 600 passengers. Some of these vessels
were built as far back as 1944. The operating record of these vessels
is satisfactory. However, the Coast Guard is concerned with the trend
of building larger vessels by manipulating the exemptions to the
tonnage rules. The Coast Guard has determined that additional
requirements for vessels carrying overnight or large numbers of
passengers are appropriate. However, the Coast Guard agrees that
adherence to all of the requirements in subchapters H, F, and J is not
warranted on small passenger vessels.
NVIC 11-83, ``Regulations for very large 46 CFR Subchapter T
vessels,'' identified additional safety requirements for vessels
carrying more than 49 overnight passengers that could be applied by the
OCMI based on the increased size of the vessel. These additional
requirements were taken from subchapters F, H, J and S. In July, 1995,
Change 1 to the NVIC added vessels carrying more than 600 passengers to
the NVIC's applicability. Many of the recommendations contained in the
NVIC were incorporated into subchapter K under the SNPRM and IFR. The
Coast Guard stated that subchapter K was to be the middle ground
between traditional small passenger vessels under subchapter T and
large passenger vessels under subchapter H.
In order to determine a course of action, the Coast Guard compared
the recommendations of NVIC 11-83, including Change 1, to the
regulations contained in the IFR for subchapter K and K' vessels. In
addition, vessels identified in the Marine Safety Information System
(MSIS) as carrying more than 600 passengers and admeasuring less than
100 gross tons had their systems and equipment compared to the NVIC.
Based upon these reviews, the Coast Guard decided to eliminate the K'
thresholds and place, in subchapter K, additional requirements on
vessels carrying more than 600 passengers to focus on the safety
concerns of larger vessels. The elimination of 200 feet and 150
overnight passenger thresholds from subchapter K was based on the data
collected by the Coast Guard. Only 3 of the vessels identified were
over 200 feet in length. This equates to less than a tenth of one
percent of the total small passenger vessel fleet of over 5,500
vessels. Clearly, it is not the industry standard to build vessels over
200 feet that admeasure less than 100 gross tons. As for the
elimination of the 150 overnight passenger threshold, the Coast Guard
has determined that the additional requirements, formerly applied in
accordance with NVIC 11-83 to vessels carrying more than 49 overnight
passengers and now included in this rule, are appropriate for small
passenger vessels carrying more than 150 overnight passengers. The
Coast Guard has identified only one vessel, the QUEEN OF THE WEST, that
is a subchapter K vessel carrying more than 150 overnight passengers.
Specific changes to the subchapter K regulations include the
requirements for an independently-driven fire pump, two electrical
generating sets, exit lights, floodlights for lifeboat and liferaft
embarkation stations, and emergency lighting for vessels carrying more
than 600 passengers. These requirements already exist in the IFR for
vessels carrying more than 49 overnight passengers. In addition,
stairtower landing area requirements for vessels carrying more than 600
passengers have been placed in Sec. 116.438, and fire hydrant
requirements have been placed in Sec. 118.310. The fire hydrant valve
requirement was believed to be omitted from the IFR and is considered
good marine practice.
Both the stairtower and fire main requirements were contained in
NVIC 11-83. Therefore, the Coast Guard has determined that the changes
in the final rule should have no impact on vessels carrying more than
49 overnight passengers because this type of vessel has been designed
and built to the NVIC for over 13 years.
The Coast Guard has determined that by specifically addressing the
additional requirements in subchapter K, rather than referring to part
72 in subchapter H for structural fire protection or to applicable
parts of subchapters F and J for machinery and electrical requirements,
a consistent minimum level of safety is achieved. It also eliminates
confusion in interpreting the word ``applicable.'' In addition, the
Coast Guard has determined that although this is a relatively
significant change to the regulations, the overall impact to the
subchapter K vessel fleet is a reduction in regulations for
constructing vessels carrying more than 600 passengers.
(2) Two comments recommended that indices for subchapters K and T
be added to title 46, Code of Federal Regulations. They appear in the
October 1, 1996, edition of title 46.
(3) Two comments noted that these regulations have not used
grandfathering as extensively as in previous regulations despite the
absence of specific dangers to public safety.
As discussed in the preambles of the NPRM and SNPRM, the Coast
Guard considers the use of grandfathering and phase-in periods in this
rule appropriate. The Coast Guard uses grandfathering extensively in
this rule. Existing vessels are grandfathered for construction and
arrangement, electrical, and machinery requirements unless the vessel
undergoes a major conversion or adds new equipment. Additional
requirements in firefighting, lifesaving, and vessel operations (crew
training) are considered appropriate. The Coast Guard acknowledges that
the small passenger vessel industry is safe; however, casualties still
occur and life and property are lost as a result. The revised
regulations contained in the IFR and final rule will result in an
increased level of safety for passengers and crew alike.
(4) Two comments asked for a list of all documents, such as
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVIC's), Policy File
Memorandums from G-MCO (formerly G-MVI), Coast Guard Headquarters (HQ)
policy letters, and Marine Safety Manual (MSM) sections, that are
canceled or revised as a result of this rule. They are:
NVIC 11-83 with Change 1 ``Regulations for Very Large 46 CFR
Subchapter T Passenger Vessels'' (Canceled).
G-MVI Policy letter 13-86 ``Certificated Small Passenger Vessels
Carrying Six or Less Passengers'' (Canceled).
G-MVI Policy letter 22-89 ``Watertight Doors in Subdivision
Bulkheads on Small Passenger Vessels'' (Canceled).
G-MVI Policy letter 16-93 ``Drydock Extensions for Small Passenger
Vessels (T-Boats)'' (Canceled).
G-MVI Policy letter 05-95 ``Policy on Rail Heights for Passenger
Vessels and Small Passenger Vessels'' (Revised).
Policy File Memorandum (PFM) 1-94 on very low fire load options
(still in effect and will be incorporated into NVIC 6-80 on structural
fire protection).
(5) Two comments concerned 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter Q, which
contains requirements for the specification and approval of equipment,
construction, and materials and which is referenced in subchapters K
and T. They

[[Page 51328]]

recommend that subchapter Q be repealed because the practice of
approving equipment is outdated in this age of comprehensive consensus
standards, corporate quality control, and the rapidly evolving
technology in materials and innovative equipment.
The Coast Guard disagrees that subchapter Q is unnecessary. Where
certain items of equipment are required by statute or regulation to be
carried on a vessel, the Coast Guard equipment approval system is an
invaluable resource for ship operators who would otherwise be uncertain
if a particular item would be acceptable. It ensures that requirements
are applied uniformly to all vessels and eliminates the need for case-
by-case evaluations by an Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI).
Some specifications in subchapter Q are outdated and in need of
revision. However, acceptance standards are still needed to ensure that
critical materials and equipment meet minimum national or international
safety standards. As resources allow, the Coast Guard intends to revise
subchapter Q to maximize the use of performance standards and suitable
industry consensus standards. The Coast Guard is very active in
encouraging and assisting in the development of industry and
international standards.
(6) Two comments suggested that the recommendations of the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (M-95-37 through 39) resulting from
the ARGO COMMODORE casualty should be implemented before publishing a
final rule.
The Coast Guard has provided a response to the NTSB regarding those
recommendations. The recommendations were considered in developing
these regulations; however, problems surrounding the onboard
firefighting efforts in this casualty were more related to personnel
and training than to equipment.
(7) Two comments asked why there were 55 outstanding NTSB
requirements concerning the safety of small passenger vessels.
The Coast Guard has resolved virtually all of the previously
outstanding NTSB recommendations concerning small passenger vessels.
(8) Six comments stated that there were too many new regulations;
industry cannot take any more.
The Coast Guard notes that many of the rulemaking projects
published in the last year have centered around the adoption of
industry standards and the removal of obsolete regulations. These
regulations are designed to ease the burden on industry. Other new
rulemakings, such as the implementation of the International Convention
on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(STCW) and the revision of 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter W, (Lifesaving
Appliances) are in response to changes in the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, (SOLAS) and are mandated by
international treaty. Where possible, the Coast Guard tries to minimize
the impact of SOLAS amendments on the domestic fleet. The small
passenger vessel rulemaking has been in development since 1985 and
industry has commented on three different versions of proposed and
interim regulations. Because of the extensive public participation in
this rulemaking at the 17 public meetings and by the submission of
written comments, the new small passenger vessel regulations will be a
viable, flexible standard for the next 30 years.
(9) One comment recommended that the operators of passenger vessels
be held accountable for the safety of the passengers who consume
alcoholic beverages on the vessels.
The master is already responsible for the safety of the passengers
and crew on board the vessel. The Coast Guard has determined that
additional regulations are not required to clarify this point.
(10) One comment noted that accident and risk analysis criteria
needed to be better developed if used in developing regulations. The
comment also noted that the statistics for passenger vessel casualties
included foreign flag vessels. The comment stated that 35 percent of
casualties occurred on diving boats where the casualty had nothing to
do with the vessel's equipment. In addition, a number of casualties
were dockside and had nothing to do with the operation of the vessel.
It recommended that the Coast Guard rethink how it handles casualties.
Just because vessels are getting bigger does not mean that they are not
as safe.
The Coast Guard notes that there are several related efforts that
have been undertaken to improve risk analysis. They are as follows:
(a) A Risk-Based Technologies (RBT) Management Team has been
established to guide risk analysis development. The RBT Management Team
is coordinating the risk activities of the Coast Guard Headquarter's
Office of Marine Safety with reference to other government agencies and
the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
(b) A Marine Board study entitled ``Risk Assessment and Management
of Marine Systems'' and is slated to be completed in mid 1997. The goal
of this project is to learn to understand and use the different risk
assessment methodologies.
(c) An internal instruction providing guidance in risk-based
decision-making to the Captain of the Port (COTP), due in December
1997, will provide technical and administrative guidance to the field
on how risk assessment and management can and should be used in support
of Commandant (G-M)'s Business Plan goals.
(d) The Marine Safety Evaluation Program (MSTEP) is based on the
use of risk-based technologies and is designed to improve the current
process of assessing the safety of marine systems that are within the
Coast Guard's regulatory domain.
In formulating these regulations, the Coast Guard focused on
casualties to small passenger vessels. The Coast Guard has commended
the industry throughout the rulemaking process on its history of safe-
operations and tried to keep new requirements narrowed to the areas of
most concern.
(b) Comments on and Changes to Particular Provisions of the IFR

Sections 114.110 and 175.110 General Applicability

(1) One comment recommended that the breakpoint for subchapter T
boats carrying overnight passengers needs to be increased from 49 to
100 passengers based on the safe operating record of these vessels.
The Coast Guard disagrees. Many of the requirements for subchapter
K vessels with 50 or more overnight passengers were in existence under
the old small passenger vessel policy in the form of NVIC 11-83. The
safe operating record of this segment of the industry may be the result
of Coast Guard guidelines that have been in place for years.
(2) One comment suggested that 200 feet not be used as a breakpoint
for limit for subchapter K'. Tonnage is the self limiting criteria. One
comment stated that the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) rules for
vessels less than 200 feet will be revised to apply to vessels less
than 300 feet.
The Coast Guard has determined that gross tonnage is not a self-
limiting criteria. While the Coast Guard agrees that an upper size-
limit is necessary to address manning and passenger safety concerns,
historically, small passenger vessels rarely exceed 200 feet in length.
According to Coast Guard data, the longest subchapter K vessel is 230
feet. The Coast Guard has determined that the requirements applicable
to vessels carrying more than 600 passengers or more than 49 overnight
passengers adequately address the minimum

[[Page 51329]]

construction and equipment requirements for larger, small passenger
vessels. Future rulemakings regarding alternate tonnage will set a size
threshold for subchapter K vessels and maintain the subchapter-K-class
vessel as the middle ground between vessels under subchapters T and H.
Once the ABS Rules are published, the Coast Guard will consider
incorporating the new rules by reference in these regulations.
(3) One comment recommended that the applicability sections of
these regulations be aligned with the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of
1993.
The Coast Guard agrees and the regulations in Secs. 114.110 and
175.110 have been so aligned.

