Small Passenger Vessel Inspection and Certification; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its original proposal, published

as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (54

FR 4412) of January 30, 1989, to amend the regulations governing small

passenger vessels. This Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(SNPRM) contains a complete revision of the proposed regulations

affecting small passenger vessels based on the numerous comments

received to the NPRM. In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard is proposing

significant changes including: The creation of separate regulations for

small passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or with

overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers; alternative

requirements to certain lifesaving equipment; greater allowance of non-

Coast Guard approved noncombustible materials; and the establishment of

new upper limit breakpoints above which a vessel would have to comply

with the construction and outfitting requirements applicable to a

passenger vessel of more than 100 gross tons. These proposed revisions

are expected to minimize the complexity of the original proposed

regulation.

DATES: Comments on this SNPRM must be received on or before June 13,

1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to the Executive

Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA-2/3600)(CGD 85-080), U.S. Coast

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

Comments may be delivered to and will be available for inspection or

copying, and the materials referenced in this SNPRM will be available

for examination and copying, at the Marine Safety Council (G-LRA-2),

room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20593-0001, (202) 267-1477, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except holidays. Comments on collection of

information requirements must be mailed also to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S.

Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Marc C. Cruder, Project Manager,

Office of Merchant Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental

Protection, (G-MVI), phone (202) 267-1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Requests for Comments

Interested persons are invited and encouraged to participate in

this proposed rulemaking by submitting written views, data, or

arguments on the contents of this SNPRM. Persons submitting comments

should include their name and address, reference this SNPRM (CGD 85-

080), give the specific section of the proposed regulations to which

each comment applies, and include supporting documents or sufficient

detail to indicate the reason for each comment. Persons desiring an

acknowledgment that their comments were received should include a

stamped, self-addressed envelope or post card. This SNPRM may be

changed in light of the comments received. All comments received before

the expiration of the comment period will be considered before final

action is taken on this SNPRM.

The Coast Guard has determined that the opportunity for oral

presentations will aid this rulemaking, and will hold public hearings

in New London, CT, Seattle, WA, Tampa, FL, and Chicago, IL. Interested

persons who can demonstrate that the opportunity to make an oral

presentation at a different location will aid this rulemaking are

requested to submit recommendations for hearing locations and dates by

writing to the Marine Safety Council at the address under

``ADDRESSES''. Recommendations on the locations and dates for hearings

on this rulemaking must be received prior to February 28, 1994. The

Coast Guard will announce the times and places of the public hearings

by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in the drafting of this proposal are

Lieutenant Commander Marc C. Cruder, Project Manager, Commanders

William C. Bennett and William P. Cummins, Project Managers Emeriti,

and Commander Mark G. VanHaverbeke, Project Analyst, Office of Merchant

Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection, and Mr. Nicholas

Grasselli, Project Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel.

Background and Purpose

Subchapter T contains the regulations for the inspection and

certification of small passenger vessels including construction,

outfitting of lifesaving and fire protection equipment, machinery and

electrical installations, and operational requirements. The initial

regulations applicable to small passenger vessels were promulgated in

46 CFR subchapter T, in the Federal Register of 5 October 1957 (22 FR

7949). Subchapter T originally regulated vessels of 65 feet or less in

length, measuring more than 15 but less than 100 gross tons, and

carrying more than 6 passengers. The last major revision to subchapter

T was made in 1963 when the scope of the regulations was broadened to

include vessels of more than 65 feet in length, measuring less than 100

gross tons, and carrying one or more passengers (28 FR 9733). Several

minor revisions have also been made to subchapter T since 1963.

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

30, 1989, contained a proposed revision of subchapter T. A description

of the small passenger vessel fleet and detailed reasons for the

proposed revision of subchapter T are contained in the NPRM. As part of

the proposal in the NPRM to revise subchapter T, the Coast Guard also

proposed to revise portions of 46 CFR subchapter S, Subdivision and

Stability, which affect small passenger vessels. The NPRM invited and

encouraged interested persons to participate in the proposed rulemaking

by submitting written comments, including views, data, or arguments, on

the proposal by May 31, 1989. By a notice published in the Federal

Register (54 FR 17997) on April 26, 1989, the Coast Guard extended the

deadline for receipt of comments to July 31, 1989, and announced the

date and location of six public hearings on the proposed rulemaking.

The Coast Guard received over 300 comment letters on the NPRM

providing both support and criticism of the various proposed changes.

Of these letters, approximately 80 were received after July 31, 1989.

Although received after the close of the officially announced comment

period, the Coast Guard considered the comments in these letters in

developing this SNPRM.

Most letters contained comments on several different aspects of the

proposal. Letters were received from numerous individual small

passenger vessel owners and operators as well as private surveyors,

boat builders, naval architects, designers, insurance companies, and

equipment vendors. Several associations representing large groups of

vessel owners and others involved with the small passenger vessel

industry submitted comment letters. Detailed letters were received from

the American Sailing Training Association, the International

Association of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, the National Association of

Passenger Vessel Owners (NAPVO), the National Marine Manufacturers

Association (NMMA), the National Party Boat Owners Alliance, and the

United States Marine Safety Association, as well as many more regional

organizations. Letters were also received from many members of Congress

as well as government agencies including the National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and

Coast Guard Marine Safety Offices and Marine Inspection Offices. Only a

few letters could be identified as being submitted by individuals who

are not connected with the small passenger vessel industry in some way,

except as passengers.

Six public hearings were held on the NPRM in the cities of:

Washington, DC; St. Louis, MO; New Orleans, LA; San Francisco, CA;

Chicago, IL; and Boston, MA. Over 225 persons attended and 116 members

of the public presented their views on the NPRM at the hearings.

An initial analysis of the comments, the proposed rules, and the

draft evaluation indicated that some changes to the rules proposed in

the NPRM were necessary. The Coast Guard is proposing in this SNPRM to

revise the regulations governing small passenger vessels. The Coast

Guard originally informed the public of its intent to publish this

SNPRM by a notice published in the Federal Register (54 FR 38410) of

September 18, 1989. This SNPRM substantially changes some sections of

the NPRM, and includes provisions not contemplated in the original

NPRM. Comments are desired on this modified proposal.

Discussion of Comments and Proposed Amendments

This SNPRM contains a complete revision of the proposed regulations

affecting small passenger vessels based on the numerous comments

received to the NPRM. Comments which are generally applicable to more

than one part of the proposed regulations, such as organization

(including the development of a new subchapter K for certain small

passenger vessels), specific vessel types, existing vessels, and

manning, are discussed under (a) General Comments. Significant changes,

along with the reasons for the changes, to each regulation in

subchapter T and parts 170, 171, and 173 of subchapter S are discussed

under (b) Specific Comments in numerical order by the section number

proposed in the NPRM. To prevent confusion, some of the subchapter K

and subchapter T regulation cites are cross-referenced in brackets. An

example is: Sec. 175.120 Load lines. (K Sec. 114.120). Where sections

proposed in the NPRM have been redesignated, the revised designation is

included in parentheses. Additional information on specific

regulations, particularly those which have been republished in this

SNPRM without any substantial changes from the NPRM and which are not

discussed in this preamble, may be found in the NPRM.

Distribution and derivation tables are included at the end of this

section of the preamble. The distribution table shows where each

section of the existing regulations would be in the proposed

regulations in this SNPRM. The derivation table shows where each

section of the regulations proposed in this SNPRM originated.

(a) General Comments

Complexity and Organization of the Regulations. Although most

comments supported the Coast Guard's efforts to consolidate regulations

and policies and reduce inconsistencies, numerous comments were

received about the apparent complexity of the proposed regulations. The

NPRM incorporated the basic provisions of the International Maritime

Organization's (IMO) ``Code of Safety for Dynamically Supported

Craft,'' the requirements of Coast Guard Navigation and Inspection

Circular (NVIC) 11-83, ``Regulations for Very Large 46 CFR subchapter T

Passenger Vessels,'' and other NVICs, the contents of numerous policy

letters, and the provisions of the Coast Guard Marine Safety Manual

(MSM). The MSM provides guidance to the Coast Guard Officer in Charge,

Marine Inspection (OCMI) on the enforcement and interpretation of

inspection regulations. Consolidation of these many standards and

policies into the regulatory requirements gives the impression that

regulations are being increased when, in fact, many of the ``new''

regulations have long existed as policy. This method also made the NPRM

``complex'' and hard to use.

In addition, many comments were concerned with the inclusion of

regulations for specific vessels not previously addressed in subchapter

T, such as Dynamically Supported Craft and vessels with overnight

accommodations for more than 49 passengers. Some comments expressed a

fear of such regulations ``trickling down,'' i.e., intentionally or

unintentionally being applied to smaller, less complex vessels, without

a need for such requirements.

The Coast Guard understands the concerns of industry on the

complexity of the regulations. Consequently, this SNPRM proposes

organizing the small passenger vessel regulations in a significantly

different manner. In order to separate requirements for larger vessels

from those for smaller vessels, a new subchapter K is being proposed

for vessels which, because of their greater size, passenger capacity,

and resulting complexity, are beyond the traditional description of a

small passenger vessel. In this SNPRM, subchapter T contains the

regulations for vessels carrying not more than 150 passengers including

vessels with overnight accommodations for not more than 49 passengers.

Subchapter K contains the regulations for small passenger vessels

carrying more than 150 passengers or with overnight accommodations for

more than 49 passengers. These two breakpoints were chosen for the

applicability of subchapter K since more stringent structural fire

protection requirements are proposed for any vessels exceeding the two

points.

The numbering system and organizational structure of the new

subchapter K is designed to parallel the numbering system and structure

of subchapter T. This will expedite familiarization with the new

subchapter and provide for easy reference between subchapters although

they are designed to be used independently of each other without any

need for cross-referencing. In subchapter K all requirements for

vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or with overnight

accommodations for more than 49 passengers, even if identical to those

in subchapter T, will be repeated to prevent the need for cross-

referencing. In subchapter T, references to other subchapters were

minimized.

The creation of a new subchapter should make the regulations easier

to read and understand, and eliminate any fears of an unintentional

``trickle down effect.''

Except for parts 178 and 179, the general order of parts, subparts,

sections, and paragraphs in the proposed subchapters T and K is

basically unchanged from the existing subchapter T. However, the

outdated numbering system of the existing regulations would be revised

to correspond to the revised CFR numbering system.

In a few cases, a section previously included in subchapter T, as

proposed in the NPRM, is proposed by this SNPRM to be included only in

subchapter K. Typically this would include sections which are only

applicable to vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or with

overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers.

A comparison of the organization of the two proposed subchapters

for use as an index is provided in the following table.

Organization of Proposed Subchapters T and K

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

Subchapter K Subchapter T

Subject matter part no. part no.

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

General provisions.................... 114 175

Inspection and certification.......... 115 176

Construction and arrangement.......... 116 177

Intact stability and seaworthiness.... N/A 178

Subdivision, damage stability, and

watertight integrity................. N/A 179

Lifesaving equipment and arrangements. 117 180

Fire protection equipment............. 118 181

Machinery installation................ 119 182

Electrical installation............... 120 183

Control and miscellaneous systems..... 121 184

Operations............................ 122 185

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

Breakpoints. As with existing subchapter T, the NPRM proposed a

graduated system of regulations with generally increasingly stringent

requirements as a vessel exceeds certain thresholds or breakpoints. The

proposed breakpoints varied, using factors such as total passenger

capacity, length, existence of overnight accommodations, number of

decks, service, route, and machinery.

The Coast Guard received numerous comments concerning the use of

breakpoints throughout subchapter T. The Coast Guard response to

comments on breakpoints for specific requirements in the NPRM is

discussed throughout this preamble. For example, changes in the

criteria used to determine the need for certain survival craft are

discussed under part 180 in this preamble.

The NTSB endorsed the use of a graduated system of regulations

based on criteria other than tonnage. The Coast Guard agrees with the

NTSB and others that the number of passengers carried should be the

primary factor in determining safety requirements. However, the Coast

Guard has retained the use of a variety of factors to establish the

applicability of requirements. For example, the physical size of the

vessel is important in determining the standards to be used for hull

construction as well as the volume of fire fighting water needed. The

practicality of installing subdivision bulkheads is partly dependent on

the length of a vessel. The need for survival craft may be influenced

by the route of a vessel, i.e., the distance it travels from shore

based search and rescue resources.

Several comments stated they had expected more than one major

breakpoint based on passenger capacity. The comments expressed a desire

for an upper breakpoint such as 600 passengers so that requirements

which should only be applicable to very large vessels are not also made

applicable to vessels carrying between 151 and 600 passengers. The

comments claim that the absence of a passenger capacity breakpoint

above the existing 150 passenger point would result in overly stringent

requirements for smaller vessels.

The Coast Guard concurs with the need for a new, less complex

breakpoint scheme. Breakpoints are needed to limit the ever increasing

size, and passenger carrying capacity of vessels which, through the use

of various devices in the basic tonnage formulae, are considered small

passenger vessels. Under the proposal, the split between subchapter T

and K serves as a major breakpoint. Subchapter K contains the following

new upper breakpoints for vessels which must comply with subchapter H

(Passenger Vessels):

a. Vessels which carry more than 600 passengers;

b. Vessels with overnight accommodations for more than 150

passengers; or

c. Vessels of more than 200 feet in length.