Sections 114.400 and 175.400 Definitions of Terms Used in This
Subchapter

(1) One comment recommended that the definition of ``accommodation
space'' be revised to allow space-heating equipment with an element
temperature in excess of 250 deg.F (121 deg.C).
The Coast Guard concurs. The intent of the 121 deg.C temperature
limitation was to ensure that cooking equipment normally associated
with a galley would not be installed in an accommodation space. The
definition of ``accommodation space'' has been amended to use the same
terminology as the definition of ``galley.''
(2) One comment suggested that the definition of ``cold water''
allow for more OCMI discretion for vessels that operate in cold water
for only a couple of months of the year.
The Coast Guard disagrees because the OCMI has adequate authority
under Sec. 114.550 to give special consideration to the application of
the cold water requirements if warranted by the circumstances.
(3) Four comments noted that, under the definition of ``exposed
waters,'' the definition for winter season in the Great Lakes infers
that all waters inside 20 nautical miles are partially protected
waters. The definition of ``partially protected waters'' does not
contradict this. The comment asked if the change was intended.
The definition of ``exposed waters'' for the Great Lakes did not
change with the publication of the IFR. OCMI's have always had the
authority to declare certain waters within 20 miles of a harbor of safe
refuge exposed for the purpose of stability.
(4) One comment noted that the definition of ``hardwood,'' as used
in the wood industry, is not based on specific gravity. The performance
intended is the resistance to fire and hardwoods normally possess good
fire-resistance qualities. In general, hardwoods have specific gravity
between 0.5 and 0.8. Coast Guard policy, written in 1980 (NVIC 6-80),
states ``oak or similar hardwood.'' The word ``similar'' refers to
properties involving the material's resistance to fire. Although it can
reasonably be concluded that dense woods such as those with a specific
gravity in excess of 0.66 would be resistant to fire, such a definition
is not necessary for regulatory purposes and has not presented a
problem for at least the past 16 years.
The Coast Guard has revised the definition to specifically mention
oak and its fire resistant properties.
(5) One comment noted that the definition of ``hazardous
condition'' includes illness of a person on board. Though seasickness
is not considered an illness by most people in the sport fishing
community, prolonged seasickness can have a profound effect on a
person's ability to think clearly and to maintain balance.
The Coast Guard agrees that seasickness can be quite debilitating
and create a hazardous condition. If an individual can no longer
function, possibly due to dehydration, the master should consider
either providing medical attention on board or removing the individual
from the vessel.
(6) Four comments requested that the definition of ``High Speed
Craft'' (HSC) be clarified. They asked if the IMO HSC Code applies only
to international conventions? Could STCW bring in the HSC criterion?
What does the phrase ``the aforementioned generality'' mean? Could a
basic, every-day, mono-hull boat under subchapters K and T that is in
domestic service and equipped with extra horsepower for prolonged
engine life or operating conditions be considered an HSC? Sections
114.540 and 175.540 state that the IMO HSC Code can be used as an
equivalent to the requirements contained in subchapters K and T,
respectively.
The Coast Guard does not make a determination on whether a vessel
is an HSC without the owner of the vessel applying for HSC Code
equivalency. The requirements under STCW contain no additional
requirements for vessels meeting the HSC Code definition. Vessels
operating on domestic voyages are allowed to apply for the HSC
equivalency, but do not necessarily need to receive SOLAS HSC
certification. However, once the Coast Guard has granted HSC
equivalency to a small passenger vessel, the code must be complied with
in its entirety. In order to avoid confusion and make the HSC Code
definition more readable, the term ``aforementioned generality'' has
been removed.
(7) Twelve comments recommended that paragraph (3) of the
definition ``major conversion'' be deleted. The comments remarked that
operators should not be discouraged from doing things to substantially
prolong the life of their vessels. Normal maintenance itself prolongs
the life of a vessel. The comments also noted that the definition is
too broad. One comment recommended the definition be changed to mean a
conversion of a vessel that, as determined by the Commandant,
substantially adds to the length, beam, height, or draft of the vessel
in order to accommodate an increase of more than 15 percent of the
passengers currently authorized.
The definitions of ``major conversion'' are based upon statute. The
Coast Guard agrees that normal maintenance prolongs a vessel's life and
supports continuous maintenance. Normal maintenance does not constitute
a major conversion. However, the Coast Guard does not agree that an
arbitrary 15 percent should be added to the definition. The Coast Guard
will continue to use the current definition and apply it to vessels on
a case-by-case basis.
(8) One comment recommended that the last sentence of the
definition of ``means of escape'' be deleted because the terms
``exit,'' ``exit access,'' and ``exit discharge'' are not familiar to
the maritime community. The terms are used in National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 101.
The Coast Guard agrees in part. A key difference between the means
of escape under subchapters K and T and under subchapter H is that
protected escape routes are not required in vessels constructed to
subchapter T. However, vessels constructed to subchapters K or H must
have protected escape routes culminating at protected areas where
passengers are separated from the effects of fire or flooding. The
terms ``exit,'' ``exit access,'' and ``exit discharge'' are intended to
indicate that protected escape routes are made up of many differing
components, including corridors, stairways, and stairtowers, which must
provide continuously protected access from a space to an area of
refuge. The last sentence of the definition in subchapter T has been
deleted.
(9) Six comments recommended that the definition of ``new vessel''
be changed to allow vessels started before March 11, 1996, to be
completed after September 11, 1996.
The Coast Guard advises that this practice has been done on a case-
by-case

[[Page 51330]]

basis. Extending the date would only cause confusion and another round
of appeals. By the time this rule is published, this issue will be
moot.
(10) Three comments recommended that the definition of ``pantry''
be aligned with the IMO definition of pantry, which refers to a space
that does not contain heat sources with temperatures exceeding
425 deg.F.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The IMO definition, as contained in
SLS.17/Circ.3, uses terms such as ``appliances consuming small amounts
of electrical power'' and ``hot plates for keeping food warm.'' Since
these terms are somewhat vague, they are more difficult to apply and
enforce. No changes were made to the definition.
(11) One comment requested that definitions for the following terms
be added to allow for better use of the regulations and to assist
personnel in answering questions on Coast Guard exams. The terms
include ``enclosed space,'' ``partially enclosed space,'' ``fire
station,'' ``floodable length,'' ``bulkhead deck,'' ``collision
bulkhead,'' ``coaming,'' ``hull strainer,'' ``hydrostatic release
unit,'' ``pendant,'' ``lifeline'' (by revising 46 CFR 160.010-3(g) and
160.027 to correct problems with life float and buoyant apparatus
lifelines and pendants), ``positive action valve'' (defined so a store
clerk can understand), ``pressure vessel,'' and ``ships service.''
The Coast Guard has determined that adding these definitions would
not add any value to the regulation. Instead of adding a definition for
``fire station,'' the Coast Guard has changed the term ``fire
station(s)'' to ``fire hydrant(s)'' throughout the rule. The Coast
Guard is unclear as to what the ``problems'' with lifelines and
pendants are; the current specifications have been used successfully
since 1982. Changes to the buoyant apparatus and lifefloat
specification subparts in subchapter Q are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
(12) Based on a working review and use of the IFR, the Coast Guard
has made the following additional changes to this section in order to
correct any errors and make it more readable. The definition of
``atrium'' has been modified by removing ``escalator opening'' from the
list of purposes an atrium could not be used for to resolve a conflict
with Sec. 116.440. Section 116.440 allows an escalator to be installed
in an atrium, provided that the footprint of the escalator is
subtracted from opening area computations.
(13) The Coast Guard has amended the definition of ``auxiliary
machinery space'' to include spaces that contain refrigeration
equipment.
Accordingly, spaces that contain refrigeration equipment are
removed from the definition of ``machinery space.''
(14) Definitions of ``low risk service space'' and ``high risk
service space'' are amended to change motion picture rooms from high
risk to low risk. Motion picture rooms have not posed a significant
fire risk since nitrocellulose film was phased out several years ago.
Additionally, the break point for cleaning gear lockers has been
changed from a fire load basis to a size and contents basis to be
consistent with the interpretation of subchapter H. Additionally,
``small'' cleaning gear lockers (less than 5 square meters) may be
considered type 6 spaces if they do not contain flammable liquids.
(15) Changes are made to the definitions of ``accommodations
space,'' ``high risk accommodations space,'' ``overnight accommodations
or overnight accommodations space,'' and ``passenger accommodations
space'' to recognize the addition of a type 6 space. See the discussion
on Sec. 116.415 in this preamble for information on the addition of
type 6 spaces.

Sections 114.540 and 175.540 Equivalents

The Coast Guard is amending Secs. 114.540(b) and 175.540(b) by
removing the word ``pending'' because IMO adopted the HSC code on May
20, 1994.

Sections 114.560 and 175.560 Appeals

Nine comments recommended that the Coast Guard be required to
answer industry appeals within 30 days of receipt.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that recent appeals, such as that for
the SCHOONER AMERICA, illustrate that short-turnaround appeals can be
completed within 24 hours. The Coast Guard has determined that 30 days
is an appropriate length of time for responding to most industry
inquiries or appeals. Internally, the Coast Guard places a 30-day due
date on correspondence received from the public. In such a case, the
respondent should receive a response within 45 days, including mail
delays. However, some issues are more complex and require more research
and time to arrive at an appropriate response. Conversely, some appeals
come up out of the blue and need an immediate resolution. Like any
concern with over 10,000 customers, the Coast Guard prioritizes tasks
and accomplishes them as resources allow. As stated in the preamble to
the IFR, a revision to 46 CFR 1.03 is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.

Sections 114.600 and 175.600 Incorporation by Reference

Several standards incorporated by reference have been changed to
reference the most recent edition. In addition, based on revisions to
Secs. 116.300, 177.300, and 177.410, the ABS Guide for High Speed Craft
and MIL-R-21607E(SH) ``Resins, Polyester, Low Pressure Laminating, Fire
Retardant'' have been added.

Sections 114.800 and 175.800 Approved Equipment and Material.

The statement regarding equipment approvals in Secs. 114.800 and
175.800 has been deleted by the Coast Guard, because this practice has
not been done in years.

Sections 115.107 and 176.107 Period of Validity.

Eight comments expressed concern over inspection creep. The
comments recommended that the Certificate of Inspection (COI) should
expire on the last day of the month and year of inspection. An
additional comment suggested that, with the three-year inspection
interval, operators have an opportunity to enter into a trial
streamline-inspection program. Reinspections could be done by the
company and the Coast Guard could monitor the effectiveness of the
inspection program during the vessel's triennial exam.
The Coast Guard notes that the three-year inspection interval is
statutory in nature. The Coast Guard's Compliance Division (G-MOC) is
examining the feasibility of establishing policies to reduce inspection
creep. The streamlined-inspection program is being addressed under a
separate Coast Guard rulemaking (CGD 96-055) and is beyond the scope of
the this rulemaking.

Sections 115.113 and 176.113 Passengers Permitted

Two comments stated that existing vessels would suffer capacity
losses under the criteria which establishes additional exceptions to
the rail and area rules of thumb. They stated that, because there was
no problem with the old system of determining passenger capacity, there
is no need for change.
The prohibition of length of rail criteria used in conjunction with
either fixed seating or deck area is not understood. The Coast Guard
states that the new sections merely clarify what has been accepted
practice by the Coast Guard for many years. Length of rail criteria was
not allowed to be combined

[[Page 51331]]

with deck area or fixed seating under old Sec. 176.01-25(b). Existing
vessels should not be affected by this clarification of the old
requirement.