Vessels exceeding any one of these breakpoints because of their

capacity or length would still be considered small passenger vessels

because of their gross tonnage, but would have to comply with the

requirements for construction and outfitting for a passenger vessel (of

at least 100 gross tons) presently contained in subchapters H, F

(Marine Engineering), J (Electrical Engineering), and S (Subdivision

and Stability). The inspection and operational requirements of parts

114, 115, 121, and 122 of proposed subchapter K (corresponding to parts

175, 176, 184, and 185 of subchapter T) would still be applicable to

the small passenger vessels which would be regulated by requirements of

these other subchapters. Specifically, newly constructed passenger

vessels exceeding these breakpoints would be inspected under the

requirements for certification that appear in subpart H of part 115.

Existing vessels would be grandfathered, as allowed by

Sec. 114.110(c)(2).

With the establishment of these breakpoints, application of certain

requirements primarily intended for vessels carrying as many as 3,000

passengers could be reduced. This would minimize the so called

``trickle down effect'' whereby smaller capacity vessels are required

to comply with requirements intended for larger capacity vessels. These

new proposed breakpoints are also in keeping with the Coast Guard's

desire to minimize the complexity of the regulations by minimizing the

number of breakpoints and aligning them with the type of vessels which

the industry has become accustomed to building and operating as small

passenger vessels. The proposed breakpoints were chosen as discussed in

the following paragraphs.

Six hundred passengers would be the upper passenger capacity

breakpoint for subchapter K. Six hundred passengers is presently used

in subchapter S for subdivision purposes. Additionally, industry

comments also suggested 600 passengers as the breakpoint for the

establishment of regulations for ``large type subchapter T vessels.''

Presently, relatively few vessels less than 100 gross tons

(approximately 25) carry more than 600 passengers.

One hundred fifty passengers would be the overnight accommodation

capacity upper breakpoint which would trigger compliance with

subchapter H. This is consistent with existing Sec. 177.10-5 which

requires vessels carrying more than 150 passengers to comply with

structural fire protection requirements of subpart 72.05 of subchapter

H which the OCMI determines to be applicable. The Coast Guard considers

the provisions of NVIC 11-83 as adequate for vessels with overnight

accommodations for between 50 and 150 passengers and proposes to

incorporate them into subchapter K. The additional expense of full

compliance with the applicable requirements of subchapters F, J, H, and

S is not warranted. Presently, there are no small passenger vessels

with overnight accommodations for more than 150 passengers. In fact,

138 is the largest number of overnight accommodations on a small

passenger vessel of which the Coast Guard is aware.

The 200 foot maximum length breakpoint would help limit the size of

small passenger vessels. Although passenger capacity is the primary

criterion for evaluating risk, length is another criterion to consider.

Vessels under 200 feet may use the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)

Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels Under 61 Meters (200

feet) and ABS Rules for Building and Classing Reinforced Plastic

Vessels. Lacking a maximum length criterion, it is possible to build a

vessel significantly more than 200 feet in length that is less than 100

gross tons and certificated for just under the maximum passenger

capacity breakpoint. At least 2 vessels with registered lengths of more

than 200 feet and several vessels with overall lengths of more than 200

feet are below 100 gross tons.

The breakpoints between subchapters T, K, and H, as proposed in

this SNPRM are outlined in the table below.

Breakpoints for Application of Subchapters T, K, and H to Small

Passenger Vessels

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

Subchapter T Subchapter K Subchapter K\1\

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

150 151-600 passengers or.. 601

passengers or. passengers or

Overnight Overnight Overnight

accommodations for 49 passengers 150 passengers and. thn-eq> 151

and. passengers or

200 feet... 200 feet... 200 feet

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

\1\Vessels in this category would still be small passenger vessels

(passenger vessels less than 100 GT), but would be required to comply

with parts 72, 75, and 76 of subchapter H, parts 114, 115, 121, and

122 of subchapter K, and the applicable requirements of subchapters F

and J.

Specific Vessel Types

Some comments requested specific regulations for other types of

vessels, including crew boats, dive boats, party fishing boats, and

dinner boats. In fact, the regulations proposed in the NPRM and in this

SNPRM do contain some specific regulations for vessels such as ferries,

sailing vessels, non-self-propelled vessels, dive boats, and vessels

engaged in recreational fishing. Because of the newly proposed split

between subchapters T and K, and the removal of the individual

requirements for Dynamically Supported Craft (discussed below), the

specific regulations for special types of vessels are now very limited

in number. The remaining limited number of individual requirements has

been retained within the main functional parts of subchapters T and K.

Dynamically Supported Craft

Because of the uniqueness of Dynamically Supported Craft (DSC), the

rules proposed in the NPRM contained specific requirements, which vary

from those for conventional vessels, for DSC design, construction,

equipment, and operation. The DSC regulations and definitions in the

NPRM are primarily based on the IMO ``Code of Safety for Dynamically

Supported Craft'' (DSC Code). Recognizing the unique design and

operational characteristics of DSC, the DSC Code was developed by IMO

to provide a level of safety for DSC on international voyages which is

equivalent to that provided by the International Convention for the

Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended by the Articles of the Protocol

of 1978 and the Amendments of 1981 and 1983 (SOLAS) and the loadline

requirements.

The preamble to the DSC Code states that it was developed to allow

the design and operation of DSC which take a number of forms. DSC

designs include air cushion vessels, hydrofoil vessels, sidewall

vessels, and other types of craft essentially within the spectrum

existing between ships and aircraft. Many existing regulations were not

practicable or sufficient for design or safety reasons. Due to their

high speeds, maneuverability, normal dynamic support, aircraft like

operations, necessary light weight, and unique machinery, DSC needed

alternative requirements. Other vessels, such as certain catamarans,

may also have characteristics different enough from conventional

displacement vessels, such that, in order for the vessels to safely and

properly operate, alternative measures must be used. These

characteristics include high speed, the need for a light weight

structure, and a planing mode of operation. In order to establish a

level of safety equivalent to displacement vessels, the DSC Code

contains special provisions in many areas, such as: Advanced methods of

design and analysis; weather conditions which might restrict

operations; areas of operation; radio communications; evacuation of

passengers; rescue services; and vessel maintenance. To prevent

piecemeal application of the DSC Code, which might result in a system

imbalance that is hazardous to passengers, the DSC Code states that

full compliance with all applicable provisions is required if the DSC

Code is to be used as an equivalency to the international conventions.

Numerous comments were submitted on both the definition of DSC and

the specific requirements proposed for DSC. Three comments stated their

support for the proposed rules because the rules would specifically

certify DSC, recognize the DSC Code, and clarify what DSC designers

must do to meet Coast Guard requirements. However, most other comments

did not support the proposed rules regarding DSC, as discussed below.

The Coast Guard has reviewed the comments and the intent of the DSC

Code, and has consequently made significant revisions to the proposed

regulations affecting DSC.

Many comments had various objections to the definition of DSC in

the NPRM. Because the provisions of the DSC Code would be incorporated

by reference, as discussed below, the Coast Guard's position is that it

is important to include the definition of DSC, as specifically

contained in the DSC Code, and has done so in Sec. 175.400 (K-

Sec. 114.400) of this SNPRM. The only difference between the definition

of a DSC in the IMO Code and the definition proposed in the NPRM was

that the definition in the IMO Code (which is the definition proposed

in this SNPRM) states that a vessel is a DSC if the vessel is balanced

in one mode of operation by other than hydrostatic forces or the vessel

meets the speed-length formula. The definition in the NPRM (which no

longer applies) was written so that a vessel had to be both dynamically

supported and meet the speed-length formula. The definition of DSC is

now listed alphabetically with the other terms in Sec. 175.400(b) (K-

Sec. 114.400(b)) of this SNPRM. Under this definition, air cushion

vessels, hydrofoil vessels, and sidewall vessels (surface effect ships)

would be included as DSC, as would many high speed catamarans and high

speed monohull vessels which meet the specified speed-length formula

and are supported, at least partially, in one mode of operation by

other than hydrostatic forces.

Several comments stated the DSC rules should only be applicable to

air cushion vessels, hydrofoils, and sidewall vessels, believing that

the speed-length formula in the definition unjustifiably results in

many high speed excursion yachts, party fishing boats, and catamarans

having to meet the requirements for DSC. One comment stated the

opposite, indicating that monohull vessels should be considered DSC if

they are capable of DSC performance. One comment stated that the DSC

definition should be revised to reflect the actual intent of the DSC

Code which is to serve as an optional alternative to SOLAS.

The Coast Guard supports the philosophy of the DSC Code and is

proposing in this SNPRM that compliance with the DSC requirements

should be mandatory for vessels with the design and operations typical

of air cushion vessels, hydrofoil vessels, and surface effect ships

(i.e., those vessels which have all or a significant part of their

weight supported by other than hydrostatic forces). However, the owner

of a vessel which meets the speed-length criteria in the DSC definition

in this SNPRM should have the option of using the provisions of the DSC

Code. The DSC Code could be used to establish an equivalent level of

safety if compliance with the regulations for conventional vessels is

impossible or may harmfully affect the weight, speed, and other

desirable operational characteristics of the vessel. In this SNPRM,

vessels with high speed planing hulls or vessels such as fast

catamarans, which meet the definition of a DSC, would not be required

to comply with the DSC Code but could propose to use the provisions of

the Code as equivalent to subchapter T or K requirements under new

Sec. 175.540(b) (K-Sec. 114.540(b)). The Coast Guard's position is

that, in general, the provisions of the DSC Code are not suitable for

vessels which are not of the light weight construction and do not

operate at the high speed typical of DSC. The DSC Code will not be

considered equivalent to SOLAS or U.S. Regulations for vessels which do

not meet the definition of a DSC.

In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard is proposing to incorporate by

reference the provisions of the DSC Code by listing it in Sec. 175.600

(K-Sec. 114.600).

Owners of any vessel which meets the DSC definition in this SNPRM

and which is to be certificated for international voyages will be

required to comply with all provisions of the DSC Code, or

alternatively, all provisions of SOLAS. This is in keeping with the

intent of the DSC Code. Owners of any DSC which has all or a

significant part of its weight supported by other than hydrostatic

forces (i.e., an air-cushion vehicle, hydrofoil, or surface effects

ship) will most likely not be able to meet the requirements of SOLAS,

and will have to comply with the DSC Code.

Owners of any vessel which meets the DSC definition in this SNPRM

and which will not be certificated for international voyages, would be

required to comply either with the DSC Code or subchapter T (or K, as

applicable), at the option of the owner. For vessels which meet the DSC

definition in this SNPRM, which will not be certificated for

international voyages, and which the owners choose to design in

compliance with subchapters T or K instead of the DSC Code, the OCMI

may require operational controls or additional safety equip- ment.

Under newly proposed Secs. 176.110, 177.700(a), 177.800(f), and

184.100(b) (K-Secs. 115.110, 116.700(a), 116.800(f), and 121.100(b)),

operational controls or additional safety equipment, such as seat belts

or radar, which are specified in the DSC Code but which are not

specifically required on all small passenger vessels by proposed

subchapters T or K, may be required by the OCMI on a case-by-case

basis. These proposed sections are included in the specific section

discussions later on in this preamble. Because proposed subchapters T

and K do not address many operational characteristics of DSC which have

all or a significant part of their weight supported by other than

hydrostatic forces (i.e., an air-cushion vehicle, hydrofoil, or surface

effects ship), compliance with some portions of the DSC Code may be

required (i.e., stability and operation in the dynamically supported

mode). Owners of these types of vessels also will most likely not be

able to meet the requirements of subchapter K, and will have to comply

with the DSC Code.

The Coast Guard is revising proposed Sec. 175.540(b) (K-

Sec. 114.540(b)) to state that the Commandant may accept the provisions

of the DSC Code as equivalent to the applicable requirements of

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

be handled on a case by case basis by the Marine Technical and

Hazardous Materials Division at Coast Guard Headquarters, and will be

carefully evaluated to ensure that system safety, as envisioned in the

DSC Code, is maintained. Where the DSC Code does not have provisions

equivalent to specific requirements proposed in subchapters T or K, or

where the Code leaves determinations up to the administration, such as

the specific wiring requirements in Sec. 183.340 (K-Sec. 120.340), a

vessel would be expected to comply with the applicable requirements in

subchapters T or K.

U.S. regulations require all vessels carrying greater than 150

passengers to be of steel or equivalent metal construction, i.e.,

noncombustible. However, the DSC Code allows the use of other than

noncombustible materials provided the administration is satisfied that

additional precautions are taken to ensure that an equivalent level of

safety is achieved. Longstanding Coast Guard policy is that it is

difficult, if not impossible, to make structural vessel components

(such as hulls, bulkheads, and decks) of combustible materials (such as

fiber reinforced plastic (FRP)) equivalent to metal construction.

Therefore, DSC constructed of combustible materials have not been

allowed by the Coast Guard to operate in the U.S. carrying greater than

150 passengers.

Because of these changes the Coast Guard has deleted Sec. 176.116

and the specific construction, outfitting, and operational requirements

for DSC proposed throughout the NPRM. With the removal of specific DSC

requirements, it is not necessary to define the other terms associated

with DSC as proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, Sec. 175.400(c) has been

removed.

Submersible Passenger Vessels. The regulations proposed in the NPRM

did not specifically address the special considerations and operations

of submersible passenger vessels. One comment suggested adding

structural standards for submersibles. The Coast Guard disagrees.