Sections 115.114 and 176.114 Alternative Requirements for a Vessel
Operating as Other Than a Small Passenger Vessel

(1) Three comments stated that, to be of any value to the industry,
the ability to operate as other than an inspected vessel must come
without the route, manning, and other restrictions in paragraph (c) of
these sections.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The operating endorsements required
under paragraphs (c) are placed on the COI to ensure the vessel meets
the requirements for the intended uninspected service.
(2) Two comments stated that the wording is confusing and the
intent of these sections needs to be explained in the preamble.
As stated in the preambles of the NPRM, SNPRM, and IFR, the intent
of this section is to allow an inspected small passenger vessel to
operate as an uninspected or recreational vessel by an endorsement on
the vessel's COI. Under 46 U.S.C. 3313(a), a small passenger vessel
must be in compliance with its COI at all times. Sections 115.114 and
176.114 are intended to provide for alternatives and allow small
passenger vessels to remain competitive with uninspected vessels.
(3) Three comments recommended that the Coast Guard automatically
endorse vessel COI's with an endorsement to operate under subchapter C.
The Coast Guard disagrees with automatic endorsement. As stated in
the SNPRM preamble, by requiring an owner to request an endorsement,
the Coast Guard can better ensure that the owner is aware of the
implications of the endorsement and the applicable uninspected vessel
requirements in 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter C, or recreational boat
requirements in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter S.
(4) One comment stated that paragraph (b)(2) is confusing with
regard to minimum manning specified on the vessel's COI. According to
the comment, minimum manning is always above what an owner may be
requesting in accordance with this section.
The intent of paragraph (b)(2) is to allow the OCMI to state, on
the COI, the required manning on the vessel based upon the type of
operation and number of passengers carried. For example, many COI's
have an endorsement stating that, when carrying less than 6 passengers,
a deckhand is not required.
(5) Two comments asked why freight service is excluded. Freight
service is less prone to safety issues than passenger service.
Freight service is not excluded. A small passenger vessel of more
than 15 gross tons must meet the requirements of subchapters K or T as
appropriate when carrying freight for hire. A vessel of 15 gross tons
or less is an uninspected vessel when carrying freight for hire and,
therefore, must meet the applicable requirements for an uninspected
vessel.

Sections 115.204 and 176.204 Permit to Carry Excursion Party

Three comments recommended removing paragraph (c) so that the only
limits on loading a vessel with an excursion permit are sufficient
stability and appropriate lifesaving equipment. One comment noted that
there has been a change to the old regulations that requires that the
number of passengers be limited based on seating, deck area, and rail
space.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The purpose of the excursion permit is
to allow a passenger vessel to carry additional passengers or operate
on a more severe route, or both, for a limited period of time, if the
cognizant OCMI believes it can be done safely. The OCMI will not
normally allow a vessel to carry more passengers than there is space
available, regardless of sufficient stability. Overcrowding a vessel
presents unique hazards, such as inadequate crowd control. The Coast
Guard has determined that this is an unacceptable operating condition.
Many vessel operators limit the number of passengers carried on a
routine basis for various reasons including survival-craft capacity,
fire-pump requirements, and operator comfort. The vessel may have
adequate stability and space available for additional passengers, but
the operator may choose to carry fewer than the maximum calculated. In
this case, an excursion permit would allow the operator to carry
additional passengers without overcrowding the vessel and to stay
within stability limitations.
The requirement to base passenger load on the passengers permitted
criteria is taken from the Coast Guard's Marine Safety Manual. This
practice has been in effect since 1960 and was placed in the SNPRM as a
result of comments to the NPRM.

Sections 115.310 and 176.310 Certification Expiration Date Stickers

Four comments recommended that the Coast Guard eliminate the
prohibition of operating in the event that the Certification Expiration
Date Sticker is damaged or lost.
The Coast Guard disagrees. In the event the sticker is damaged, the
owner should call the Coast Guard for another sticker. The function of
the sticker is clearly defined in the regulations. Operating without a
visible sticker may result in an at-sea Coast Guard boarding to verify
the legality of the charter.

Sections 115.402 and 176.402 Initial Inspection for Certification

One comment recommended that builders be allowed to submit plans as
well as owners.
The Coast Guard agrees. It is common practice for a builder to
submit plans, on behalf of an owner, to the Coast Guard. However, it is
the owner's responsibility to request an initial inspection for
certification, which is the basis of the requirement. Once the
application package is sent to the Coast Guard (including the plans
from the builder), the owner may inform the Coast Guard to deal
directly with the builder, as appropriate.

Sections 115.404 and 176.404 Subsequent Inspections for Certification

Two comments asked why language was added to this section allowing
the OCMI to require the vessel to get underway. The comments also noted
that this is not required of other inspected vessels.
The Coast Guard advises that the practice of getting vessels
underway as part of the COI exam is common in many Marine Safety Office
(MSO) zones. The language merely reaffirms the OCMI's authority to use
an underway test to verify the condition of the vessel's internal
structure, as well as machinery and steering. In addition, any drills
the inspector may wish to conduct must be as if an actual emergency is
taking place. A man-overboard drill at the dock lacks realism and is
not as effective as an underway drill.

Sections 115.500 and 176.500 When Required

Two comments recommended that the wording be changed to reflect
that a reinspection can take place 60 days on either side of the COI
anniversary date, if that is the intent of the paragraph.
The Coast Guard advises that it is their practice to allow a 60 day
window on either side of the COI date. No changes were made to these
sections based on comments.

[[Page 51332]]

Sections 115.600 and 176.600 Drydock and Internal Structural
Examination Intervals

(1) One comment noted that the drydock and internal structural
examinations are written as if they are two separate examinations.
The Coast Guard advises that internal structural exams can be done
with the vessel in or out of the water. In the past, some operators
have hauled their vessels out of the water for only a short period of
time and continued the internal exam back in the water. This option
remains in place with the wording in the IFR.
(2) One comment stated that vessels less than 65 feet carrying less
than 12 passengers on an international voyage are being adversely
affected by the new annual drydock and internal exam requirement
required by paragraph (b).
It is not the Coast Guard's intent to require vessels, not subject
to SOLAS requirements, to meet standards derived from international
standards. Language is added to the rule to indicate vessels subject to
SOLAS requirements are to be hauled out annually.

Sections 115.610 and 176.610 Scope of Drydock and Internal Structural
Examinations

One comment recommended that propeller shafts should not be
examined and rudders should not be removed, unless there is obvious
damage or the inspector can otherwise justify the action.
The Coast Guard agrees. These sections were revised as a result of
comments to the SNPRM. Since these sections do not contradict the
comment, no changes have been made to the rule.

Sections 115.612 and 176.612 Notice and Plans Required

Four comments stated that the wording in paragraph (b) is
constrictive and is contrary to good maintenance practice in the field
and in industry. The comments recommended that the words ``but not
limited to'' be added after the word ``maintenance.''
The Coast Guard agrees and has added these words in both sections.

Sections 115.630 and 176.630 Tailshaft Examinations

Four comments recommended that tailshafts not be drawn, unless
there is obvious damage or the inspector can otherwise reasonably
justify the action.
The Coast Guard agrees. These sections were revised as a result of
comments to the SNPRM. Since these sections do not contradict the
comment, no changes have been made to the rule.

Sections 115.700 and 176.700 Permission for Repairs and Alterations

Five comments recommended that repairs in kind to maintain a
vessel's material state should not require the permission of the OCMI.
Only repairs that involve altering a vessel's substantive
characteristics or the safety of passengers must be reported to the
OCMI for approval. The Coast Guard has determined that the language of
this section satisfactorily addresses the comment. Repairs involving
the replacement of plating, refastening, or other items covered in
paragraph (a) require Coast Guard involvement because they affect
passenger safety.

Sections 115.802 and 176.802 Hull

Six comments recommended that specific wording be added to
paragraph (c) to reference the working of ``wood'' hulls. One comment
queried that if underway inspections were not required for large
vessels, then why are they required on small vessels other than wood
vessels? Two comments stated that seasonal vessels do not keep crews on
board year round so the personnel are not normally present for
inspections. If personnel were required to be on hand, then it would be
an added cost burden to an already overburdened industry. Two comments
recommended that underway drills should be confined to dinner-cruise
and excursion vessels, where passengers tend to be less aware of vessel
operations than they are on fishing and dive boats.
As stated previously, underway inspections are commonplace at many
MSO's regardless of hull material. Underway inspections verify the
integrity of the hull structure regardless of hull material. Secondary
bonds in fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) vessels and welds in
aluminum and steel vessels can fail, resulting in an unsafe condition.
Because the term ``working of the hull'' is more geared to wood hulls,
the Coast Guard has deleted the words ``working of'' and added the
words ``and internal structure'' to paragraph (c) to clarify the
requirements. In addition, the operation of the main engines and
steering gear under normal operating load can only be done underway.
Performance of man overboard drills can also be better determined
underway. With the new drill and crew training requirements in place,
there should be a crew member on board during an inspection. The Coast
Guard has determined that the days of inspections during ``winter lay-
up'' are over. The owner will have to schedule an inspection when the
vessel is completely ready for inspection. The Coast Guard has not
determined that there is a significant cost burden to industry in order
to comply with an underway inspection at the vessel's inspection for
certification.

Sections 115.808 and 176.808 Lifesaving

In order to correct inconsistencies contained in the IFR, the Coast
Guard has amended these sections to include the term ``inflatable
buoyant apparatus.''

Sections 115.812 and 176.812 Pressure Vessels and Boilers

Four comments stated that referencing Sec. 61.05 of subchapter F
for pressure valves has reduced the inspection interval from three
years to two. It was recommended that pressure vessel examinations be
eliminated altogether due to the lack of casualty data and the cost to
industry.
The Coast Guard notes that items not inspected become neglected. To
say that, because there have been no problems with pressure vessels,
they no longer need to be inspected, does not take into consideration
the idea that it is the inspection that has reduced the risk. However,
the Coast Guard has determined that the three-year interval is
appropriate for the types of air receivers found on small passenger
vessels and has amended these sections accordingly.

Sections 115.920 and 176.920 Exemptions

Two comments recommended that the Coast Guard add exemptions to the
STCW-driven regulations.
This request is beyond the scope of this rulemaking but may be
addressed under the Coast Guard's on-going rulemaking on STCW (CGD 95-
062).

Sections 116.202 and 177.202 Plans and Information Required

(1) Five comments suggested that, with the Coast Guard's
initiatives to streamline vessel inspections, plan approval will, most
likely, be delegated to third parties. It was recommended that a time
frame within which plans must be approved by the Coast Guard or a
third-party organization be added to the rule.
The Coast Guard does not intend to delegate all plan review
functions to third parties. However, depending on the type of vessel
and plan, there may be options available for the use of classifications
societies or professional engineers. The Coast Guard notes that time-
frames are dependent on the number of plans submitted and personnel
available for review. In

[[Page 51333]]

addition, requirements for plan approval were relaxed in the IFR by
requiring that only basic scantling plans be approved before
construction. By reducing the number of plans that require approval
before construction and by enabling classification societies and
professional engineers to review construction plans, the delays
experienced in the past should be minimized.
(2) Two comments stated that cross curves of stability are not
appropriate for subchapter T boats and are generally no longer used
because of computers.
The Coast Guard notes that cross curves contain the calculation of
righting arms for the various angles of heel. This data is necessary
for evaluating the stability of a vessel. However, the Marine Safety
Center (MSC) may accept, on a case-by-case basis, computer tabulated
righting arm data, if calculated at a close enough interval to
accurately approximate the righting arm curves.
(3) Two comments noted that electrical plant analysis is a new and
time-consuming requirement for T-boats.
The Coast Guard advises that electrical plant load analysis is not
necessarily required on T-boats. Section 177.202(b) contains the plans
and information that may be required by an OCMI or MSC. For the
electrical plant load analysis requirement, sufficient capacity of the
electrical system needs to be determined by the Coast Guard. If the
Coast Guard cannot determine that sufficient capacity exists, then the
owner is required to provide evidence that the electrical system is of
sufficient capacity.
(4) Two comments asked what constitutes reasonable destructive
testing?
Reasonable destructive testing includes burnout tests for
fiberglass reinforced plastic laminates to determine resin content and
bend tests on welding coupons, when required.

Sections 116.300 and 177.300 Structural Design

One comment recommended that the ABS 1990 High Speed Craft guide be
acceptable for scantlings of aluminum.
The Coast Guard agrees and has added this to the rule. In addition,
the ABS rules are also acceptable for vessels constructed of fiberglass
reinforced plastic.

Sections 116.340 and 177.340 Alternate Design Considerations

Four comments wondered what happened to the five-year rule.
The Coast Guard advises that the five-year rule has been retained
from the SNPRM in Sec. 177.310 of subchapter T.

Section 116.405 General Arrangement and Outfitting

(1) The requirements for plastic pipe in concealed spaces, as
written in the IFR, are inaccurate and contradict subchapter F and
current Coast Guard policy. As a result, the current text in
Sec. 116.405 (f)(1) and (f)(2) has been deleted and Sec. 116.405(f) has
been rewritten, requiring plastic pipe to be regulated in accordance
with subchapter F and current Coast Guard policy.
(2) Seven comments to Sec. 116.405(i) stated that heavy-duty,
plastic waste receptacles are the industry standard, because they are
non-rusting and lightweight. The comments requested that the use of
plastic waste receptacles be authorized.
The Coast Guard states that the requirement for waste receptacles
to be constructed of noncombustible materials is consistent with
subchapter H and the old subchapter T. The new regulations in the IFR
state the desired performance. This provides vessel owners with
potential options by not explicitly restricting the use of plastics, as
long as an equivalent level of safety can be achieved.

Section 116.415 Fire Control Boundaries

(1) The Coast Guard provides the following comments on Type 6
spaces. Tables 116.415(b) and (c) were modified in the IFR to be more
consistent with subchapter H. However, for ease of application, the
three types of accommodations spaces in subchapter H were simplified to
two in subchapter K. Specifically, type 6 and type 7 spaces in
subchapter H were consolidated into a single category (type 7) in
subchapter K. This consolidation increased the boundary requirements
for a number of spaces that would have been classified as type 6 in
subchapter H. Therefore, the type 6 category has been added to
subchapter K. Additionally, the bulkhead requirement in table
116.415(b) for a boundary between a type 5 and 7 space has been reduced
from A-15 to B-15, in order to be consistent with subchapter H.
(2) Table 116.415(b) is amended to clarify that distinct
stairtowers must be separated with A-0 bulkheads.

Section 116.422 Ceilings, Linings, Trim, Interior Finish, and
Decorations

(1) Three comments recommended restoring the provision from the
NPRM that allowed the use of gypsum wall board in boundaries not
required to be structural fire control boundaries.
This issue was addressed in the preamble to the IFR. The
regulations explicitly state the performance without making detailed
reference to specific construction materials. Approved, noncombustible-
faced gypsum board is available from several suppliers at a comparable
cost to paper-faced gypsum board.
(2) One comment suggested that the term ``combined area of the
bulkheads'' in Sec. 116.422(c)(2) include the ceiling.
The Coast Guard agrees and has changed this section to include the
ceiling.

Section 116.423 Furniture and Furnishings

(1) Four comments questioned that, if CAL TB 133 is the same as UL
1056, then why is CAL TB 133 not included in the regulations or
incorporated by reference? Commercial sources recognize and rely on CAL
TB 133.
The Coast Guard advises that CAL TB 133 is acceptable as discussed
in the preamble of the IFR. It is not incorporated by reference because
it applies to a particular State. UL 1056 was developed to provide a
national standard and, thus, there is no need to reference any
particular, local government requirement. However, revised NVIC 6-80
will state that CAL TB 133 is an acceptable alternative to UL 1056.
(2) Three comments recommended that carpet should be allowed on
bulkheads because of its sound and acoustical control. The comments
stated that the use of rated carpet should not be a problem. The Coast
Guard was reminded that airlines use carpeting on bulkheads. The
comments pointed out that carpeting is easier to maintain than a
painted surface. As a minimum, one comment recommended that it be
allowed at least on chair rails.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The issue of carpeting on bulkhead walls
was adequately addressed in the preamble to the IFR.

Section 116.427 Fire Load of Accommodation and Service Spaces

The Coast Guard advises that paragraph (a) of this section has been
amended to indicate that fire load calculations are not required for
low risk service spaces.

Section 116.433 Windows and Air Ports in Fire Control Boundaries

The Coast Guard has concluded that the use of glass in stairtowers
needs some clarification and text is added to this section,
accordingly. A-class doors

[[Page 51334]]

should include limitations on glass consistent with those in subchapter
H. The text is amended to read similar to subchapter H, Sec. 72.05-
25(b)(4). Along with this change, Sec. 116.435(c)(9) is amended to
allow unrestricted use of glass in doors opening out onto open decks.

Section 116.435 Doors

(1) One comment requested that the Coast Guard consider using ASTM
F 1384 instead of UL 10B as the standard for fire testing doors.
The Coast Guard stated that the regulations, which contain
prescriptive requirements for doors, do not specifically call out UL
10B. NVIC 6-80 discusses acceptable tests, such as UL 10B. Revised NVIC
6-80 will state that test requirements, such as ASTM F 1384 and UL 10B,
are available as options to the minimum requirements in the
regulations.
(2) Four comments recommended that the Coast Guard not ban
horizontal doors and consider gravity neutral hatches.
Horizontal doors are not banned. They simply cannot be used in
passenger areas. Horizontal doors are not appropriate for use by
passengers because of the awkward situation caused by opening or
closing these devices during egress.

Section 116.438 Stairtowers, Stairways, Ladders, and Elevators

(1) Two comments suggested that, for vessels in domestic service,
appropriately located and protected exterior stairways should be
equivalent to stairtowers.
The Coast Guard states that, in addition to protection from the
effects of fire, indoor stairtowers afford protection from severe
weather. No changes were made to this section.
(2) One comment recommended that this section include a maximum
vertical height on intermediate stairway landings similar to subchapter
H requirements.
The Coast Guard disagrees. Because of the nature of vessels,
particularly vessels constructed to subchapter K, inherent limitations
on vessel construction make it impractical to install stairways which
have large flights uninterrupted by landings. No changes were made to
this section.
(3) After further review of Sec. 116.438, the Coast Guard revised
this section as follows. Paragraph (k)(2) is revised to require that
stairtowers give access to either an embarkation station, as opposed to
an embarkation deck, or an area of refuge. The term ``embarkation
station'' was used for consistency with the term used in Sec. 116.510.
Paragraph (k)(3) is revised to clarify which spaces constitute
``enclosed spaces in which a fire is likely to originate.'' Paragraph
(l)(6) is revised for clarity by deleting the words ``satisfactory''
and ``vertical.'' By deleting these words, the paragraph requires that,
in the absence of stairtowers, stairs must provide a means of escape,
which refers back to the definition of ``means of escape'' in
Sec. 114.400.

Section 116.439 Balconies

Paragraph (d) is revised to require that sprinkler systems be
designed in accordance with NFPA 13 (which has recently been modified
to address marine sprinkler systems) as opposed to Sec. 76.25.
Paragraph (e) is reworded to clarify that the open area in a balcony
space must be at least 93 square meters (1,000 square feet), unless
other provisions are installed.

Section 116.440 Atriums

Paragraph (c) is revised to require that sprinkler systems be
designed in accordance with NFPA 13 (which has recently been modified
to address marine sprinkler systems) as opposed to Sec. 76.25.

Section 116.500 Means of Escape

Paragraph (a) is revised to indicate that a ladder and a deck
scuttle are acceptable as a second means of egress for crew spaces on
any vessel, regardless of length. Difficulty has been encountered in
the application of paragraph (h). In the IFR, this paragraph indicates
that the maximum allowable travel distance to a means of egress could
not exceed 46 meters (150 ft). Means of egress is (and was in the IFR)
defined as ``a continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any
point in a vessel to an embarkation station or area of refuge.'' The
intent of Sec. 116.500(h) is to limit the distance of travel to a
protected area, such as a stairway, area of refuge, or embarkation
station. Section 116.500(h) is revised to clarify that travel distance
to an exit may not exceed 46 meters, measured as actual walking
distance. A definition was added to Sec. 114.400 to define ``exit'' as
either an area protected as a stairway, or a door which leads to an
area of refuge or an embarkation station. Paragraph (p)(1) is amended
to change the maximum dimension for a space that is permitted to have a
single means of escape from 3.6 meters to 30 square meters to be
consistent with other subchapters.

Section 116.520 Emergency Evacuation Plan

Paragraph (b) is amended to clarify that evacuation procedures must
be developed for all possible casualty scenarios determined as required
by paragraph (a). Since promulgation of the IFR, some difficulties have
been encountered in determining acceptable standards for refuge areas.
The preamble to the IFR indicated that standards for a refuge area are
intended to be performance based. In the absence of a systematic
approach which considers plausible fire scenarios and methods used to
protect passengers while the crew attempts fire suppression or
passengers await embarkation of lifesaving appliances, the Coast Guard
considers the following minimum provisions acceptable: (1) minimum
separation from other spaces other than voids, cofferdams, and tanks of
A-60 integrity; (2) ventilation systems shall only service a single
area of refuge, unless separated from other spaces by smoke and fire
dampers; and (3) the refuge area shall be located in a public space
above the bulkhead deck.

Sections 116.600 and 177.600 Ventilation of Enclosed and Partially
Enclosed Spaces

One comment queried about requirements for ventilation of passenger
accommodation spaces.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that reference to passenger
accommodation spaces was inadvertently deleted during the revision of
this section for the IFR. Wording is added to the final rule.

Section 116.610 Ventilation Ducts

Four comments stated that Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioner
(HVAC) return air should not require ducting if there is adequate air
grille area near the HVAC unit, and does not require penetration of a
Class A barrier. Another comment stated that the enclosed ceiling area
should be able to be used as a return plenum.
The Coast Guard advises that there are numerous arrangements for
ventilation which may meet the intended performance. There are current
Coast Guard policies on this issue and the revision of NVIC 6-80 on
structural fire protection will formally incorporate many of these. It
is not realistic to include all of this information in the text of the
regulations. The text of the regulations includes only the basic
requirements which permit flexibility for the designer. The Coast Guard
has changed the regulations by removing the requirement that non-steel
ducts must be fitted with steel sleeves at each A-

[[Page 51335]]

Class or B-Class fire control boundary penetrated. In addition, the
regulations prohibiting a stairway or stairtower to serve as an air
return for another space; a duct in a bulkhead or overhead designed for
the passage of air from one space to another; or the use of concealed
spaces as return ventilation plenums or ducts have been removed.

Sections 116.820 and 177.820 Seating

Two comments recommended restoring the SNPRM wording ``by permanent
or temporary means.'' This option permits the rearranging of
furnishings for different functions.
The Coast Guard notes that the wording in the SNPRM was removed due
to a comment that stated the wording was confusing and unnecessary. The
change was considered editorial in nature and did not affect the
section. The Coast Guard has not determined that paragraph(d)(4)
precludes operators from moving furniture to accommodate a particular
charter. The bottom line is that the seats must be secured to prevent
injury to passengers.