Submersible passenger vessels are still considered novel and unique

vessels. As such, these vessels require individual attention and case

by case review and approval by the Commandant (G-MVI). At this time

there are approximately 7 submersibles certificated as small passenger

vessels which is a very small fraction of the small passenger vessel

fleet. A NVIC entitled ``Guidance for Certification of Passenger

Carrying Submersibles'' is being developed to explain Coast Guard

policy concerning the limited number of these unique vessels and their

operations.

Uninspected Vessels. Numerous comments were received expressing the

opinion that uninspected vessels, including uninspected passenger

vessels (i.e., those vessels carrying 6 or less passengers), vessels

operating under bareboat charters, commercial fishing vessels, and

recreational vessels, are less safe than small passenger vessels. These

comments opposed any further regulation of the small passenger vessel

industry and suggested that any new regulations should apply to

uninspected vessels. This opinion encompasses many complex and related

issues.

Vessels operating under invalid bareboat charters, or demise

charters, are subject to subchapter T, but have long been an

enforcement problem for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has determined

that it cannot legally regulate true bareboat chartered vessels under

subchapter T. Therefore, these proposed rules do not address bareboat

chartered vessels.

The Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act of 1988 (PL 100-

424) became law on 9 September 1988. The Act required the Coast Guard

to publish safety regulations, develop plans for licensing commercial

fishing industry vessel operators, and work with the Marine Board of

the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a safety study to determine

if fishing vessels require an inspection program. A final rule [CGD 88-

079] was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 1991 (56 FR

40364). The fishing vessel safety regulations are intended to improve

overall safety of commercial fishing industry vessels and are outside

the scope of this SNPRM.

The Coast Guard does not agree that recreational boating is an area

currently requiring increased regulation. Coast Guard statistics

indicate that the number of deaths and injuries resulting from

recreational boating incidents are decreasing. There are no plans to

promulgate more regulations. Furthermore, recreational boats are beyond

the scope of this rulemaking.

Existing Vessels

Parts 177 to 185 (K Parts 116 to 122) contain sections which

specify how the requirements in that part apply to existing vessels. An

existing vessel means any vessel other than a new vessel. Section

175.400 in the NPRM defined a new vessel as a vessel for which:

(1) The initial construction began on or after the date the

regulations would take effect;

(2) An initial Certificate of Inspection was issued six months

after the regulations would take effect;

(3) A major conversion was initiated on or after the date the

regulations would take effect;

(4) A major conversion was completed for which an amended

Certificate of Inspection was issued six months after the regulations

would take effect;

(5) Its authorized route was increased by the cognizant OCMI from a

route of lesser severity to a route of greater severity; or

(6) The maximum number of passengers it is permitted to carry was

increased to above certain specified capacities.

Generally, the NPRM proposed that all new and existing vessels meet

the revised inspection and operating requirements in parts 175, 176,

and 185. With some exceptions, only new vessels would have to meet the

construction and outfitting requirements proposed in parts 177 through

184. New equipment which is not installed to specifically replace

existing equipment would have to comply with the revised regulations.

Alterations to existing vessels would have to comply with the revised

regulations. Replacement of equipment in kind (i.e., with equipment

similar to that presently installed on the vessel) or replacement to

meet existing requirements applicable to the vessel before the revised

regulations take effect, need not meet the revised requirements, with

the exception of wiring. Repairs or replacement in kind would normally

have to meet the requirements in effect when the vessel was built.

However, the owner could choose to meet any revised requirements.

As specified in Sec. 180.15, existing vessels would have to meet

the survival craft and EPIRB requirements in the proposed rules within

specified time periods. As specified in Sec. 181.115, existing

fiberglass vessels would have to meet the requirements in Sec. 181.400

for fixed fire extinguishing and detecting systems. And as specified in

Sec. 184.115, certain existing vessels would have to meet the

requirements for public address systems and first aid kits within

specified time periods.

Numerous comments were received on the applicability of specific

proposed regulations to existing vessels. Those comments are discussed

in this preamble under the sections on existing vessels in each

applicable part, such as Sec. 177.115 or Sec. 178.115. The Coast

Guard's response to general comments on the effects of the regulations

proposed in the NPRM on existing vessels are discussed immediately

below.

Several comments stated that the sections in each part on

applicability to existing vessels need to be clarified. The Coast Guard

has revised those sections for clarification wherever possible. Several

comments suggested that the wording of the sections on existing vessels

do not clearly indicate that an owner has the option of complying with

the existing regulations or the revised regulations. The introductory

sentences of Secs. 177.115, 178.115, 179.115, 180.15, 181.115, 182.115,

and 183.115 (and the corresponding sections of subchapter K) have been

revised to more clearly indicate that, with only a few exceptions, a

vessel would have to meet the existing requirements or, as an

alternative, the revised requirements.

Numerous parties stated the requirements proposed in the NPRM would

have significant effects on existing vessels, because the vessels could

not be sold to new owners who want to upgrade the route of the vessel

or increase the passenger capacity without significant costs. Some

comments specifically proposed eliminating items (5) and (6) of the

``new vessel'' definition.

Existing vessels may be redesigned to increase passenger capacity

or to operate on routes for which the vessel was not originally

designed. The intention of the definition of ``new vessel'' in the NPRM

was to require existing vessels which upgraded their capacity or route

to comply with the new, more stringent requirements in the revised

regulations. Allowing such an upgrade for an existing vessel, with a

corresponding increase in risk, and only requiring compliance with the

regulations in effect at the time the vessel was originally

certificated would be unfair to owners of new vessels. However, the

Coast Guard agrees that the proposed definition of a ``new vessel'' in

the NPRM could unfairly affect existing vessels which may be

certificated for a lower passenger capacity or a less stringent route

than actually designed. Without making any major changes, the vessel

may be structurally adequate for a more severe route and meet the

existing requirements for greater passenger capacity. An owner may have

originally requested the lower capacity or less severe route for

equipment outfitting purposes or because the particular planned

operations of the vessel did not necessitate a larger capacity or more

severe route.

The Coast Guard is therefore proposing to change the definition of

``new vessel'' by deleting paragraphs (5) and (6) of the definition

contained in the NPRM which referred to increasing the route and

passenger capacity on the vessel's Certificate of Inspection (COI).

However, to ensure that unfair competition with new vessels does not

occur, the Coast Guard is also proposing in this SNPRM to revise the

definition of ``major conversion'' to include a conversion of a vessel

that substantially alters the design, scantlings, or arrangement so

that the vessel is capable of carrying more passengers, or suitable for

operation on a route of greater severity, than for which it was

originally built.

Some comments stated that existing vessels should always be

grandfathered regardless of changes in construction or arrangement. The

Coast Guard disagrees that existing vessels should always be

grandfathered. Because statistics show the risk of a casualty is

generally greater for an older vessel, the requirements proposed in

this SNPRM may be even more important for existing vessels. The

proposal in this SNPRM which could have the most significant effect on

existing vessels is the requirement for inflatable survival craft on

certain vessels. Because survival craft serve as the primary piece of

lifesaving equipment aboard a vessel, the Coast Guard believes that

existing vessels should comply with these proposed rules. The

installation of survival craft on existing vessels is further discussed

in this preamble under part 180.

The NPRM proposed that an increase in route severity would

necessitate compliance with the revised regulations. One comment stated

that the revised requirements should not be applied to a vessel if it

moves from one harbor to another harbor. Another comment stated that

route severity is not defined. Another comment requested that the Coast

Guard confirm that a vessel would not have to comply with the revised

requirements if the service of the vessel changes but only if the

severity of the route or the number of passengers increases.

These comments may have been made because of a lack of

understanding of the phrase ``route of greater severity'', which is now

proposed to be used in the definition of ``major conversion.'' As used

in this proposed definition, the term ``route'' only refers to a

general description of the bodies of water a vessel is permitted to

operate on, as endorsed on its COI. Routes include, from greater to

lesser severity: Oceans; coastwise; Great Lakes; lakes, bays, and

sounds; and rivers. Information on the ``routes'' a vessel is permitted

to operate on and a listing of the order of severity of routes is

contained in Sec. 176.110 (K-Sec. 115.110) of both the NPRM and this

SNPRM.

A vessel which has its specific area of operation changed from one

harbor to another would not normally have to comply with the proposed

requirements. Likewise, a vessel which only has its service changed

would not normally have to comply with the proposed requirements.

Service, as used in regards to the inspection of a small passenger

vessel, means the type of operation in which the vessel is employed,

i.e., dinner cruises; excursions, including tours, whale watching, or

regatta viewing; crew boats; or fishing. Of course, a change of service

may require that a vessel comply with some existing or even new

requirement specifically applicable to a vessel in the new service. For

example, certain watertight doors on a crew boat would have to be

removed or permanently sealed if the vessel changed its service.

As proposed in the NPRM, a vessel whose construction began prior to

the effective date of the final rule and which is not issued its

initial COI prior to six months after the effective date of the final

rule, would be considered to be a new vessel and would have to meet all

the revised regulations. One comment, representing the Sea Explorers,

indicated that an existing vessel which has not yet been certificated

should be grandfathered so that it would only have to meet the

presently existing requirements. The Coast Guard disagrees. Generally,

allowing such existing vessels to meet only the presently existing

requirements would provide an unfair advantage over vessels built after

the effective date of the new regulations. The MSM presently contains

policy on inspection requirements for Sea Explorer vessels which

consider their special operations.

As discussed under part 177 of this preamble, changes have been

made to the structural fire protection requirements which apply only to

vessels proposed to be regulated by the new subchapter K. The Coast

Guard anticipates that many existing vessels may want to make use of

the wider range of materials allowed for components such as bulkhead

and ceiling linings, and carpets. The increased use of fire retardant

materials, in lieu of present requirements for noncombustible

materials, was based in part on the increased fire protection and

detecting requirements in part 118. Owners of small passenger vessels

regulated by subchapter K which upgrade the interior furnishings and

finishings of their vessels, using the requirements of part 116, would

also be required to ensure their vessels meet the requirements of part

118.

Manning

The Coast Guard does not anticipate any revision to the present

manning requirements. The regulatory project (CGD 85-080a) to establish

new minimum manning requirements for small passenger vessels was

withdrawn in January 1990. However, as a result of National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendation M-89-111, in NTSB's

Safety Study of Passenger Vessels Operating from U.S. Ports (November

28, 1989), the Coast Guard plans to include damage stability, emergency

steering, and emergency procedures prior to and after grounding on the

examinations for master and mate of a small passenger vessel. Also as a

result of NTSB's recommendation, fire fighting systems, equipment and

regulations, and electronic navigation have been stressed on these

examinations.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990

The Coast Guard realizes that regulations which will be published

to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-

336--July 26, 1990) on ferries and other passenger vessels will impact

small passenger vessel design and operation. The Coast Guard will be

staying abreast of these requirements and will be providing input to

the projects.

Miscellaneous Comments

Several comments suggested the Coast Guard should work more closely

with industry to reach workable solutions while developing these

regulations and specifically stated that an advisory committee or panel

was needed for the small passenger vessel industry. The Coast Guard

recognizes that an advisory committee for the small passenger vessel

industry, similar to the Towing Safety Advisory Committee or the

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, would provide valuable

information, advice, and recommendations concerning the small passenger

vessel industry and the maritime field in general. The Coast Guard has

not been provided with funding or a legislative mandate to establish an

advisory committee for the small passenger vessel industry, and

therefore, does not intend to do so. Instead, the Coast Guard will

continue to work together with industry in an attempt to establish cost

effective safety requirements. It should be noted that the Coast Guard

has considered all comments in the docket and held six public hearings

because of its interest in working with the small passenger vessel

industry.

Several comments indicated that metric (SI) units were not

consistently used in the NPRM. This SNPRM makes some use of metric

equivalents. When the final rule is published, metric units will be

used, immediately followed by English units in parenthesis throughout

the regulations.

Several other comments pointed out that the NPRM did not have an

index, while existing subchapter T and other subchapters do have an

index. A useful index will be provided in the final rule.

Numerous comments were received stating that the Coast Guard

estimated costs for the drug testing regulations were much lower than

in actuality. Requirements for drug and alcohol testing of crew members

were published as a final rule in the Federal Register (53 FR 47064) of

November 21, 1988, entitled ``Programs for Chemical Drug and Alcohol

Testing of Commercial Vessel Personnel.'' All issues raised by the

comments to the subchapter T docket were addressed in that final rule

on drug testing and will not be addressed by this SNPRM.

One comment stated that the drug testing regulations should be

repeated in subchapter T. The requirements in the drug testing rule

were very complex and are presently centrally located in 46 CFR part 16

for applicability to all vessels. It is unnecessary to repeat them in

subchapter T.

Many comments were received concerning the use, abuse, and

elimination of tonnage measurement loopholes which allow the size and

capacity of vessels to be increased while remaining under 100 gross

tons. Some of these comments specifically mentioned adoption of the

International Tonnage Convention (ITC) or revision of the regulations

in 46 CFR part 69--Measurement of Vessels. Part 69 was rewritten and

the ITC was adopted as the primary tonnage measurement instrument of

the United States in a final rule published in the Federal Register (54

FR 37657) on 12 September 1989. Many of the other issues which were

raised concerning breakpoints for application of subchapter H are

addressed previously in this preamble, under the section on

Breakpoints.

One comment stated that the waters defined by a lakes, bays, and

sounds route needed to be clearly defined or eliminated. The Coast

Guard disagrees. The route categories which appear on a COI (oceans;

coastwise; Great Lakes; lakes, bays, and sounds; or, rivers) describe

geographical areas which dictate lifesaving and other outfitting needs.