Section 177.900 Deck Rails

(1) One comment questioned whether the requirements of paragraph
(g)(1) applied to a vessel applying for an excursion permit. The
comment noted that the cost of installing new rails, chain link fence,
or bars may be prohibitive.
The Coast Guard states that paragraph (g)(1) does apply. Small
passenger vessels should already meet the requirements for rail course
spacing.
(2) One comment suggested that as older vessels come up for
recertification, the new rail height requirements should be applied.
Another comment recommended that Commandant institute a change to 46
CFR 177.35-1(d) and require sport fishing vessels that travel ocean
routes be required to have rails at least 42 inches high, or sea rails
from 30 to 42 inches. This will increase safety by requiring higher
rails on vessels that encounter heavier sea conditions. A third comment
recommended that all rail heights on passenger carrying vessels should
be at least 40 inches. Where angling equipment requires a lower rail, a
ten inch hinged section can be incorporated.
The Coast Guard's position since the NPRM in 1989 is that 1 meter
rails are consistent with SOLAS standards, and appropriate for small
passenger vessels. Retrofitting railing on existing vessels was
considered in the original cost benefit analysis, but the cost could
not be justified based on the casualty statistics. Therefore, no
changes were made to these sections.

Section 116.960 Guards for Exposed Hazards

Three comments addressed a question posed by the Coast Guard in the
IFR regarding non-skid surfaces on stairs and open hatch protection.
The comments stated the need for non-skid surfaces on stairways, and
open hatch protection are best left to the operators. Common sense is a
better guide than prescriptive standards.
The Coast Guard thanks the industry for providing this input. No
further action will be taken at this time.

Section 116.1030 Operating Station Visibility

One comment urged the Coast Guard to make a clear, non-technical
statement concerning the use of tinted glass in the operating station.
The Coast Guard advises that the use of industry standards is
intended to aid the industry in complying with the regulations. Owners
and operators wishing to tint their pilothouse windows must communicate
the standards to the vendor who will make sure the correct products are
used.

Section 116.1160 Watertight Integrity

The Coast Guard received eight comments regarding the 6'' coaming
requirement. The requirement for 6'' coamings is a problem for some
vessels, especially vessels that are designed with a small aft cockpit
used as a boarding area. It is difficult to let people know that there
is a coaming to negotiate as they enter the vessel. It should be noted
that more than 65% of passenger injuries occur in this area of a
vessel. The comment desired to know if there is some way to minimize
the coaming in this area. The comment understands the requirement for
fore deck areas, but an aft cockpit area may have better than 40'' of
bulwark. Two comments also understand downflooding, but passenger
injuries should take precedence. The Coast Guard notes that
Sec. 171.122 only applies to vessels of at least 100 gross tons. These
comments were considered in developing Sec. 179.360. Ensuring that
passengers and crew are aware of potential trip and fall hazards is the
responsibility of the vessel owner/operator. Warning signs, safety
instructions and adequate embarking and disembarking points should
assist in accommodating these issues. The Coast Guard reminds owners
and operators of small passenger vessels that 46 CFR subparts 114.540
and 175.540 accommodate the issue of equivalents for subchapter K and T
vessels respectively. ``The Commandant may approve any arrangement * *
* which provides a level of safety equivalent to that established * *
*'' may assist an owner or operator in determining equivalent or
alternative coaming requirements.

Section 177.410 Structural Fire Protection

Internal review by the Coast Guard identified possible
misinterpretation of the requirements for fiber reinforced plastic,
specifically the text of Sec. 177.410(b) in the IFR. Coast Guard policy
has allowed resin systems that do not meet MIL-R-21607 to be accepted
as fire retardant resins if they have a flame spread rating of 25 or
less when tested to ASTM Standard E-84 (per NVIC 8-87 with Change 1).
This policy was changed with the publication of the IFR which raised
the maximum E-84 flame spread rating to 100 for qualifying fire
retardant resins. The text of Sec. 177.410(b) of this rule is amended
to retain the allowance of fire retardant resins meeting MIL-R-21607
that was previously in subchapter T regulations for vessels that carry
150 passengers or less. For polyester resins that have not been
accepted under MIL-R-21607 or other resin types such as epoxy,
phenolic, and vinyl ester, alternate acceptance criteria using ASTM E-
84 have been established. The end result is that the spirit of NVIC 8-
87 requirements for fire retardant resins has been effectively
incorporated into the regulation. In order to qualify resin systems
using ASTM E-84, either the resin manufacturer or the shipbuilder must
submit test results of the resin system as tested in a glass fiber
laminate form. The regulation does not specify a laminate schedule for
testing, but rather specifies a range of laminate thickness and a
minimum resin content by percent weight. The glass fiber reinforcement
may be in any form (i.e., chopped strand mat, woven roving, cloth,
chopped fiberglass) as long as the test laminate contains a minimum of
40 percent resin content by weight. This resin content was chosen in
order to be consistent with the requirements of MIL-R-21607 which
specifies a resin content between 38 and 44 percent. A resin system
that passes the ASTM E-84 requirements may be used in any laminate, of
any thickness, resin content, and with any type of fiber reinforcement
including glass fiber, polymer fiber, and carbon fiber. The Coast Guard
has determined that this provides an acceptable equivalent to the MIL-
R-21607 requirements for a fire retardant rating. Note that the 1 year
weathering criteria is not required for

[[Page 51336]]

laminates tested to ASTM E-84. If a builder, using a certain lay-up
process and laminate schedule, is able to attain the required flame
spread rating even though the particular resin system used has not
previously qualified as fire retardant, then a request for
consideration for qualifying that specific laminate schedule in a
particular vessel may be submitted to the MSC.

Section 178.310 Applicability Based on Length and Passenger Capacity

One comment noted that following references to three or four
different regulations is extremely complicated for individuals with
limited reading skills.
The Coast Guard appreciates the concern with the complicated nature
of the regulations, and agrees that they can be confusing. However,
continuous efforts are being made to simplify the format. The
regulatory cites in paragraphs (a) and (b) provide options for
compliance with intact stability standards. To repeat wording on the
same page or out of subchapter S would be redundant and make the
regulations more confusing.

Section 178.325 Intact Stability Requirements for a Sailing Vessel

One comment questioned why sailing school vessel stability
standards are included in this part.
The Coast Guard states that part 169 refers to subchapter S, parts
170-174, for stability requirements, as does Sec. 178.325. Sailing
school vessels can also be inspected as subchapter T boats. For this
reason, reference to them must be included in this subchapter.

Section 178.330 Simplified Stability Proof Test

The Coast Guard has reevaluated this section. The simplified
stability test on passenger vessels less than 65 feet is done in
accordance with Sec. 178.330 (Sec. 171.030 in old subchapter T). The
vessel is to be loaded as described in Sec. 178.330(a)(4). The
traditional method for conducting the simplified test is provided on
Coast Guard form, CG-4006 (Rev. 8-79). This form dates back to
``Ancient'' subchapter T in Sec. 179.10-1, but the verbiage in new
subchapter T is quite similar. Basically, the total weight of all
persons and other loads are to be on board and ``distributed so as to
provide normal operating trim and to simulate the vertical center of
gravity (VCG), causing the least stable condition that is likely to
occur in service.'' Form CG-4006 goes one step further. On page 2 of 8,
paragraph (2), the weight distribution on board a vessel ``having one
upper deck above the main deck available to passengers . . .,'' has an
additional safety factor thrown in that is not currently taken from or
referenced in the regulations. The weight located on the one upper deck
is the equivalent of 1.33 times the actual weight of passengers to be
located there. The rationale for doing so is understood, however, one
problem is it appears ``arbitrary'' with no reference in the
regulations and no other apparent basis. It certainly does help to
ensure the conservatism of the test, which has been proven by the test
of time since it appears no subchapter T boats have been lost due to
stability who have performed this simple stability test. The Coast
Guard affirms keeping the 1.33 safety factor for weight distribution on
the upper deck, and put it in Sec. 178.330(a)(4) of the new regulation.
The simplified stability test is written in accordance with
Sec. 171.030, and all other test parameters are referenced in this
section. Although there does not appear to be any formal explanation as
to the origin of the \1/3\ safety factor applied to the passenger
weight distribution on the upper deck, the simplified stability test
has clearly withstood the test of time. It has been double checked and
validated in numerous casualty investigations, and this change will be
made in subchapter S, under Sec. 171.030(c).

Section 179.212 Watertight Bulkheads for Subdivision

Two comments supported the watertight division requirements for
wooden hull vessels.
The Coast Guard thanks the industry for this input.

Section 179.230 Damage Stability Requirements

One comment noted that in the new regulations, vessels
demonstrating intact stability through calculation were no longer
required to meet damage stability requirements, and urged the Coast
Guard to reinstate the requirement.
The Coast Guard agrees. The damage stability requirements for
vessels less than 19.8 meters (65 feet) carrying more than 49
passengers and vessels carrying more than 12 passengers on an
international voyage were inadvertently deleted in the SNPRM. In order
to remain consistent with subchapter S, reference to Sec. 179.212(b)
has been removed. This will ensure that any vessel required to meet
intact stability and Type II subdivision standards in subchapter S will
also have to meet damage stability.

Section 179.240 Foam Flotation Material

One comment questioned why there is a length limitation of 65 feet
for the use of foam flotation in subchapter T when there is no such
limitation in subchapter S (Sec. 170.245). It was recommended that the
length limitation from subchapter T be removed and leave the decision
to the OCMI.
The Coast Guard agrees that the regulations should be consistent.
The NPRM originally proposed the limit on foam flotation for small
passenger vessels, understanding that proper subdivision for larger
vessels should not be an issue. When subchapter K was created in the
SNPRM, subchapter K vessel stability was addressed in subchapter S.
Subchapter S should have been revisited to address the use of foam
flotation for subchapter K vessels. However, since approval of the use
of foam as flotation material remains with the cognizant OCMI and/or
the MSC, and in view of MSC experiences, the length restriction of
subchapter T is removed and does not weaken the intent of the
regulation. In addition, the text in Sec. 179.240(b)(1) to meet the
requirements for fire resistance in MIL-P-21929 has been removed. The
Coast Guard approval process for flotation foams does not currently
require these materials to meet the fire resistance criteria in MIL-P-
21929.

Section 179.350 Openings in the Side of a Vessel Below the Bulkhead or
Weather Deck

One comment wanted to know if a flap-operated check valve would be
considered a positive action valve.
The Coast Guard says no. Positive action valves are gate, ball,
barrel, or globe valves.

Section 179.360 Watertight Integrity

One comment recommended that the Coast Guard reconsider six inch
coaming requirements due to trips and falls of passengers. Another
comment recommended that the Coast Guard consider the use of removable
coamings that could be used in the event of severe weather to minimize
downflooding.
The coaming issue has been previously discussed under
Sec. 116.1160. The use of removable coamings is not specifically
prohibited in the regulations. However, the Coast Guard has determined
that a coaming installed only part of the time would add to passenger
confusion and injuries in the event of an emergency such as rough
weather.

Sections 117.10 and 180.10 Applicability to Vessels on an
International Voyage

One comment asked what subchapter W is? Another comment recommended
a vessel less than 65 feet carrying less

[[Page 51337]]

than 12 passengers on an international voyage should not have to meet
SOLAS requirements and carry life rafts.
The Coast Guard advises that reference to subchapter W (46 CFR
chapter I, subchapter W) was a proactive step designed to minimize the
number of revisions to the final rule. Subchapter W was published as an
interim rule on May 20, 1996. The Coast Guard also states that it was
not its intention to require vessels, not subject to SOLAS, to meet
requirements based upon international standards. Both sections are
revised to indicate requirements for vessels subject to SOLAS.

Sections 117.15 and 180.15 Applicability to Existing Vessels

Two comments stated that all existing vessels should have the
option of a ten year phase-in period regarding survival craft
installation.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard's stand on
grandfathering has not changed since the publication of the SNPRM and
the IFR.