Establishing firm criteria for categorizing ``lakes, bays, and sounds''

routes would be unrealistic due to the large number of variables

involved. Eliminating the route would place an undue burden on vessels

operating on what are generally considered inland waters because

current lakes, bays, and sounds routes would be generally reclassified

as coastwise.

The comment also stated that the definitions of oceans, coastwise,

Great Lakes, lakes, bays, and sounds, and rivers routes were inadequate

and confusing, and went on to suggest that the intact stability

criteria definitions for protected, partially protected, and exposed

waters should be harmonized with routes found on a COI. The terms

protected, partially protected, and exposed are used for stability

purposes to describe the sea conditions that a vessel might encounter.

While these conditions follow general geographical trends, this is not

always the case. For example, a sound is generally considered to be

partially protected but may be classified as exposed due to local

conditions. Geographic terms are occasionally used for stability

purposes, and parallel those used for vessel outfitting, with the

exception of oceans. For stability purposes, oceans includes coastwise.

(b) Specific Comments

46 CFR Subchapter S--Subdivision and Stability

Many of the comments received concerning subdivision and stability

requirements discussed the effects of the changes proposed in the NPRM,

or suggested additional changes, which would affect other classes of

vessels, such as passenger vessels of at least 100 gross tons and

offshore supply vessels. The Coast Guard Marine Technical and Hazardous

Materials Division is currently reviewing stability requirements for

all types of vessels under a project entitled ``General Revisions to

Stability Regulations'' [CGD 89-036]. The changes proposed in the NPRM

to some sections of subchapter S (Secs. 170.090, 170.170, 170.173,

171.050, 171.055, 171.070, 171.076, 171.077, and 171.080) are now being

evaluated under the stability revisions project so that the effect that

any proposed changes might have on other types of vessels can be

considered. Therefore, these proposed changes to subchapter S have been

removed from the small passenger vessel SNPRM. All comments received on

the applicable subchapter S sections will be considered in the

development of proposed rules under the stability revisions project.

The Coast Guard anticipates that an NPRM for the stability revisions

project will be published this year.

Since publishing the NPRM, the Coast Guard Marine Technical and

Hazardous Materials Division has also amended this subpart under a

project entitled ``Stability Design and Operational Regulations'' [CGD

89-037]. These amendments included requirements for stability

verification and logging, loading door closure and logging, hull

markings, periodic lightship verification, and residual stability for

new passenger vessels. These changes were published in a final rule on

September 11, 1992, and except for the periodic lightship verification

requirements, were effective on December 10, 1992. The effective date

of the lightship verification requirements was indefinitely suspended,

and is not included in this SNPRM. A comment period was reopened

relative to these requirements, with revised amendments due to be

published in the near future. The remaining amendments have been

incorporated into the SNPRM.

Part 170--Stability Requirements for All Inspected Vessels

One comment proposed that naval architects be allowed to review and

certify a vessel's stability as an alternative to Coast Guard review.

The Coast Guard disagrees with this proposal. Because of the importance

of small passenger vessel stability and subdivision, the Coast Guard

has not delegated this function to any classification society or other

party. No change was made to the NPRM.

One comment suggested that when evaluating damaged stability, it is

inappropriate to limit the maximum draft based on floodable length.

Floodable length calculations only need to be done at the same draft

and trim as damaged stability and it is often a less severe criteria

than damaged stability requirements. No changes were made to the NPRM.

Section 170.050 General Terms

One comment suggested amending the definition of ``partially

protected waters'' to be the same as in proposed Sec. 175.400. The

Coast Guard has determined that since this change would affect vessels

other than small passenger vessels, implementing the suggestion would

go beyond the scope of this project. No change was made to the NPRM.

Section 170.055 Definitions Concerning a Vessel

The proposed rule would allow the Marine Safety Center (MSC) to

include underwater projections in the value of ``length between

perpendiculars (LBP)'' to make the application of stability criteria

better reflect the buoyancy distribution of a vessel. One comment

suggested using a new term to describe the length of a vessel that

would include large underwater projections, rather than modifying the

definition of LBP. The Coast Guard disagrees because another definition

for length would make the regulations more complicated. The use of the

term LBP within subchapter S, in sections applicable to small passenger

vessels, is sufficient to determine volumes subject to flooding. In

these cases, a modified definition of LBP should not create confusion.

The proposed definition of a ``small passenger vessel'' eliminates

those vessels carrying six or less passengers and came from the law (46

U.S.C. 2101(35)). One comment suggested that due to this definition,

all small passenger vessels would have to comply with part 170 on

stability, and that this would require even small passenger vessels of

not more than 65 feet in length to have inclining and hydrostatic

curves drawn by a naval architect. This is not true. Proposed

Sec. 178.310 permits an owner of a vessel, with only a limited

knowledge of stability, to perform a simplified stability proof test,

which can be conducted under the supervision of the Coast Guard. The

cognizant OCMI has the discretion to determine that certain vessels

carrying not more than 49 passengers are not required to undergo this

test. Section 178.310 also specifically identifies which vessels must

meet subchapter S criteria and which sections are applicable. No

changes were made to the NPRM.

Section 170.255 Class 1 Doors; Permissible Locations

This section of the existing regulations contains requirements for

Class 1 watertight doors. In the NPRM, no changes to the existing

regulations were proposed. Requirements for watertight doors on small

passenger vessels were proposed in Sec. 179.330 of the NPRM. One

comment suggested current policy on watertight doors should be included

in existing Sec. 170.255 and that the requirement for an open/closed

indicator in existing Sec. 170.255(e) should apply to class 2 and 3

doors as well. The Coast Guard disagrees. Current policy is being

included in proposed Sec. 179.330, which applies existing Sec. 170.255

to small passenger vessels. Remote indicators are already required for

class 2 and class 3 doors by existing Sec. 170.270(d). No change has

been made to the NPRM.

Part 171--Special Rules Pertaining to Vessels Carrying Passengers

Section 171.010 Definitions

One comment suggested amending the definition of ``ferry'' in

Sec. 171.010(d) to be the same as Sec. 175.400 of the proposed rule.

The proposed rules defined ``ferry'' in Sec. 175.400, using the

definition in existing Sec. 175.10-9, except that the clause ``having

provisions only for deck passengers and/or vehicles'' was inadvertently

left out. The Coast Guard agrees that definitions should be consistent,

if possible. ``Ferry'' is also defined in 46 CFR subchapter H,

``Passenger Vessels'', which uses the same definition as existing

subchapter T. The definition of ferry in Sec. 175.400 has been changed

to what it is in the existing regulation and is now consistent with

subchapter H. The definition of ferry in Sec. 171.010(d) has been

changed to be consistent with the other subchapters by changing the

wording concerning routes in (d)(1) and adding the phrase ``short

runs'' to (d)(3). It is of particular importance to note that the only

passengers allowed on ferries are ``deck passengers.'' The term deck

passenger generally refers to a passenger for whom no berthing or other

accommodation is provided, other than the freedom to occupy allotted

deck space, as opposed to cabin passengers. Deck passage is usually

limited to short voyages. Berthing is important for stability because

berthed passengers sleep in closed compartments. The standard of

subdivision for a ferry is much less than that applicable to other

passenger vessels. This trade-off demands much less risk, in the form

of awake and alert passengers and easy escape routes.

Section 171.035 Intact Stability Requirements for a Sailing Vessel or

an Auxiliary Sailing Vessel

The proposed rule would have deleted Sec. 171.035, removing the

provisions for a simple proof test for initial stability, taking the

position that a simplified analysis of the intact stability was not

sufficient for sailing vessels. This would have required the stability

of all sailing vessels to be analyzed with the procedures applicable to

larger sailing vessels. Four comments expressed reservations with the

complete elimination of Sec. 171.035, and questioned if it was intended

to subject all sail and auxiliary sail vessels to the requirements for

large sail vessels, including inclining experiments.

Since the NPRM was published, the Coast Guard has performed a

stability study on sailboats of not more than 65 feet in length. The

results showed that the simplified proof test is sufficient for typical

arrangements (decked vessels with a cockpit no longer than 0.2L), and

ensures a level of safety similar to a more formal analysis, provided

downflooding openings are well inboard. Therefore, the requirements in

existing Sec. 171.035 have been retained, but placed in new

Sec. 178.325.

Section 178.325 contains revised descriptions of hull forms for

which the simplified evaluation procedures are not sufficient to ensure

that small vessels are stable. The inclusion of this section was most

easily and logically made by making some changes and additions

concerning sail and auxiliary sail vessels to proposed Secs. 178.310

(a) and (b)(2), and inserting a new Sec. 178.330(e) concerning

applicability and procedures for simplified stability proof tests. The

term ``self-bailing cockpit'', which is used in proposed

Sec. 178.325(d) of this SNPRM, is defined in proposed Sec. 175.400.

Proposed Sec. 171.045(f), which would have required all small passenger

vessels which are sailing vessels to meet large vessel stability

criteria, has been removed.

Section 171.057 Intact Stability Requirements for a Sailing Catamaran

The proposed rules did not address Sec. 171.057. One comment

suggested modifying the required heeling moment to account for sail

rigs which have a headsail that goes only part way up the mast. The

Coast Guard agrees. Recent advances in the design of catamaran mast and

sail arrangements have resulted in designs which are unduly penalized

because they have a higher than normal mast and use sails that do not

go all the way to the masthead. The formulas in this section have been

modified to use the height of the center-of-effort of the sail plan

rather than the height of the mast. This approach is more realistic

than using a height coefficient and more in keeping with the

requirements for monohull sailing vessels.

Section 171.085 Collision Bulkhead

The proposed rules did not address the requirements for collision

bulkheads in existing Sec. 171.085. One comment suggested that

paragraphs (c), (d), and (j) of Sec. 171.085 are incompatible and

confusing. The Coast Guard agrees that numerous problems interpreting

this regulation have been experienced. The Coast Guard Marine Technical

and Hazardous Materials Division is currently considering changes to

clarify this section as part of a regulation project entitled ``General

Revisions to Stability Regulations'' (CGD 89-036) that will update and

correct subchapter S in general. An NPRM is expected to be published in

the future.

46 CFR Subchapter T

Part 175--General Provisions

Section 175.110 General Applicability

One comment requested that existing Table 175.05-1(a) be updated

since it provides a convenient means of determining which inspection

subchapters regulate each type of vessel. The Coast Guard's position is

that it is not necessary to include the detailed applicability table in

the revised subchapter T since proposed Sec. 175.110 is sufficiently

clear as to which vessels must comply with subchapter T, and because

Table 2.01-7(a) in 46 CFR Part 2, Vessel Inspection, can be used as the

entry table to initially determine the inspection subchapter which

applies to the various vessel types. Removal of the table from part 175

will simplify the part and reduce volume.

One comment stated that subchapter T should apply to towboats which

are permanently or semi-permanently attached to passenger barges since

such boats often provide all vital systems for the barge. The Coast

Guard has recently decided that the towing vessel portion of an

integrated tug/barge combination in passenger service is not subject to

inspection as a passenger vessel, unless passengers are allowed aboard

the attending towing vessel. The barge itself is inspected as a non-

self-propelled passenger barge, and should have all required emergency

equipment on board, including, but not limited to, the emergency source

of power and all lifesaving and firefighting equipment.

One comment stated the terms ``laid up, dismantled, or out of

commission'', as used in Sec. 175.110(b)(2) of the NPRM, should be

defined. These terms are commonly used in industry and the regulations

and do not need to be defined. However, Sec. 175.110(b)(2) has been

deleted because it is not necessary for the determination of whether a

vessel must comply with the small passenger vessel regulations.

Section 175.122 Load Lines

This section identifies which vessels must comply with the load

line regulations in 46 CFR subchapter E. This section is provided for

the convenience of the reader since subchapter E contains a separate

applicability section. The wording of this section is almost identical

to that in existing Sec. 175.07-1.

One comment stated the section does not correspond to 46 U.S.C.

5102 (Load Lines--Application) in that it fails to address the

applicability of load lines for certain vessels in domestic service.

Since subchapter T is only concerned with small passenger vessels, this

section only addresses load line requirements for small passenger

vessels. Small passenger vessels on domestic voyages are specifically

excluded from load line requirements by 46 U.S.C. 5102(b)(11). One

comment asked if the Coast Guard was dropping the 100 ton limit for

load lines and using length instead. The only breakpoint applicable to

small passenger vessels for load lines is 79 feet. The only use of

tonnage as a breakpoint under the load line law is that existing

vessels of not more than 150 gross tons on domestic voyages need not

comply with the applicable requirements. Since all small passenger

vessels are under 100 gross tons, there is no need to address the

tonnage of vessels in Sec. 175.122.

The proposed rule uses the words ``foreign voyage'' instead of

``international voyages'' which is used in existing Sec. 175.07-1.

``Foreign voyage'' is used since that term is used in 46 U.S.C. 5102.

In response to two comments questioning the definitions of foreign

voyage and international voyage, the proposed wording was changed to

use the wording ``voyage other than a domestic voyage'' to more closely

mirror the law. The law defines domestic voyage as movement of a vessel

between places in, or subject to, the jurisdiction of the U.S., except

movements involving certain territories, possessions, and Trust

Territories. One comment stated that certain vessels will make foreign

voyages but not international voyages in order to avoid load line

regulations. Under the above definition, any small passenger vessel of

more than 79 feet in length, not on a domestic voyage, is required to

comply with the load line requirements. The Coast Guard Marine

Technical and Hazardous Materials Division is currently considering

changes to these definitions under a project entitled ``Comprehensive

Revision of Load Line Regulations'' (CGD 86-013). An NPRM is scheduled

to be published at a later date.