Sections 117.64 and 180.64 Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacons
(EPIRB)

One comment stated that the Coast Guard should not require EPIRBs
until a cost benefit analysis shows the need for these devices.
In the report ``A Study of Lifesaving Systems,'' the Coast Guard
determined that more lives would have been saved if the vessels
involved would have had EPIRBs rather than inflatable survival craft.
The successes seen in the fishing vessel industry as a result of the
required 406MHz satellite EPIRB supports the need for the small
passenger vessel industry to upgrade to the more accurate and reliable
device.

Sections 117.68 and 180.68 Distress Flares and Smoke Signals

(1) One comment questioned the exemption of not requiring vessels
on short runs to carry distress signals. The comment noted that
recreational vessels are required to carry distress signals.
The Coast Guard advises that the exemption is designed for ferries
and other vessels on set schedules and operating not far from shore. No
changes have been made to these sections.
(2) After review of the IFR, the Coast Guard has included ``limited
coastwise'' as an applicable route in paragraph (a) of both sections.

Section 180.70 Ring Life Buoys

(1) One comment recommended that the term ``ring life buoy'' be
used in the title for subpart C.
The Coast Guard agrees. In both subchapters K and T, the heading
for subpart C reads ``Ring Life Buoys and Life Jackets.''
(2) After review of Secs. 117.70(c)(5) and 180.70(c)(5), the Coast
Guard has changed the term ``510 kilograms'' to ``5 kilonewtons'' to
indicate force units.

Sections 117.71 and 180.71 Life Jackets

(1) Six comments stated that the allowance for additional personal
flotation devices (PFDs) to be carried for a temporary need and not
marked with a vessel's name, but with another name or a company's name,
needs to be addressed in this section.
This change would reduce the amount of confusion and
misinterpretation within the Coast Guard and industry. The Coast Guard
agrees. Language is included in Sec. 122.604 to allow another vessel's
name or a company's name to be on life jackets used to meet a temporary
need.
(2) One comment recommended that all passengers be required to wear
an inflatable life vest which fits the body and can be, in an
emergency, inflated by pulling a string.
The Coast Guard has not determined that this is a practical
solution for reducing the number of fatalities due to an individual
falling overboard. The master of a vessel is responsible for the
passengers and crew of that vessel. In instances of rough weather or
other potentially dangerous situations, the master is responsible for
ensuring that the passengers and crew are properly outfitted for an
emergency.

Section 180.75 Life Jacket Lights

One comment recommended that ferries and vessels operating within
20 miles from a harbor of safe refuge be required to carry life jacket
lights.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard has determined that
vessels operating within 20 miles from a harbor of safe refuge are
close enough to search and rescue resources so that, by the time
assistance arrives on scene, persons in the water should not become
separated too far from survival craft (inflatable buoyant apparatus
(IBA), life floats, and buoyant apparatus) equipped with marker lights.
This is especially true with the rapid distress notification proven
with the Category 1, 406 MHz, satellite EPIRB that is required for
vessels operating on a limited coastwise route.

Sections 117.130 and 180.130 Stowage of Survival Craft

After review of the IFR, the Coast Guard amends these sections by
referring to the approval series 160.062 and 160.162 for hydrostatic
release units.

Sections 117.150 and 180.150 Survival Craft Embarkation Arrangements

The Coast Guard revises Secs. 117.150(a) and 180.150(a) to correct
a discrepancy noted when trying to apply the survival craft embarkation
standards. A launching appliance approved under the approval series
160.032 is not suitable for liferafts. For davit-launched liferafts, a
liferaft launching appliance approved under the 160.163 series (with an
automatic release hook approved under the 160.070 or 160.170 series) is
the appropriate requirement. For throw-over liferafts and inflatable
buoyant apparatus where the embarkation station is greater than four
and one-half meters (15 feet) above the waterline, a marine evacuation
system approved under the 160.175 series is the appropriate
requirement.

Sections 117.175 and 180.175 Survival Craft Equipment

One comment suggested that the wording ``12-thread manila'' is
confusing and outdated. Another comment stated that inflatable buoyant
apparatus equipment packs are not the same as rigid buoyant apparatus.
The Coast Guard agrees. Wording is changed to reflect a \3/8\ inch
lanyard made of ultraviolet resistant material. Additionally, these
sections are revised to state that an equipment pack in an inflatable
buoyant apparatus is required to meet standards set by the
manufacturer.

Sections 117.200 and 180.200 Survival Craft--General

(1) One comment noted that the reference to Sec. 160.151 is not
appropriate because it does not exist in 46 CFR. Another comment stated
that there is no reference to inflatable buoyant apparatus in
Sec. 160.010, and IBAs are not defined in Sec. 175.400.
The Coast Guard states that the approval series in Sec. 160.151 has
been used for years to indicate liferafts approved as complying with
SOLAS. An upcoming revision to subchapter Q will contain the approval
series in Sec. 160.151. However, a change to the text in subchapters K
and T, referring to the approval series, would be more appropriate. As
for inflatable buoyant apparatus and other survival craft, the same
reference to approval series should remove the confusion.
(2) Three comments stated that subchapter K and K'' vessels are
their own best survival craft. The comments also stated that there
should be no

[[Page 51338]]

difference between the survival craft requirements between subchapters
K and T. Two comments suggested that since subchapter T boats can
install watertight bulkheads to avoid carrying IBAs, subchapter K
vessels should have the benefit of the lesser requirement.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard's concern is putting
large numbers of passengers in cold water offshore. Warm water
requirements are similar between subchapters K and T. The Coast Guard
recognizes that subchapter K vessels are built to more stringent
standards; however, survival craft standards are driven by the number
of passengers on board. The industry should recognize that there is a
difference between carrying 100 passengers, 20 miles offshore and 400
passengers on the same route. All things being equal (i.e., Steel
vessel of similar dimensions), a subchapter K vessel requires
structural fire protection and out of the water survival craft for 67
percent of the passenger capacity (will accommodate 100 percent of
passengers). The Coast Guard considers these increased requirements
necessary to address the vessels operating environment, proximity to
adequate rescue resources, and number of passengers carried.
(3) Three comments noted that three miles is used as a breakpoint
for survival craft operating on a limited, coastwise route. Offshore
casino vessels operate beyond three miles, but no further, and should
receive the same treatment. The comments recommended moving the
breakpoint to five miles.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The three mile breakpoint resulted from
new EPIRB requirements. The EPIRB provides an equivalent level of
safety for vessels electing to not carry additional survival craft
within three miles. Vessels operating beyond three miles and not
wanting to carry required survival craft must convince the OCMI that
they have provided an equivalent level of safety.
(4) One comment noted that in Table 117.200, Footnote 9,
Sec. 117.207(e) should read Sec. 117.207(f).
The Coast Guard agrees and the change is made. In addition,
Footnote 8 is changed to read Sec. 117.207(e).
(5) The Coast Guard deletes the term ``citation in brackets'' in
paragraph (c) in both sections.

Section 180.202 Survival Craft--Vessels Operating on Oceans Routes

One comment stated that 67 percent inflatable buoyant apparatus
does not provide enough capacity for all passengers carried.
The Coast Guard disagrees. As stated in the preamble to the IFR,
IBAs are tested to a 150 percent overload capacity. This means that a
vessel with 67 percent IBA capacity can accommodate 100 percent of the
persons on board.

Section 180.204 Survival Craft--Vessels Operating on Coastwise Routes

(1) One comment recommended that life floats be phased out because
they do not provide adequate out of the water hypothermia protection.
As stated in the preamble to the IFR, the Coast Guard reduced
survival craft requirements from those proposed in the SNPRM due to the
casualty history of the small passenger vessel industry. Even the Coast
Guard's own study of subchapter T boat casualties concluded that more
people would have been saved if the vessels were equipped with EPIRBs
rather than inflatable survival craft.
(2) One comment stated that life floats do not provide adequate
shark protection.
The OCMI has the latitude to require additional survival craft in
areas considered hazardous. This may include shark infested waters.
However, casualty statistics do not indicate a trend in fatalities due
to shark attacks.

Sections 117.205 and 180.205 Survival Craft--Vessels Operating on
Limited Coastwise Routes

(1) Two comments recommended that the Coast Guard authorize vessels
to reduce the number of IBAs required during winter months when fewer
passengers are carried.
The Coast Guard advises that the OCMI has the authority to endorse
the COI with a cold water restriction.
(2) One comment suggested that the reference to Sec. 180.204(d) is
confusing. It was recommended that the requirements be spelled out in
each section.
The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard is trying to reduce
redundant wording in the regulation.
(3) One comment stated that wood vessels less than 65 feet
operating on limited coastwise (LCW) routes are just as safe as FRP
vessels in cold water and should not be required to carry inflatable
buoyant apparatus.
The Coast Guard advises that wood vessels account for over 90% of
the loss of vessel/loss of life casualties over the past 20 years.
Statistics indicate that the route of a vessel did not matter. Existing
wood vessels less than 65 feet also have the option of installing
watertight bulkheads in lieu of carrying inflatable survival craft.

Section 117.207 Survival Craft--Vessels Operating on Lakes, Bays, and
Sounds Routes

One comment recommended that vessels meeting paragraph (f) should
use the existing 30 percent life float requirement. The comment further
recommended changing the wording in paragraph (f) ``may be granted a
reduction* * *'' to ``be provided with life floats of an aggregate
capacity that will accommodate at least 30 percent of the total number
of persons on board.''
The Coast Guard disagrees. The wording in the IFR appropriately
allows the OCMI latitude in reducing the amount of primary lifesaving
equipment on board a certain vessel.

Sections 117.208 and 180.208 Survival Craft--Vessels Operating on
River Routes

(1) One comment recommended the Coast Guard revisit the issue of
not requiring vessels operating within one mile of shore on a rivers
route to carry survival craft.
The Coast Guard states that the one mile exemption is carried over
from the old small passenger vessels regulations. Casualty statistics
do not warrant increased survival craft requirements on vessels
operating in such close proximity to shore.
(2) Two comments recommended adding a three mile equivalent or
alternative to the 15 minute radio communication schedule.
The Coast Guard states that the three mile distance criteria
applied to other bodies of water is not practical in a rivers route.
Most vessels will be exempt from survival craft requirements because
they will operate within one mile of shore. For vessels that do operate
beyond one mile from shore, a 15 minute communications schedule or
participation in a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) allows the vessel to
quickly notify the Coast Guard in the event of a casualty.

Sections 117.210 and 180.210 Rescue Boats

One comment stated that rescue boat is not well defined. It also
stated that the reference to subchapter H is not specific as to which
part. Two comments stated that the subchapter Q standard for a rescue
boat ignores 50 years of experience. They noted that even the Coast
Guard uses rigid hull inflatable boats with great success. The comments
recommended that the Coast Guard consider the use of rescue boats other
than those approved by subchapter Q. The Coast Guard agrees that rescue
boats of the rigid-hull

[[Page 51339]]

inflatable type can provide satisfactory service. In the past, OCMIs
have approved boats such as rigid-hull inflatables as ``equivalents''
to straight 160.056 rowboat-type rescue boats. This practice will not
change. With the publication of subchapter W on May 20, 1996 (61 FR
25272), the reference to subchapter H in Secs. 117.810 and 180.810 is
no longer appropriate since Sec. 75.10-5(e) no longer exists. In order
to maintain the intent of the rescue boat section, performance language
from the old subchapter H requirement has been added to both
subchapters K and T. In addition, the approval series 160.056 has been
retained for vessels operating on protected waters. The 160.156
approval series cited as the rescue boat standard in subchapter W
allows the use of rigid-hull inflatable and entirely inflatable rescue
boats. The Coast Guard has determined that by adding performance
language, retaining the 160.056 standard for vessels operating on
protected waters, and adding the 160.156 approval series for vessels
operating on exposed and partially protected waters, the intent of the
former subchapter H cross reference is maintained.
As resources allow, rescue boat requirements in subchapter Q will
be updated to reflect the variety of available, suitable boats.