One comment suggested referring specifically to part 46 of

subchapter E in the section. However, since other parts of the

subchapter can also be applicable, the Coast Guard did not adopt this

recommendation. Another comment suggested that a provision should be

included for exemptions from certain load line requirements under

certain circumstances. This is not necessary since there are already

specific provisions for exemptions within subchapter E. Since few small

passenger vessels will have to comply with load line requirements,

there is no need to include detailed requirements and exemption

procedures in this rulemaking.

One comment suggested allowing the use of cargo vessel load lines

and certificates for small passenger vessels over 79 feet in length, to

facilitate international movement while carrying 12 or less passengers.

The Coast Guard disagrees. Passenger vessels require a subdivision load

line. Only cargo vessels, that is, those vessels which are inspected

under subchapter I, Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels, and which meet all

applicable international standards for cargo vessels, including load

line requirements, can carry 12 or less passengers on international

voyages with a cargo vessel load line.

Section 175.200 Gross Tonnage as Criterion for Requirements

This section in the NPRM, adopted from existing Sec. 175.05-15,

states that regulations in addition to or in place of those in

subchapter T may be prescribed if the Commandant determines that a

small passenger vessel, which has measured under 100 gross tons only

because of extensive use of exemptions, reductions, or other devices in

the gross tonnage formulation, may be subjected to safety hazards or

risks that regulations in subchapter T do not adequately address.

The Coast Guard received many comments on this section. Most

comments generally opposed the provision or wanted it to be more

specific in regards to additional requirements that might be imposed.

As previously discussed in the section of this preamble on Breakpoints,

the Coast Guard is proposing to create a new subchapter K and to adopt

upper limit breakpoints above which vessels would have to comply with

most of the requirements applicable to passenger vessels of at least

100 gross tons (subchapter H). This breakpoint scheme moves away from

using gross tonnage as the primary factor in determining applicability

of the regulations and should control the continued escalating use of

tonnage innovations to stay under 100 gross tons. By proposing the

adoption of this breakpoint scheme, the Coast Guard is making the

determination that gross tonnage is not a valid criterion for certain

vessels, and that passenger capacity or length are the preferred

criteria. Because of this determination, this section has been deleted

from proposed subchapter K as unnecessary, but has been left in

proposed subchapter T.

Section 175.400 Definitions

This section of the SNPRM revises and expands upon existing

Sec. 175.10. Numerous comments were made on this section giving support

for centrally locating the definitions, asking for further

clarification of already defined words, and asking for additional

definitions. Generally, words or terms which, based on Coast Guard

experience, may require interpretation have been defined in

Sec. 175.400, except that a word that is used only within one section

in the subchapter may be defined within that section.

Auxiliary sailing vessel. One comment suggested adding the

definition of an auxiliary sailing vessel. Since there are no

requirements in this SNPRM for a sailing vessel with auxiliary power

(an auxiliary sailing vessel) that do not also apply to a sailing

vessel, the term ``auxiliary sailing vessel'' is not used in the

proposed regulations.

Cargo space. One comment stated that ``cargo oil tank'' and

``product or chemical tank'' should be deleted from the definition of

cargo space since their inclusion wrongly indicates that a small

passenger vessel can carry such cargo in integral tanks. The Coast

Guard agrees and the noted terms have been deleted.

Coastwise. One comment stated that ``coastwise'' is not defined as

it is used in 43 U.S.C. 1333 and in 46 CFR 46.05-15. ``Coastwise'' is

defined in 43 U.S.C. 1333 for the purposes of U.S. Customs laws, and is

defined in 46 CFR 46.05-15 for load lines purposes. Prior to the

recodification of 46 U.S.C., the load line law referred to

``coastwise.'' Chapter 51 of 46 U.S.C. now uses the term ``domestic

voyage.'' The definition of coastwise used in the NPRM is the

definition which has been traditionally used in all vessel inspection

subchapters. To change the definition of coastwise used in all

inspection subchapters would not be beneficial.

Commandant. One comment expressed concern that under the proposed

definition, a marine inspector could be considered an authorized

representative of the Commandant. As such, the chain of appeal could be

compromised. The Coast Guard agrees and proposes to revise the

definition to include only authorized Coast Guard headquarters staff

officials.

Corrosion-resistant material. One comment stated that brass should

not be labeled ``corrosion resistant.'' One comment stated that

stainless steel and monel should be included as ``corrosion

resistant.'' Certain grades of brass are more prone to zinc

deterioration than other grades. For example, a naval brass installed

in a salt water system will provide better service than a lesser grade

of brass intended for a lighter duty service. Some grades of stainless

steel and nickel-copper (monel) are considered corrosion resistant in

marine environments. The NPRM rule has been changed to clarify the

meaning of corrosion resistant.

Draft. One comment suggested defining draft from the bottom of the

keel rather than the molded baseline, noting that other subchapters use

the bottom of the keel as a reference. The Coast Guard disagrees. With

one exception, the use of ``draft'' in this subchapter is for the

purpose of describing the buoyant hull in stability calculations, not

the depth of a vessel below the waterline or the underbottom clearance.

For these purposes, on most small vessels, the molded baseline is a

better indicator than the bottom of the keel, especially for vessels

with large skegs and keels. The exception is for the draft marks

required by Sec. 185.602. No change has been made to the NPRM.

Freeing port. One comment suggested adding ``from exposed decks''

between ``water'' and ``overboard'' in the proposed definition of

freeing ports. The Coast Guard agrees this would clarify the

definition. The proposed rule has been revised with minor additional

changes made to clarify the definition.

Great Lakes. One comment suggested revising the definition of Great

Lakes to be consistent with that found in 46 CFR 10.103 in order to

avoid confusion. Generally, 46 CFR Part 10 deals with the requirements

for licensing of Merchant Marine Officers. The definition in proposed

Sec. 175.400 is used for stability concerns and lifesaving equipment

requirements, which are independent of 46 CFR 10.103. Although the

Coast Guard agrees with the concept of consistent definitions, adopting

the Part 10 definition would require some vessels operating on the

tributary rivers to meet the higher standards of Great Lakes routes,

rather than rivers routes. No change has been made to the NPRM.

Harbor of Safe Refuge. The term ``harbor of safe refuge'' is used

in Secs. 170.170, 175.400, 175.530, 176.110, 180.15, and 180.75 of the

NPRM. The primary purpose of using the term is to allow reduced

stability criteria and an exemption from certain lifesaving equipment

for a vessel which is able to travel in a short time to a location

accessible to the vessel and where it would be sheltered from a rapidly

developing storm which is not forecasted in sufficient time for safe

trip-planning. Using local knowledge and information in sources such as

Coast Pilots and charts, the OCMI must determine the acceptability of

the location of a ``harbor of safe refuge'' on a vessel-by-vessel

basis. This determination normally depends on the vessel's size and

evidence that a harbor, port, or anchorage provides satisfactory

shelter.

Several comments requested that the term ``harbor of safe refuge''

be defined to ensure consistent application of the term. The Coast

Guard agrees and has proposed a definition in Sec. 175.400 in this

SNPRM.

International voyage. The proposed definition in the NPRM for

``international voyage'' is based on the provisions of existing subpart

176.35. Two comments stated that paragraphs (2) and (3) of the

definition, which includes voyages between the continental United

States and Alaska or Hawaii, or between Alaska and Hawaii, should be

deleted since their inclusion is unfair to vessels in such service and

the provisions serve no practical purposes. The inclusion of such

voyages as international voyages basically requires any vessel on a

trip between the U.S. mainland and Alaska or Hawaii, or both, to comply

with SOLAS. Existing subpart 176.35 was first promulgated when

provisions of SOLAS 1960 were incorporated into subchapter T in 1965.

Voyages from the U.S. mainland to and between Alaska and Hawaii were

designated as international voyages in all the vessel subchapters (D,

H, I, T) because, when promulgated, it was believed that such voyages

were similar in nature to ``international voyages'' and for safety

reasons the increased standards of SOLAS were needed for vessels on

such routes.

The Coast Guard agrees that in many cases it may be unnecessary and

inequitable for small passenger vessels on voyages listed in paragraphs

(2) and (3) of the ``international voyage'' definition to be required

to comply with SOLAS. Under the existing regulations a small passenger

vessel can make a voyage from Ketchikan, Alaska to Anchorage, Alaska

without having to comply with SOLAS, but the same vessel would have to

comply with SOLAS for the shorter, probably safer voyage from Seattle,

Washington to Ketchikan. Additionally, under the proposed regulations,

a small passenger vessel making the subject voyages would need

inflatable survival crafts regardless of SOLAS. One of the primary

reasons for previously requiring vessels on the subject voyages to

comply with SOLAS was due to the more stringent lifesaving equipment

standards of SOLAS. If adopted, the revised regulations would increase

the safety equipment required for vessels, including both inflatable

survival craft and fixed fire extinguishing systems, regardless of

their need to comply with SOLAS requirements. Therefore, in this SNPRM

the Coast Guard is revising the definition of an international voyage

to be a voyage to or from a country which is party to SOLAS.

Large. Several comments expressed concern about the use of the word

``large'' in the NPRM and wanted it defined. The primary concern such

persons have is when ``large'' is used as an adjective for ``vessels.''

In the preamble for the NPRM, the terms ``large vessels'' or ``very

large small passenger vessels'' are generally used to describe vessels

which are bigger than the size of boats which subchapter T was

originally intended to regulate. The word ``large'' is never used in

connection with the size of a vessel within the actual regulations in

the NPRM or this SNPRM. When separate regulations are proposed for

vessels of different sizes, the specific parameters are described such

as ``a vessel of not more than 65 feet in length with overnight

accommodations for more than 49 passengers.'' The word ``large'' was

used as little as possible throughout this preamble, and when used its

meaning is clear within the context of that sentence or paragraph.

``Large'' has not been defined.

Length. The NPRM defines ``length'' similar to the definition in

the existing regulations except it is more detailed, describes some

specific exclusions, and provides a separate definition for subdivision

requirements of a vessel with a ``bulbous bow.'' Several comments were

submitted on the definition, including requests to be more specific,

simplify it, or to redefine it as the ``registered length'' used for

tonnage measurement purposes.

The Coast Guard agrees that the use of ``registered length'' would

provide the simplest, most concise measurement for those requirements

whose applicability is based on length. Prior to the passage of Pubic

Law 96-378, small passenger vessels were divided into two categories

using an overall length of 65 feet as the breakpoint, primarily due to

an existing definition of ``motorboat'' based on length overall. With

the current absence of any length criteria in the small passenger

vessel law, there is no statutory reason to retain the traditional

definition of length.

The registered length of all vessels required to have a Certificate

of Documentation is placed in the length block of the Certificate of

Documentation. The length ``over the deck'', measured from end to end

excluding sheer, as defined in Sec. 175.10-19, is presently used to

determine applicable requirements for small passenger vessels. It is

the registered length which is automatically recorded by the MSIS on

the COI of an inspected vessel. Under the provisions of 46 CFR part 69

(Measurement of Vessels), which was revised on September 12, 1989 (54

FR 37652), the registered length of a vessel which has an overall

length under 79 feet and which is measured using simplified

admeasurement, is the overall length defined in 46 CFR 69.203 as the

horizontal distance between the outboard side of the foremost part of

the stem and the outboard side of the aftermost part of the stern,

excluding rudders, outboard motor brackets, and other similar fittings

and attachments. The definition of the registered length for other

vessels was adopted from the International Tonnage Convention and is

defined in 46 CFR 69.53 as the greatest of either: (1) 96 percent of

the length of the vessel on a waterline at 85 percent of the last

molded depth; or (2) the length of the vessel from the fore side of the

stem to the center axis of the rudder stock on that same waterline.

These definitions of length are illustrated in the diagram below.

BILLING CODE 4910-14-P

TP13JA94.000

BILLING CODE 4910-14-C

Vessels which are not issued a Certificate of Documentation under

46 CFR part 69 are normally required to have a Certificate of Number

under the provisions of 33 CFR part 173, issued either by the Coast

Guard or a State. The length of a vessel, which is defined in 33 CFR

183.3, is recorded on the Certificate of Number. ``Length'' as defined

in 33 CFR 183.3 is, for all practical purposes, the same as the

``overall length'' defined in 46 CFR 69.203.

The Coast Guard has revised the definition of ``length'' in

Sec. 175.400 of this SNPRM to be the length listed on a vessel's

Certificate of Documentation or Certificate of Number. This proposal

will make it easier for owners and inspectors to determine the length

for vessel inspection requirements. The definition of ``length'' in

subchapters T and K would be consistent with registered length used for

measurement and documentation purposes, and with length as used for

other vessel inspection and load line requirements.

In making this change to the definition of ``length'', the Coast

Guard realizes that some vessels which measure greater than 65 feet in

length using the existing definition might measure less than 65 feet

using the proposed definition. However, the requirements in this SNPRM

which use 65 feet as a breakpoint are not so critical to safety that a

few feet in length will make a difference. The increased use of

passenger capacity as a breakpoint and the separation between

subchapters T and K helps to limit the apparent lessening of any safety

threshold. The Coast Guard solicits additional comments on this

proposed definition of ``length''.

Length between perpendiculars (LBP). One comment suggested changing

the definition of LBP to be the same as in 46 CFR 42.13-15(a), which is

dependent on the molded depth rather than the draft. This would make

requirements which are dependent on the definition of LBP independent

of the draft. The Coast Guard disagrees. Small passenger vessels

usually have a restricted range of drafts during normal operating

conditions, which remains fairly constant for the life of the vessel.

No change has been made to the NPRM.

Machinery space. Four comments stated that this definition is too

broad because it includes equipment such as oil fired heaters, air

conditioners, compressors, and small motors over 10 hp, and that a

literal interpretation of the proposal would possibly require overly

stringent requirements for spaces with such units. The comments

requested specific requirements because the risk is not the same for

all included spaces. The Coast Guard disagrees and thinks most OCMI's

and marine inspectors will reasonably interpret this and all other

regulations. If an owner or operator thinks they are being overburdened

by the unreasonable interpretation or application of regulations they

can appeal under Sec. 175.540 [K-Sec. 114.540]. No change has been made

to the NPRM.

Oceans. One comment suggested that the Great Lakes be included in

the definition of ``oceans'' based on a perceived similarity in hazard

levels. The Coast Guard disagrees that operating environments on oceans

and Great Lakes routes are similar. No change has been made to the

NPRM.

Operating Station. One comment stated that the definition of

``operating station'' in the NPRM implies that a licensed individual

must actually serve as the helmsman of the vessel. Proposed

Sec. 185.304 does indicate that the movement of the vessel must be

under the direction and control of a licensed individual at all times,

although an unlicensed individual may actually be at the helm

physically steering the vessel. However, the Coast Guard agrees that

the definition of ``operating station'' could be interpreted to require

the licensed individual to serve as the helmsman. Since this is not the

intent, the proposed definition is revised in this SNPRM by deleting

the reference to ``licensed'' individual.

Overnight Accommodations. The terms ``overnight accommodations'' or

``overnight accommodation space'' were defined in the NPRM to ensure

consistent application of the requirements where the terms are used,

including in parts 177, 181, and 185. Two comments recommended that the

term ``berthing area'' be used instead of ``overnight accommodations.''

The Coast Guard disagrees. The term ``overnight accommodations'' was

adopted from NVIC 11-83 and is commonly used. ``Overnight'' modifies

``accommodation space'' which is defined separately in Sec. 175.400 and

which is commonly used throughout the inspection regulations.

One comment stated that the last sentence of the proposed

definition in the NPRM concerning seats contains a contradiction. This

sentence has been shortened and clarified in this SNPRM.

Some comments expressed the concern that the definition of

``overnight accommodations'' in Sec. 175.400 would adversely affect

fishing party vessels or headboats. Some of these vessels leave at 10

P.M. or midnight and passengers sleep in their seats while the vessels

are underway to their fishing spots. The definition of ``overnight

accommodations'' in this SNPRM specifically allows this practice.

Pontoon boats. One comment suggested adding the definition of a

pontoon boat to this section. The Coast Guard disagrees because the

term ``pontoon boat'' is well understood and sketches of a typical

pontoon vessel are located in proposed Sec. 178.340. No change has been

made to the NPRM.

Sailing vessel. One comment suggested deleting the word

``principally'' from the definition of sailing vessel since it might be

argued that sails of sail-assisted vessels are not the principal means

used to propel the vessel. The Coast Guard disagrees because the issue

is the difference between vessels intended to be normally powered by

sail and those normally powered by mechanical means, a distinction

which is normally quite clear with small passenger vessels. A small

passenger vessel is either a motor vessel, or a sailing vessel (which

includes a sailing vessel with an auxiliary engine), and cannot be a

motor vessel with auxiliary sails, as is the case with some recent

innovations on large cargo ships trying to reduce costs. Subchapter S

will still define and use the term ``auxiliary sailing vessel'' for

specifying requirements for vessels to which Subchapter S applies. No

change has been made to the NPRM.

Scupper. Although no comment was received concerning the definition

of a scupper, it was modified to more clearly differentiate it from a

freeing port. A scupper is a drain opening in a deck, whereas a freeing

port is an opening in the sideshell or hull of a vessel.

Switchboard. One comment stated that the definition of

``switchboard'' should be clarified. The Coast Guard does not agree.

The definition for switchboard in Sec. 175.400 is accepted as the

national standard found in ANSI/IEEE Standard 100-1977.

Weathertight. One comment stated that, in the definition of this

term, the phrase ``into the unit'' can be deleted without changing the

intent. The term ``weathertight'' can apply to a machinery component,

or a compartment or closure aboard a vessel. The phrase ``into the

unit'' does not necessarily clarify the definition and has been

deleted. The intent of the regulation does not change.

Well deck. One comment suggested modifying the definition of well

deck to describe an exposed recess in the weather deck with sides which

are not common with the sideshell. The Coast Guard disagrees. Whether

the sides of the recess are common with the sideshell (in which case

they are bulwarks) or not, does not affect the concept of a well deck.

No change has been made to the NPRM.

Section 175.500 Conduct of an Inspection for Certification

This section in the NPRM is almost identical to existing

Sec. 175.20-1 and discusses the time, place, and persons present during

an inspection. One comment stated that this section should be moved to

Part 176, Inspection for Certification. The Coast Guard agrees and

proposes in this SNPRM to move the contents of paragraphs (a) and (b)

of Sec. 175.500 to new paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec. 176.400.

Section 175.510 Notice of Deficiencies and Requirements

The wording of this section is basically identical to existing

Sec. 175.20-5 and discusses procedures for a marine inspector to point

out deficiencies to the owner of a vessel. Two comments stated that,

for consistency, the parties listed in Secs. 175.500 and 175.510 as

being responsible for arranging and being present at inspections and

for receiving notification of outstanding inspection deficiencies

should be the same. The Coast Guard agrees and has revised paragraphs

(a) and (b) of both sections in this SNPRM by listing the responsible

parties as ``the owner, managing operator, or a representative

thereof.''

One comment stated that this section should be in subpart D of part

176. The Coast Guard agrees that it would be more appropriate for the

section to be in part 176, which contains specific inspection

requirements, but is proposing in this SNPRM to move it to subpart H of

part 176, which discusses inspection standards and requirements for all

types of inspections, whereas subpart D specifically addresses

inspections for certification.

Section 175.530 Alternative Standards

One comment stated that the equivalencies allowed by the NPRM for

DSC's should also be allowed for other small passenger vessels. In

fact, Sec. 175.530, Alternative standards, in the NPRM specifically

stated that the owner of a vessel which does not meet the definition of

a DSC may request that the vessel be certificated under the regulations

applicable to DSC providing the vessel complies with the same

operational restrictions imposed on DSC. The NTSB stated that a vessel

which is not a DSC should not be allowed to comply with the DSC

requirements, especially reduced structural fire protection

requirements, since it would represent an unjustified, increased risk

for passengers. In consideration of the changes proposed to the

regulations affecting DSC, discussed in this preamble in the section on

``Specific Vessel Types,'' the Coast Guard has not included

Sec. 175.530 in this revised SNPRM. However, under both existing

Sec. 175.15-1 or proposed Sec. 175.540(a), any owner may request that

the Commandant accept in substitution for a required arrangement,

fitting, appliance, apparatus, equipment, calculation, information, or

test an equivalent that is as effective as that required by the

regulations and is consistent with the intent of and the minimum safety

standards specified in the regulations.

Section 175.540 Equivalents

As in the existing Sec. 175.15-1, this section would allow the

Commandant to accept substitutes for an arrangement, or items such as a

fitting or piece of equipment, required by specific regulation.

Numerous comments stated that the OCMI should have the authority to

grant equivalencies (at least to some degree), waive requirements under

special circumstances, or evaluate and adjust applicable rules to make

each vessel safer. These comments stated that the process of the

Commandant granting an equivalency may be too slow and cumbersome, and

might prevent adjustments for the uniqueness of operations in various

areas. The Coast Guard's position is that the Commandant should

normally remain responsible for the granting of equivalencies,

primarily to ensure more consistent application and interpretation of

the regulations. Section 175.550 authorizes the OCMI to grant limited

equivalencies under special circumstances. The Commandant's review of

equivalency requests may be occasionally delayed due to a backlog of

work, but if requests are properly documented and justified by the

owner, and submitted during the normal plan review process, requests

for equivalencies can normally be acted upon by the Commandant before

the review of all the vessel's plans are complete.

Section 175.550 Special Consideration

As presently allowed by existing Sec. 175.25-1, this proposed

section would allow the OCMI to grant equivalencies but only in unusual

cases when compliance with a specific regulation is not practicable.

Such special equivalencies would only be valid within the zone of the

OCMI who granted the equivalency. One comment stated that the authority

granted to the OCMI by this section contradicts those sections which

restrict equivalency authority to the Commandant. The comment stated

that the OCMI should have full equivalency authority in all cases. The

Coast Guard disagrees. This provision has been retained for those

unusual cases where it may be necessary for the local OCMI to have the

discretion to act. However, one of the primary purposes of this

revision is to reduce the inconsistent application of the regulations

among marine inspection zones. This is especially important with the

large number of vessels moving from zone to zone or being built in one

zone for operation in another zone. Therefore, it is necessary that the

Commandant retain the general equivalency authority contained in

Sec. 175.540.

Several comments stated that equivalent arrangements or departures

from regulatory requirements allowed in one zone should be accepted in

any other zone. The Coast Guard disagrees. This would increase the

inconsistent application of the regulations from one zone to the next,

rather than decrease it. An arrangement which might be safe in one

port, zone or geographic area may not be safe in another. If an owner

or operator thinks that a vessel will be operating in more than one

zone during its life, he or she should apply to Commandant for an

equivalency determination, rather than to the OCMI for special

consideration.

Another comment recommended that any special consideration allowed

under this section should be endorsed on the COI. The Coast Guard

agrees that this is necessary for both the owner's and Coast Guard's

information. Section 176.103 has been revised in this SNPRM by

requiring that equivalencies be recorded on the COI.

Section 175.600 Incorporation by Reference

This section of the proposed rules lists industrial and government

standards, that are incorporated into subchapter T by reference, as the

governing requirements for certain subject matters. The standards are

cited within specific sections throughout the subchapter dependent on

the subject matter. Section 175.600 is provided in accordance with

Federal Register procedures and lists all incorporations by reference

throughout the subchapter including an address from which an interested

person could receive a copy of a particular standard. Use of standards

reduces cost to the Coast Guard and industry by decreasing

repetitiveness, and making product specifications common throughout

industry. Use of standards also increases the quality and safety of

products and systems.

One comment stated that the large number of references incorporated

in the NPRM made the proposal too complex and that most owners do not

hold the required references. The Coast Guard disagrees that

incorporating references will make the regulations too complex.

Incorporating by reference actually reduces the volume of necessary

regulations. Most references specify standards which must be complied

with during construction. Therefore, providing the vessel is maintained

as originally constructed, normally only builders need to have copies

of the applicable references. Standard 302 of the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) and some American Boat and Yacht Council

(ABYC) projects do contain some operational practices.

The proposed incorporation of the standards listed in Sec. 175.600

[K-Sec. 114.600] complies with the Office of Management and Budget's

Circular 119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of

Voluntary Standards,'' which requires the Coast Guard's participation

in the development and use of voluntary standards. Further information

on the incorporation of standards is contained in a final rule on the

``Incorporation and Adoption of Industry Standards'' (CGD 88-032)

published in the Federal Register on 29 July 1991 (56 FR 35817).

When referring to a specific incorporation by reference in

Sec. 182.130, one comment stated that the date of publication of the

standard should be included. The Coast Guard agrees that it is

important to include the date of publication for any standard being

incorporated by reference. This is necessary since later editions of a

standard may contain changes which the public should have an

opportunity to comment on before being required to comply with the

change. To simplify any necessary future changes, the date of

publication of an incorporated reference is listed in Sec. 175.600,

either as part of the title of the standard (e.g., A 17.1-1984) or

separately, instead of being included in the section where the standard

is specifically referenced.

One comment stated that whenever a standard is referenced to

establish a construction or operational requirement, the standard

should include a definitive test method for determining compliance with

a performance standard. The performance standard would be better than

an installation standard and ensure consistency. The test standard

should come from an organization like the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI). Other than this comment, there was minimal feedback

from industry questioning the adequacy of the standards proposed to be

incorporated. These standards were chosen because of their histories of

successful application, and provide an adequate level of safety while

minimizing hardship to the industry. Many of the standards include or

reference test methods, but some do not. Equipment which is built to

installation or construction standards which do not have specific test

methods is tested after installation, during system tests. No change

was made to the NPRM as a result of this comment.

Several persons had comments on specific standards incorporated by

reference in the proposed Subchapter T in the NPRM or recommended the

incorporation of other standards. The Coast Guard response to such

comments is included in the discussion on the particular section to

which the reference is relevant.

Part 176--Inspection and Certification

Section 176.100 When Required

This section reiterates the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3311(a) and

3313(a) that a small passenger vessel not be operated without having a

COI and that during the term of the COI a vessel must remain in

compliance with the conditions of the COI. Several comments objected to

this section stating it was too restrictive and would significantly

affect owners. This section cannot be substantially changed since it

reiterates statutory requirements. Section 176.114 would provide relief

to owners who desire to change service and remain certificated.

Proposed Sec. 176.100(b) has been revised to clarify that compliance

with a vessel's COI is only required when passengers are aboard. A

discussion under Sec. 176.114 in this preamble explains the history and

reason for both proposed Secs. 176.100 and 176.114.