Sections 118.300 and 181.300 Fire Pumps

(1) One comment noted that the word ``manual'' is confusing when
discussing local operation of the fire pump. The comment wanted
clarification as to what is meant and is it the intent of the Coast
Guard to require a manual electric switch at the pump? Two comments
recommended the section be reworded to read ``A fire pump must be
capable of operation from both the control station and the pump
location.''
The Coast Guard acknowledges that the intent is to be able to
operate the pump from the operating station and locally at the pump.
How that is to be accomplished is up to the owner or operator of the
vessel. In order to reduce confusion, the word ``manual'' is deleted.
(2) Two comments suggested that the fire pump required in
Sec. 181.300(b) for vessels less than 65 feet carrying more than 49
passengers is excessive and should be reconsidered using casualty data.
In addition, fixed extinguishing systems will be required, so the fires
encountered will be put out with portable extinguishers.
The Coast Guard disagrees. Subchapter T previously required a fire
pump on vessels that carry over 49 passengers. Casualty history
available to the Coast Guard may not accurately reflect the number of
fires on these vessels, since fires which were extinguished using the
fire pump may not have been reported. The Coast Guard has determined
that vessels which carry more than 49 passengers represent a risk that
warrants requiring a fire pump, regardless of vessel size. No changes
were made to this section.
(3) With regard to the comment about fires encountered being put
out with portable extinguishers, the Coast Guard disagrees, in that
portable extinguishers are not an acceptable replacement for a firemain
system. Portable extinguishers are adequate only for small incipient
fires, have limited amount of agent, and provide the fire fighting
agent for a short duration. On the other hand, hose streams off of a
firemain system provide unlimited water supply.

Sections 118.310 and 181.310 Fire Main and Hydrants

As previously discussed in Secs. 114.400 and 175.400, the Coast
Guard amends Sec. 118.310 by adding a new paragraph (d) requiring
vessels carrying more than 600 passengers or with overnight
accommodations for more than 49 passengers to meet subchapter H fire
main and hydrant standards. This is already required under the IFR for
vessels carrying more than 600 passengers, and was a recommended and
accepted practice in NVIC 11-83 for vessels with overnight
accommodations for more than 49 passengers. In addition, Secs. 118.310
and 181.310 are amended by adding paragraph (c) that requires isolation
valves on fire hydrants to allow damaged hoses to be removed and
replaced while the fire main is charged. This is a common marine design
practice that the Coast Guard has determined must be maintained.

Sections 118.320 and 181.320 Fire Hoses and Nozzles

As previously discussed in Secs. 114.400 and 175.400, the Coast
Guard amends Secs. 118.320(a) and 181.320(a) by replacing ``fire
stations'' with ``fire hydrants.''

Section 181.400 Where Required

(1) One comment recommended that the documentation for a fixed
CO2 fire extinguishing system be retained. The comment
reiterated the NTSB recommendation M-95-37 from the ARGO COMMODORE fire
casualty requiring that plan approval records for fixed fire
extinguishing systems be maintained for the life of the vessel.
The Coast Guard has not determined that it is necessary to issue a
regulation requiring vessel owners to retain plan approval records for
their vessels. NVIC 13-83 encourages vessel owners and operators to
keep a complete set of vessel plans, including fixed firefighting
system plans.
(2) Four comments stated that the industry is still concerned over
automatic shutdown of main engines and ventilation, and recommended
that fire and heat detectors are a better alternative.
The Coast Guard advises that detection systems are required by
Sec. 181.400. It is true that manual systems are still required to
shutdown machinery and ventilation, because one of the keys to fighting
a fire is keeping the extinguishing agent in the space protected.
(3) Three comments stated that fire extinguishing systems should
not be retrofitted to all existing wood and FRP vessels. They stated
the casualties do not justify the cost to the industry.
As for justification and cost, the Coast Guard's position has not
changed since the SNPRM and IFR. The vessels most at risk are wood and
FRP.
(4) One comment noted that by definition a wheelhouse is a control
space. The comment asked if Sec. 118.400(e)(1) and (e)(2) require a
smoke activated and manual fire detection system in the wheelhouse?
The Coast Guard acknowledges that the wording used in the IFR would
lead someone to believe that a detection system is required in the
wheelhouse. However, from a practical standpoint, the Coast Guard has
determined that placing an automatic and manual fire detection system
in a continuously manned operating station is unnecessary. This section
is revised accordingly.

Sections 118.410 and 181.410 Fixed Gas Fire Extinguishing Systems

(1) After further review of the IFR, the Coast Guard has determined
that paragraph (b)(2) of these sections needed to be revised to clarify
when release of an extinguishing agent requires two distinct
operations. The reference to paragraph (c)(2) may be confusing to the
reader. The Coast Guard has amended these sections by removing any
confusing references.
(2) Section 118.410(d)(7)(ii) has been revised to be consistent
with Sec. 181.410(d)(7)(ii), which requires the distribution lines to
undergo a test similar to that conducted on the manifold system. This
correction is needed to allow for the 300 PSI pressure

[[Page 51340]]

drop that is indicated in paragraph (d)(7)(i).

Sections 118.500 and 181.500 Required Number, Type, and Location

One comment recommended that the regulations should better describe
the different types of extinguishers or define portable or semi-
portable; the old regulations did.
The Coast Guards states that the new regulations contain the same
information as the old regulations, but in a slightly different format.

Sections 119.320 and 182.320 Water Heaters

One comment stated that the requirements for water heaters are
confusing. It was recommended that the Coast Guard reduce the amount of
technical data. Hooking up a water heater is not a difficult task.
The Coast Guard partially agrees that the language is confusing.
Most water heater installations will meet the exception criteria in
paragraph (b). The Coast Guard has determined that there also needs to
be a reference to larger, higher capacity installations. The Coast
Guard redesignates paragraph (b) as (a) and vice versa in order to
reduce any confusion.

Section 182.415 Carburetors

One comment noted that Coast Guard Approval Numbers 162.015,
162.042, and 162.043 are not in the current subchapter Q. In addition,
Approval Number 162.043 cannot be found in the Coast Guard's Equipment
lists (COMDTINST M16714.3E) and is confusing.
The Coast Guard agrees that the referenced Approval Numbers are
old, and were used prior to SAE and UL standards. The intent is that
older gas engine installations can remain in service using previously
approved equipment as long as that equipment is in good and serviceable
condition.

Section 119.425 Engine Exhaust Cooling

One comment recommended allowing the injection of engine exhaust
cooling water farther down stream if the exhaust line forward of the
cooling water injection is properly insulated. This has been accepted
by MSC in the past.
The Coast Guard partially agrees. Equivalencies are granted on a
case by case basis, and this practice will continue. If the designer is
concerned about water injection, consider a dry horizontal system.

Sections 119.430 and 182.430 Engine Exhaust Pipe Installation

Two comments stated that check valves installed in exhaust lines
impede the flow of exhaust. They recommended changing the wording to
read ``deter or minimize the in flow of water.''
The Coast Guard partially agrees. The intent of paragraph (d) is to
prevent cold water from entering the exhaust system. There is no
requirement for a check valve to be installed. However, in the interest
of clarity, the Coast Guard has determined that paragraph (c) provides
enough guidance as to the exhaust installation, and has removed
paragraph (d).

Section 182.435 Integral Fuel Tanks

In the recent past, the Coast Guard has been asked to make this
section performance based, rather than limited to strictly closed cell
polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
The Coast Guard agrees this should be done, and has revised this
section to allow for equivalents to closed cell PVC foam.

Section 182.445 Fill and Sounding Pipes for Fuel Tanks

Four comments stated that paragraph (b) of this section is entirely
unnecessary. The comments also stated that sounding pipes are not
always practical, and gages are expensive and troublesome. Small
passenger vessels, especially ferries, operate on scheduled runs so
fueling is done on a schedule corresponding to that vessel.
Recordkeeping should be an acceptable alternative.
The Coast Guard disagrees. Fuel tank level monitoring is an
indispensable part of not only fuel management, but also damage
control. If a tank is in communication with the sea, bilge, cargo, or
any other tank, no matter what the contents, the proper level must be
able to be determined for stability and environmental protection
concerns.

Sections 119.458 and 182.458 Portable Fuel Systems

One comment questioned whether the prohibition against the use of
portable fuel systems also restricts the carriage of emergency
gasoline-operated pumps and generators.
The Coast Guard states that generators that use gasoline or any
other fuel must meet the requirements of parts 119 and 120 or 182 and
183 in subchapters K and T, respectively. As for emergency dewatering
pumps, the Coast Guard has determined that their use should not be
prohibited. Sections 119.458 and 182.458 are revised to allow
dewatering pumps. Additional guidance on the carriage of spare fuel is
in Volume II, page 10-3, of the Coast Guard MSM.

Section 119.465 Ventilation of Spaces Containing Diesel Machinery

The Coast Guard notes that the prohibition of dampers in machinery
space supply air ducts in paragraph (f) is contradictory to
Sec. 116.610(f) which requires automatic fire dampers in ducts serving
machinery spaces.
The Coast Guard has determined that the requirements designed to
contain a fire within a machinery space take precedence over the damper
prohibition. Paragraph (f) in Sec. 119.465 is revised to reflect the
requirements in Sec. 116.610(f).

Section 182.465 Ventilation of Spaces Containing Diesel Machinery

One comment asked what if there is only one exhaust outlet for
multiple ventilation intakes? Does the area of the exhaust have to be
proportionally increased with the number of inlets?
The Coast Guard advises that paragraph (c) of this section requires
at least two intake and two exhaust ventilation ducts. Each duct must
have the open area indicated in the paragraph. Where additional ducts
are installed, each additional duct must meet the requirements of this
section.

Section 182.520 Bilge Pumps

(1) One comment stated that bilge pumps are not dewatering pumps.
They are used for the maintenance removal of accumulated water. A 25
gallon per minute (GPM) pump is larger than needed on vessels less than
65 feet carrying more than 49 passengers. The comment suggested a ten
GPM pump.
The Coast Guard states that a 25 GPM pump has been the standard for
30 years, and the Coast Guard sees no reason to change to a less
conservative standard.
(2) One comment recommended that the discharge hose mentioned in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section be long enough to discharge the water
over the side of a vessel.
The Coast Guard agrees. The wording in paragraph (b)(2) is revised
to read the same as Sec. 119.520(b)(2).

Sections 119.530 and 182.530 Bilge High Level Alarms

(1) One comment suggested that bilge alarms are okay for vessels
without one compartment subdivision, but excessive for other vessels.
The Coast Guard disagrees that only vessels without one compartment
subdivision need a high bilge level alarm. The time to discover that
your vessel has taken on water is not when

[[Page 51341]]

you start to ``feel'' the vessel move differently. In an emergency
situation, time is everything and can mean the difference between life
and death.
(2) Two comments suggested a bilge pump resettable counter in lieu
of an indicator light. Sometimes, the bright sunlight makes it hard to
see the indicator light, and the operator may not be aware of how many
times the bilge pump has cycled on and off.
The Coast Guard states that the regulation only calls for a visual
indicator. The intent of the requirement is to give the operator an
indication when the automatic bilge pumps are running. Where lights are
not practical, the OCMI considers alternatives proposed by the owner or
operator.
(3) One comment questioned if a separate light is required to
indicate that the automatic pump is running. This point is not clear.
The Coast Guard states that a separate indicating light is required
because a ``pump running'' light is not an alarm as required by
paragraph (a). No additional clarification is required.