One comment stated that the word ``operated'' as used in

Sec. 176.100(a) would generate many problems and that the phrase ``in

navigation'' should be used instead. The Coast Guard disagrees in that

the use of the term ``in navigation'' would indicate that compliance

with the COI would only be required when a vessel is actually underway.

Legislative and regulatory history indicates that Congress did not use

the term ``operated'' to mean only when underway but to include

whenever the vessel is in use. Consistent with this interpretation, for

the purposes of small passenger vessels, the Coast Guard has determined

``operated'' to mean whenever a small passenger vessel is underway or

has passengers on board even if moored or tied up at a dock.

One comment recommended eliminating the reference to a temporary

COI in Sec. 176.100(c) because, especially with the Coast Guard's MSIS

system, there is no need for a temporary COI. The Coast Guard

understands the concern over a temporary COI in that it does not

contain as much information as a regular COI. However, due to the

administrative logistics of issuing a COI, it is often not possible to

issue a complete, regular COI upon successful completion of an

inspection for certification. The law in 46 U.S.C. 3309 specifically

authorizes a temporary COI and House Report No. 98-338 concerning

Public Law 98-89, addresses temporary COIs by stating: ``* * * The

Coast Guard can issue a temporary Certificate of Inspection upon

compliance with the applicable laws or regulations to facilitate the

preparation, processing, and forwarding of the regular COI to the

vessel.'' A temporary certificate does not imply less than satisfactory

compliance.

Section 176.103 Description

Proposed Sec. 176.103, adopted from existing Sec. 176.01-5,

describes the minimum contents of the COI with other sections in

subpart A of part 176, which expand on the required contents. One

comment stated that an effort should be made to reduce COIs to one page

so masters would be more likely to read them. An MSIS generated COI is

designed to contain all the basic information on the first page but

often additional information is necessary to describe the inspection

status of the vessel. Coast Guard experience demonstrates that it is

important to have all the vital inspection information for a vessel on

one document rather than spreading such information over several

documents. The OCMI normally records information on the COI as

concisely as possible. It is the duty of the owner or managing operator

to ensure that masters are familiar with documents such as the COI,

Stability Letter, and Emergency Procedures.

The Coast Guard is proposing to revise Sec. 176.103 by adding, as a

required item on a COI, any equivalencies allowed for the vessel under

Secs. 175.540 and 175.550. This is to help ensure that masters, owners,

and inspectors are aware of the equivalencies.

Section 176.105 How To Obtain or Renew

This section describes how to apply for a COI and the basic

acceptance criteria for issuance of a COI.

One comment stated that this section should be revised to require a

vessel to be inspected in the zone in which it normally operates, at

the discretion of the OCMI. The Coast Guard disagrees that the proposed

restriction is necessary. In modern operations, small passenger vessels

frequently are built in one zone, operate in another, and seek

economical repair facilities in a third. It would be an administrative

burden to the Coast Guard and owners to require inspection in one

certain zone. A primary purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce

inconsistencies among OCMIs. As a result, the advantages of an owner

seeking out specific OCMIs will be minimized. Presently, through the

computerized MSIS, all OCMIs are able to record and track unique

inspection requirements and other problems, as well as whenever a

vessel has applied for an inspection. The MSIS record is checked prior

to inspections, and unusual inspection patterns are noted.

Additionally, some vessels are limited to operations in specific

geographic areas. Coast Guard policy already dictates that when a

vessel is being inspected outside of its normal location, the attending

OCMI contact the other zone to check on unique problems or

requirements. Finally, the person completing the application for

inspection is required to certify on CG Form 3752 (Revised 4-82)

whether a previous application was made for the particular inspection.

One comment stated that a paragraph should be added to this section

reiterating 46 U.S.C. 3309(c), which requires that an owner notify the

OCMI between 30 and 60 days before the current COI expires whether or

not the vessel will be required to be inspected again. This

recommendation has not been adopted since the requirements of 46 U.S.C.

3309(c) are adequately addressed in 46 CFR 2.01-3. In addition, owners

or operators with accurate addresses on file at the offices of the OCMI

which issued their current COI receive a ``reminder'' letter to let

them know the COI is about to expire, asking them to contact the

appropriate OCMI.

Section 176.107 Period of Validity

The Coast Guard proposed in this section to make a COI valid for

three years on all small passenger vessels, except for vessels with

SOLAS certificates. Annual reinspections would be required on all

vessels. Many comments supported this proposal indicating it will

reduce paperwork.

One comment objected to the requirement that the COI of a vessel

which also has a SOLAS certificate shall be valid only for a period of

one year stating that this requirement creates a burden on both the

Coast Guard and the owner. The Coast Guard agrees and is proposing to

eliminate the one year COI provision for vessels with SOLAS

certificates. This elimination should reduce some administrative time

without any decrease in safety. Annual SOLAS surveys and drydockings

will still be required by SOLAS for a vessel with an international

route.

One comment stated the COI interval should be extended to five

years to coincide with other intervals. However, 46 U.S.C. 3307

requires that the interval be a maximum of three years.

One comment complained that requiring completion of an inspection

for certification before the current COI expires results in the

inspection due date constantly advancing (inspection date creep) often

into a busy operational season. The Coast Guard acknowledges that

inspection date creep can be a problem which is best handled on a local

level by the OCMI. Due to the 3 year statutory inspection requirement,

a regulatory change cannot be used to directly address the issue.

Presently, inspection date creep is probably only a significant problem

for vessels of more than 65 feet in length, because of the present 1

year COI expiration date for these vessels. However, the inspection

interval of 3 years proposed for all vessels in this SNPRM will

diminish the problem. The inspection due date would only creep back

every 3 years, as opposed to every year.

Section 176.110 Routes Permitted

Proposed Sec. 176.110 in the NPRM is basically the same as existing

Sec. 176.01-20 and specifies the type and order of severity of routes

which may be endorsed on a COI. Based on a perception of the relative

hazards of these waters, one comment suggested reordering the severity

of routes in paragraphs (a) and (d) to: Great Lakes winter; oceans;

Great Lakes summer; coastwise; lakes, bays, and sounds; and rivers. The

Coast Guard disagrees. For stability purposes, a general coastwise

route is more severe than a Great Lakes summer route. The requirements

proposed in this SNPRM for survival craft and EPIRBs to be carried

aboard small passenger vessels on Great Lakes routes do not support

treating Great Lakes routes as oceans. The section of the regulations

concerning lifesaving equipment is the only section where Great Lakes

requirements are on a par with, or more stringent than, a coastwise

route. The NPRM has not been changed.

One comment stated the safety requirements for vessels with a Great

Lakes route should be no more severe than those for vessels with a

lakes, bays, and sounds route. The comment contended that the NPRM

equates Great Lakes routes with coastwise routes although the listed

order of severity is: oceans; coastwise; Great Lakes; lakes, bays, and

sounds; and rivers. The comment stated that the use of vessels on the

Great Lakes for excursions (dinner cruises and tours for example) and

short ferry runs is more equivalent to lakes, bays, and sounds route

operations because of near shore operation and fair weather, and

because the summer schedule generally avoids Great Lakes winter weather

problems. The comment noted that the proposed stability criteria

designated the Great Lakes route during the summer season as being

partially protected. For stability purposes, a general coastwise route

is more severe than a Great Lakes summer route. For some safety

equipment purposes, the water temperature, geographic location, and

other factors make operating conditions similar enough that the Coast

Guard considers the same safety equipment necessary for coastwise and

Great Lakes routes.

One comment stated that the OCMI should be able to approve an

``oceans'' or ``coastwise'' route for a non-self-propelled vessel,

contrary to paragraph (e) which limits this authority to the

Commandant. The Coast Guard disagrees. Because of the very limited

experience with passenger carrying seagoing barges, the Coast Guard has

not developed specific regulations for such operations. Authorization

for such operations should remain with the Commandant to ensure

consistent application of necessary special provisions.

One comment suggested including Great Lakes with oceans and

coastwise in paragraph (e) of this section, as routes where a non-self-

propelled vessel may operate only with the approval of the Commandant.

The Coast Guard agrees in part. Possible bad weather conditions to

which a barge-type vessel might be exposed warrant consideration of

this comment. A particular concern is that a tug should be able to

maintain control of a passenger barge under all conditions. The Coast

Guard considers this suggestion reasonable for vessels on Great Lakes

winter routes, where control of a barge might be more difficult.

Including Great Lakes routes in this paragraph would allow the

Commandant to approve the routes for all non-self-propelled vessels

which operate on exposed waters. The proposed rule has been changed in

this SNPRM.

One comment suggested not using geographical points as references

for determining routes to help eliminate inconsistencies and noted that

licenses for Masters no longer refer to geographical points. In

general, the Coast Guard advocates not using geographical limits, to

the extent practicable. However, the OCMI should have flexibility to

address special circumstances and the wide variety of routes which

exist. The Coast Guard thinks this proposal would be too rigid. No

change was made to the NPRM.

One comment stated that the geographic experience of the master

should be considered before a vessel is allowed to operate on a route

which is less severe than that endorsed on the COI, as authorized in

paragraph (d). The Coast Guard agrees but finds that the existing

licensing and manning regulations adequately address this concern.

The Coast Guard is proposing to amend paragraphs (a) and (f) of

Sec. 176.110 by emphasizing that the OCMI may impose operational

restrictions on a vessel as well as specify the area of operation,

i.e., its route. OCMIs presently impose such restrictions including

limiting a vessel to daytime operations or prohibiting operations in

certain weather conditions. The OCMI may also impose special

operational restrictions on specific vessels on a case by case basis

such as requiring high speed DSC to participate in vessel traffic

control systems, maintain radar watches, or follow specific procedures

regarding operating in the dynamically supported mode.

Section 176.113 Passengers Permitted

This section in the NPRM contains provisions basically identical to

those contained in existing Sec. 176.01-25, except that areas

specifically prohibited from being used in determining passenger

capacity are included.

Two comments implied that the proposed standards result in

overcrowded and dangerous conditions. Although the standards may

sometimes result in comparably crowded conditions, the Coast Guard has

no evidence that the proposed methods of determining maximum capacity,

which are essentially the same as those contained in existing

Sec. 176.01-25, are unsafe. The OCMI is responsible for determining the

maximum capacity of a vessel. Although the capacity may not exceed the

criteria of proposed Sec. 176.113, the OCMI must also consider the

stability, general arrangement, means of escape, and lifesaving

equipment of a vessel when limiting a vessel's capacity.

One comment stated that on party fishing boats used in cold

weather, the capacity should be based on the area available in heated

spaces. Generally, due to competition and passenger demand, most

vessels used in cold weather will be equipped with adequate shelter

without a need to impose specific requirements. Passengers boarding

small passenger vessels to fish in cold weather should be prepared for

such weather.

One comment stated that the criteria in this section should only be

used to determine the overall maximum passenger capacity of the vessel

and not to specify the maximum capacity of each individual deck. The

comment further stated that stability calculations should be used to

determine limitations on passenger capacity of individual decks, and

that it is difficult and unreasonable to require a master to keep track

of the numbers of passengers on each deck. The Coast Guard partially

agrees. Although different criteria might be used for each deck, the

provisions of Sec. 176.113 are intended to be used to determine the

total vessel capacity. However, stability calculations may additionally

restrict the number of passengers on a vessel or on individual decks.

If the number of passengers permitted on upper decks is limited by

stability calculations, a master must comply with the restrictions of

the stability letter, and signs would have to be posted as proposed in

Sec. 185.602(e) of the SNPRM (Sec. 185.602(d) of the NPRM).

Some comments stated that the regulations should be clarified to

indicate whether more than one criterion may be used to determine

capacity. Several comments stated that the passenger capacity should be

determined based on a combination of all three criterion. The Coast

Guard agrees that the section needs to be clarified to better indicate

when more than one criterion may be used. This section has been revised

in this SNPRM to allow the use of different criteria on each deck and

to also allow the combined use of the seating criterion and the deck

area criterion on an individual deck. The length of rail criterion

cannot be combined on one deck with the other criteria since the rail

criterion is designed to determine the capacity for a complete single

deck and is based on only a single dimension. The other criteria use

square footage or a combination of maximum seat width and aisle sizes.

The Coast Guard is also proposing to revise paragraph (b)(2) of

this section to prohibit using any area that does not have a solid deck

when using the deck area criterion in determining the number of

passengers. The need to include this prohibition was highlighted by an

appeal whereby an owner of a multi-hull vessel believed that he could

allow passengers to occupy the netting area between the hulls when the

vessel is underway. For sound safety reasons, OCMIs have generally

prohibited such a practice.

Section 176.114 Special Endorsement for Carrying Six or Less

Passengers

The regulations proposed in the NPRM authorize the OCMI to permit a

small passenger vessel to operate in accordance with the laws and

regulations applicable to an uninspected vessel, when the small

passenger vessel is carrying six or less passengers, by endorsing the

vessel's COI. Under the NPRM proposal, the vessel would not have to

comply with the route restrictions and manning requirements on the COI

while operating as an ``uninspected vessel'', but the equipment

required to be on the vessel by the COI would have to remain aboard and

inspection due dates would still have to be met.