Section 182.610 Main Steering Gear

One comment noted that paragraph (f)(1) of this section references
46 CFR 111.93-11(d). This cite does not exist. The comment also
questioned why is overload protection prohibited for steering gear
systems?
The Coast Guard acknowledges that the reference to Sec. 111.93-11
is outdated. The new subchapter F cite of Sec. 58.25-55(d) is added to
subchapter T. The Coast Guard advises that overload protection is
prohibited on steering gear systems to ensure that the steering gear
will continue to run until failure in an emergency. Only short-circuit
protection is allowed for the reasons of preventing catastrophic damage
to motors, wiring, and the possibility of fire.

Section 182.720 Nonmetallic Piping Materials

(1) Two comments noted that this regulation means that the operator
cannot replace a fuel or hydraulic hose with make up fittings. Ordinary
practice is to assemble replacement hoses using material that far
exceeds the pressure demands of the system. If a hose is replaced in an
80 pound per square inch (psi) system with a 1000 psi hose, the proof
test, at twice the rated pressure, is not possible.
The Coast Guard agrees. The wording in paragraph 182.720(e)(1) is
changed to ``twice the maximum operating pressure of the system.''
(2) After review, the Coast Guard has revised paragraph
182.720(e)(3)(ii) to include watertight decks in addition to watertight
bulkheads.

Section 183.322 Multiple Generators

One comment noted that the revision of subchapter J is complete.
The IFR references subchapter J prior to its revision. Which version is
to be used?
The Coast Guard states that a review of the newly revised
subchapter J has been done to ensure that the referenced cites are
still accurate and appropriate. The cites listed in this rule are
appropriate.

Sections 120.340 and 183.340 Cable and Wiring Requirements

One comment noted that the revision to subchapter J allows the use
of wire nuts for wire and cable connections. Subchapters K and T
specifically prohibit the use of wire nuts. The regulations need to be
consistent and not allow the use of wire nuts.
The Coast Guard states that wire nuts are allowed in subchapter J
subject to very specific conditions outlined in Sec. 111.60-17. The
Coast Guard has determined that reiterating those conditions in
paragraph (i) of these sections is appropriate in order to be
consistent with subchapter J.

Section 183.376 Grounded Distribution Systems (Neutral Grounded)

One comment noted that this cite correctly assumes that there could
be a dual voltage system not fed by a dual voltage generator and,
therefore, could be of the ungrounded or floating neutral type. Because
this is possible, a reference needs to be made to Sec. 111.05-25 of
subchapter J for ground detection of ungrounded systems. This will
avoid confusion during the plan approval process for both the Coast
Guard and industry.
The Coast Guard agrees. Text in subchapter J is added to
subchapters K and T under new Secs. 120.378 and 183.378 entitled
``Ungrounded Systems.''

Section 183.430 Portable Lights

One comment suggested that small (30 feet or less), outboard
powered, open boat (or small boat with no enclosed engine space) should
be required to carry only one operable, portable light.
The Coast Guard advises that this type of request should be made to
the OCMI. It is reasonable to assume that, if the vessel is not
equipped with a separate machinery space, then the portable light
required to be outside that space is not required. A regulatory change
is not necessary.

Sections 120.432 and 183.432 Emergency Lighting

Two comments stated that the requirement for an emergency light to
have a continuous operating capacity of six hours is excessive.
Standard industrial units have a two hour capacity.
The Coast Guard agrees. Emergency lighting used to escape from
below deck spaces on a small passenger vessel should not need to run
more than two hours. The six hour criterion is reduced to two hours.

Sections 121.220 and 183.220 Cooking Equipment

One comment recommended that the Coast Guard require UL approval on
cooking appliances, and the requirement for heavy duty hinges is
unclear.
The Coast Guard has determined that the general requirements
contained in this section adequately address the safety concerns
regarding cooking equipment on board vessels. UL, NFPA, and American
Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) standards were considered in drafting
this requirement in 1989. The Coast Guard agrees that the words ``heavy
duty'' add no value to the requirement and has removed those words from
both Sec. 121.220 in subchapter K and Sec. 184.220 in subchapter T.

Section 184.402 Compasses

One comment asked if existing vessels were supposed to be exempt
from the illuminated compass requirement.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that existing vessels are exempt
unless the OCMI decides that due to the route or service of the vessel
an illuminated compass is required. All new vessels, unless exempted by
paragraph (b), are required to have an illuminated compass.

Section 121.404 Radars

Three comments wanted to know who decides if a radar is suitable.
There are no criteria to determine a standard. How can a designer or
builder know what to look for? Different Coast Guard Districts may have
different standards. The Coast Guard should either set performance
standards or let the master decide what is appropriate, and hold the
master responsible for the safe operation of the vessel.
The Coast Guard agrees that performance standards are needed to
determine if a radar is suitable. As stated in the SNPRM preamble, the
Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) was developing
recommended standards for

[[Page 51342]]

radar on small vessels. The Coast Guard received those recommendations
after the drafting and publication of the IFR and, therefore, could not
publish them for public comment. The Coast Guard has determined that
the recommendations of the RTCM are acceptable for determining the
suitability of radar on towing vessels (61 FR 35064) and that the same
standards should apply to small passenger vessels. However, the
recommended standards cannot be incorporated into the Final Rule
without public comment. Therefore, the Coast Guard will establish
policy guidance for owners, operators, builders, and OCMIs to help
determine the suitability of radar installations on small passenger
vessels. The policy will be based on the RTCM standards, but will also
allow flexibility in the event that certain recommended standards are
impractical for small passenger vessels. Based upon feedback to the
policy, the Coast Guard will consider revising the radar requirements
for small passenger vessels in a future rulemaking.

Sections 121.420 and 184.420 Charts and Nautical Publications

Two comments stated that charts and nautical publications are not
necessary for ferries which run from point A to B and back day after
day.
The Coast Guard agrees that not all vessels require the same charts
and nautical publications. The OCMI has discretion as provided by the
words ``As appropriate...'' in paragraph (a) to allow relaxation of
certain requirements based on a particular vessel's operation.

Sections 121.506 and 184.506 Emergency Broadcast Placard

Two comments stated that the emergency broadcast placard is
unnecessary. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensed radio
operators and the crews are aware of the contents of a distress call.
Even if an individual was unaware of the proper procedures, in an
emergency, correct procedure does not take precedence; saving time and
lives do.
The Coast Guard disagrees. A lack of proper procedure in an
emergency may be the difference between a quick and a delayed response
by the Coast Guard. In many emergencies, a vessel's crew has one chance
to get a distress call off. Valuable information regarding the
location, number of passengers, or conditions on scene could be left
out and thus hamper rescue efforts. The Coast Guard has determined that
the placard serves a real purpose as a memory jogger for individuals
using the radio in an emergency.

Sections 121.702 and 184.702 Oil Pollution Prevention Equipment and
Procedures

Even though the text of these sections refers to 33 CFR part 155,
the title of these sections does not take into consideration the
garbage plan requirements of 33 CFR 155.540. The Coast Guard amends the
title of these sections to read ``Pollution prevention equipment and
procedures.''

Sections 121.710 and 184.710 First Aid Kits

Four comments stated that the rule on first aid kits is
unacceptable and must be withdrawn. The subchapter Q approval must be
rewritten before it can be used as a standard for subchapter T vessels.
The approval is 46 years old and outdated. Two comments noted that the
requirement to have or dispense drugs, even the over-the-counter
variety, needs careful consideration. Many vessels will not dispense
aspirin, sea-sick pills, etc., but might have them available for sale
to reduce or remove their liability. One comment suggested that the
routes and missions of vessels need to be considered when determining
the type of first-aid kit required. Two comments recommended that the
``Good Samaritan'' provision is needed in the rewrite of Sec. 160.041
of subchapter Q. OSHA approved first aid kits should be an approved
substitute instead of the Coast Guard approved kits.
The Coast Guard agrees that the approval published in subchapter Q
is outdated and should not be used as the basis of a required first aid
kit. As a matter of policy, the Coast Guard provides manufacturers
seeking approval of first-aid kits under approval series 160.041 with
much more basic guidelines. The following is a list of items required
to be in a Coast Guard Approved first-aid kit under approval series
160.041:

(2) Units of Adhesive Bandage Compresses (16 per unit).
(2) Units of 5 cm (2 in.) Bandage Compresses (4 per unit).
(3) Units of 10 cm (4 in.) Bandage Compresses (1 per unit).
(2) Units of Triangular Bandages (1 per unit).
(2) Units of Absorbent Gauze Compresses (1 per unit).
(2) Units of 10 cm (4 in.) Gauze Roller Bandages (1 per unit).
(1) Aluminum Splint.
(1) Tourniquet.
(1) Unit of Eye Dressing Packet (Pads and Strips) (4 per unit).
(2) Units of 30 ml (1 oz) Eye Wash Solution.
(1) Unit of Ammonia Inhalants (10 per unit).
(1) Unit of Antiseptic Swabs (10 per unit).
(2) Units of 3.0 gram (0.11 oz) Burn Treatment Compound (6 per unit).
(2) Units of 324 milligram (5 grain) Aspirin Tablets (48 per unit).

This list is provided for operators who wish to build an equivalent
kit as allowed by the regulations. The Coast Guard has determined that
a first aid kit is important as an initial response tool for major and
minor injuries on board small passenger vessels. The Coast Guard notes
that some state marine boards required first aid kits above and beyond
the old Coast Guard regulations. These kits were basic, yet afforded
the master an opportunity to effectively respond to cuts, fish hooks
and other minor injuries. The Coast Guard has revised the wording in
subchapters K and T to reference the approval series 160.041, instead
of citing the specification in subchapter Q.

Sections 122.202 and 185.202 Notice of Casualty

Eleven comments suggested that the term ``treatment beyond first
aid'' be better defined. The comments recommended that the Coast Guard
adopt the ``Report of the Quality Action Team (QAT) on Marine Safety
Investigations.''
The Coast Guard agrees that ``treatment beyond first aid'' could be
better defined. The Coast Guard has initiated a rulemaking project to
address the recommendations in the QAT report. It is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking to make changes to 46 CFR Part 4.

Section 185.280 Official Logbook for Foreign Voyages

(1) One comment asked where an individual could obtain official
logbooks. The comment noted that they could not be obtained from the
Government Printing Office.
The Coast Guard advises that the ``Official Logbook, Merchant
Marine'' (CG-706B) can be obtained free of charge to the public through
the General Services Administration (GSA). The supply number for the
form is 753000F010040. In addition, the publication is not subject to
copyright; it may be reproduced by anyone who desires to do so.
However, care should be given not to create the appearance that the
Coast Guard approves of an individual, entity, or group of either, as
the appropriate source to obtain an official logbook. This can be done
by including a statement in the book that

[[Page 51343]]

the official logbook can be obtained for free from the GSA.
(2) One comment stated that the laws cited in official logbooks are
outdated; 46 CFR was revised in 1983.
As for the out of date regulatory cites, the Coast Guard does not
guarantee either that the citations are all inclusive or current. The
Coast Guard expressly retains the discretion to allocate limited
resources to perform tasks that preclude the updating of the statutory
and regulatory authorities governing the matters addressed in the
logbook.
(3) One comment suggested that logbooks needed to include the
number of hours a crewmember is on watch. Crews on passenger vessels
should not be allowed to work upwards of 30+ hours in a single stint.
The Coast Guard states that the updating of logbooks is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. Besides, small passenger vessels are required
to carry alternate crews when operating more than 12 hours in any 24
hour period.

Sections 122.304 and 185.304 Navigation Underway

(1) One comment recommended that senior deckhands should be allowed
to control the movement of the vessel.
The Coast Guard states that the master of a vessel has ultimate
responsibility for the operation of that vessel. If the master places a
deckhand, senior or otherwise, in control of the vessel, the master is
still responsible for the deckhand's actions while at

[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%3A97-25599. Public record. Not legal advice.