Paragraph (b) of existing 46 CFR 176.01-1 states that a small

passenger vessel of not more than 65 feet in length ``when carrying not

more than 6 passengers, and when operating as a yacht, commercial

fishing vessel, cargo carrier, etc., will be subject only to the laws,

rules and regulations governing the type of operation in which it

engages.'' This provision allowing a certificated small passenger

vessel of not more than 65 feet in length to operate basically as an

uninspected vessel has been in subchapter T since the regulations were

first promulgated in 1957. This provision appears to have been included

in the regulations to provide a mechanism to allow owners to easily

switch service. For example, an owner could use a boat for commercial

fishing in the winter and for party boat fishing in the summer, which

has been common practice since before small passenger vessels were

first regulated. However, there appears to be no evidence in the

legislative history of the laws affecting small passenger vessels which

supports 46 CFR 176.01-1(b). There have also been several challenges to

existing Sec. 176.01-1(b) due to the requirement of 46 U.S.C. 3313,

which states that a vessel must be in compliance with its COI at all

times.

The Coast Guard recognizes the inconsistencies between 46 U.S.C.

3313(a) and 46 CFR 176.01-1(b) and also recognizes that the statute

requiring compliance with the COI at all times takes precedence.

Because of this longstanding inconsistency, the Coast Guard's present

policy is not to take any enforcement action against the owner/operator

of a small passenger vessel of not more than 65 feet in length carrying

not more than six passengers, which is being operated as if it were an

uninspected vessel, until the existing regulations have been revised.

Proposed Sec. 176.100(b) clearly states that all small passenger

vessels must be in compliance with their COI at all times as required

by 46 U.S.C. 3313(a). However, proposed Sec. 176.114 is intended to

provide a legal alternative to this restriction. Proposed Sec. 176.114

would:

(1) Allow small passenger vessels to remain competitive with

uninspected vessels;

(2) Eliminate unnecessary barriers to safe operations when

passengers are not being carried;

(3) Encourage some owners to operate their vessels as certificated

vessels whereas they might otherwise forego inspected service and

operate in the uninspected passenger vessel service; and

(4) Allow vessels to operate in a manner at least similar to the

way they have operated safely, with few exceptions, since 1957.

Without the proposed provisions of Sec. 176.114, or similar

provisions, the owners of many vessels would be significantly impacted.

Unless a small passenger vessel's COI was surrendered by the owner,

changing berths with no passengers aboard could not legally be done

without fully complying with the required manning on its COI.

Similarly, a vessel moving to another port without passengers, just to

be drydocked, could not do so without having aboard all the lifesaving

equipment required by its COI. Another typical example is a vessel

certificated to carry 12 people on a coastwise route, required under

proposed part 180 to carry inflatable buoyant apparatus. This vessel

would not be able to carry just six passengers on an oceans route more

than 50 miles offshore, because it would be required to have inflatable

liferafts under proposed part 180, even though an uninspected passenger

vessel carrying six passengers, not equipped with any survival craft or

required to meet any inspections standards, could operate on a full

oceans voyage. Many small passenger vessel owners would also suffer a

significant economic loss if they were suddenly prohibited from using

their vessel as an uninspected vessel, such as for commercial fishing.

Some vessels which are presently inspected under subchapter T may

choose to drop certification if they derive more income from

uninspected vessel operations, such as commercial fishing or charter

boat fishing carrying 6 or less passengers.

To operate as an uninspected vessel, a small passenger vessel can

surrender its COI and have it reissued at a later time, or in some

cases an excursion permit could be issued. However, neither of these

options is considered an acceptable alternative on a routine basis as

both options would place a significant administrative burden on the

Coast Guard and owners. Presently, numerous vessels routinely operate

carrying six or less passengers without being in full compliance with

their COI.

Existing Sec. 176.01-1(b) only applies to small passenger vessels

of not more than 65 feet in length. Proposed Sec. 176.114 would apply

to all small passenger vessels less than 100 GT since the reasons to

allow operations comparable to uninspected vessels are applicable to

all vessels regardless of size.

The proposed regulation in the NPRM only indicates that a vessel

could comply ``* * * with the laws and regulations applicable to an

uninspected vessel when the vessel is carrying six or less passengers *

* *''. The proposal also states that ``* * * the vessel must be

maintained and outfitted in compliance with the terms and conditions of

its COI * * *''. The primary intent of the proposal is to allow a small

passenger vessel which is carrying not more than six passengers,

including when carrying no passengers, to operate on a route more

severe than the route allowed when carrying more than six passengers.

However, when operating on the increased route, the owner/operator may

not change the condition of the vessel or the equipment on it. Two

examples are: the electrical system and equipment could not be

modified; and, any lifesaving equipment required based on the route of

the vessel when carrying more than six passengers could not normally be

removed.

To clarify the impact of the proposal, the wording in this SNPRM

has been revised to specifically indicate which subchapter T

regulations an inspected vessel operating in a normally uninspected

vessel service need not comply with, providing the COI is so endorsed

and the vessel meets certain applicable regulations or requirements for

uninspected commercial or recreational vessels operating in the same

service. The regulations which will not be required to be met but which

will be addressed by the endorsement are those which are based on

route, passengers, or a combination thereof, and which are different

for inspected and uninspected vessels. These include those regulations

relating to structural adequacy in subpart C of part 177, stability and

subdivision in parts 178 and 179, lifejackets and survival craft in

part 180, and navigation equipment in part 184. Requirements which must

be met when an inspected vessel is operating in an uninspected service

are those concerning permanent outfitting and design requirements such

as electrical or firefighting equipment, requirements involving good

seamanship which should be applicable to both inspected and uninspected

vessels, and statutory requirements, including those for EPIRBs,

passenger lists, and passenger counts. The proposed endorsement will

indicate the maximum route, number of passengers and maintenance

required for the requested uninspected vessel service contemplated.

Several comments stated that the proposed endorsement is not

necessary because a vessel is not a small passenger vessel unless it is

carrying more than six passengers. Title 46, U.S.C. 2101(35), does

define a small passenger vessel as a vessel of less than 100 gross tons

carrying more than six passengers. However, a review of the statutory

history shows that the intent of the law is that once a small passenger

vessel is issued a COI, it must remain in compliance with the terms of

the certificate even when carrying not more than six passengers.

Concern has been expressed over the potential liability imposed on

the Coast Guard by allowing a small passenger vessel to operate

basically as an uninspected vessel, especially since it appears that

the proposed endorsement contradicts 46 U.S.C. 3313. The revised

Sec. 176.114 in this SNPRM should eliminate most concerns over

liability since it requires the OCMI to consider both route and manning

before issuing the endorsement.

The proposal in the NPRM stated the minimum manning and route

restrictions on the COI need not be complied with when operating under

the proposed endorsement. As noted below, the revised proposal in this

SNPRM would require that the OCMI give specific consideration to the

vessel's manning and route when allowing a vessel to operate beyond the

normal route restrictions on its COI. The revision also states that

equipment required by a vessel's COI for its normal route and service

may not be removed without permission of the OCMI. This is to ensure

that the vessel is properly equipped when operating in its normal

service but allows the OCMI to authorize the temporary removal of such

equipment for such reasons as the periodic servicing of the rafts.

Several comments to the NPRM provided general support for the

proposed endorsement while several others opposed it. One comment

stated that because of the lack of manning restrictions on uninspected

vessels, uninspected passenger vessels have a high risk of casualties

and that manning requirements should be dropped on small passenger

vessels only if there are not any passengers aboard. Another comment

stated that the proposal could be interpreted to mean a licensed

operator would not be required while operating under this endorsement.

Another comment wanted to include a requirement for two crews, when

operating in excess of 12 hours, to reduce fatigue.

The Coast Guard agrees there is room for concern about manning on

small passenger vessels operating as uninspected vessels. Title 46

U.S.C., section 8902 requires that a small passenger vessel be operated

by an individual licensed to operate that type of vessel in the

particular geographic area. No provision is included in the statute for

those times when a small passenger vessel is providing what would

otherwise be an uninspected vessel service. Therefore, proposed

Sec. 176.114 is revised in this SNPRM to require the OCMI to specify

the minimum manning when issuing the proposed endorsement. Due to the

requirements of 46 U.S.C. 8902, a vessel operating under the

endorsement must be manned with at least one licensed master. When

specifying the actual manning for such an endorsement, the OCMI must

consider factors such as the number of passengers on board, if any,

duration of voyages under the endorsement, and vessel size. If

Sec. 176.114 is adopted in the final rule, the Coast Guard intends to

include sample manning scales and endorsements in the MSM as guidance

to OCMIs.

An OCMI must presently determine if a vessel meets minimum

structural and intact stability requirements for a vessel's intended

normal route before issuing a COI for that route. Under the revised

proposal in this SNPRM, the OCMI must also consider the structural

safety, stability, and seaworthiness of a vessel for the extended route

it might be authorized to operate on under the endorsement proposed by

Sec. 176.114. A small passenger vessel under 20 feet in overall length,

which is operating as a recreational boat, or an uninspected vessel

carrying six or fewer passengers, must comply with either: (1) The

structural and stability requirements of subchapter T, or; (2) the

standards applicable to recreational boats in 33 CFR part 183. A small

passenger vessel which is being used as a commercial fishing vessel

when it is not carrying passengers would have to meet the stability

requirements applicable to commercial fishing vessels. A final rule

containing stability criteria for fishing vessels of 79 feet or greater

in length was published in the Federal Register August 14, 1991 (56 FR

40364). An SNPRM proposing stability requirements for fishing vessels

of less than 79 feet was published in the Federal Register on October

27, 1992 (57 FR 48670). Owners of other vessels would have to establish

to the satisfaction of the OCMI that they are safe for the intended

route, considering the reduced number or absence of passengers and the

actual service of the vessel when operating under the endorsement. This

could be established by: (1) Voluntary compliance with the subchapter T

requirements; (2) voluntary compliance with the requirements for

recreational or fishing vessels; (3) evidence of past satisfactory

service; or, (4) other evidence that the design and construction of the

vessel is satisfactory for the intended route.

One comment stated that the OCMI should automatically place the

endorsement on a COI. The Coast Guard disagrees. By requiring an owner

to request the 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 subchapter C or

recreational boat requirements in 33 CFR subchapter S.

Several comments stated that passengers should be informed when a

vessel is operating under the provisions of the proposed endorsement.

The Coast Guard agrees and Sec. 185.506(a)(10) in the NPRM (renumbered

as (a)(9) in this SNPRM) would require that a verbal announcement be

made. The requirement for the announcement is also contained in revised

proposed Sec. 176.114. Some comments stated the COI and COI Expiration

Sticker should also be removed. Removing the COI and Expiration Sticker

are unnecessary because the COI remains valid. The proposed endorsement

only alters the normal conditions of the COI for when the vessel is

carrying six or less passengers.

One comment stated the endorsement to be placed on the COI should

be specified in the regulations. The Coast Guard disagrees because the

differences in factors such as route, passengers carried, and type of

service, will result in a need for flexibility in issuing such

endorsements. Therefore, the actual wording of specific endorsements is

not included in this proposal but the proposal states the endorsement

must note the maximum route, passengers (if any), and manning required

to operate under the provisions of Sec. 176.114. If the proposal is

adopted, the Coast Guard intends to develop recommended guidance for

OCMIs to use in issuing such endorsements. An example of an endorsement

for a vessel normally certified for a coastwise route carrying not more

than 49 passengers with one master and one deckhand is: ``Under the

provisions of 46 CFR 176.114, this vessel may be operated on an oceans

route carrying not more than six passengers with a reduced manning of 1

licensed master.''

One comment stated the proposal in the NPRM contradicts 46 U.S.C.

3313. Although 46 U.S.C. 3313 does require a vessel to comply with its

COI at all times, 46 U.S.C. 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard to

establish regulations on the design, construction, and equipment for

small passenger vessels. For a vessel which would be operating under

the endorsement proposed in this SNPRM, the regulatory requirements

would be reduced in consideration of the reduced number or absence of

passengers. The proposed endorsement would also promote a safer

situation by allowing the use of an inspected vessel in a service that

does not require a vessel to be inspected at all. Prohibition of small

passenger vessels from operating as basically uninspected vessels when

carrying less than six passengers would cause many owners to drop the

certification of their vessels, creating a potentially less safe

situation.

Section 176.202 Permit To Proceed

This section was based on the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3313(b)(2)

and existing 46 CFR 176.01-27. The wording has been changed to more

accurately reflect the wording of 46 U.S.C. 3313(b)(2).

Two comments believed that the rule is too restrictive and that the

Coast Guard should not be concerned with the vessel's movement when

passengers are not aboard. The Coast Guard disagrees. As discussed

under Sec. 176.114 in this preamble, the law requires that a vessel be

in compliance with its COI at all times. Therefore, even if there are

no passengers aboard a small passenger vessel, a vessel must remain in

compliance with subchapter T. The Permit to Proceed basically serves as

a substitute for the regular COI allowing a vessel to legally proceed

even though it may not be in its normally required condition. The OCMI

will normally return the regular COI, or issue a new COI if necessary,

upon completion of necessary repairs.

Section 176.202(b) in the NPRM states that a Permit to Proceed may

only be issued after the COI is surrendered. The Coast Guard is

proposing to revise this to state the permit shall be issued only after

the OCMI has withdrawn the COI from the vessel. The word ``surrender''

indicates a permanent giving up of the COI whereas the intent is that

the OCMI will only temporarily withdraw the COI and replace it with a

Permit to Proceed. When an owner voluntarily surrenders a vessel's COI

and removes the vessel from passenger carrying service, a full

inspection for certification must normally be conducted in order for a

new COI to be issued. Under these circumstances a Permit to Proceed

will not be issued to the vessel since it is no longer considered an

inspected vessel.

Paragraph (c) of the NPRM states that passengers may not be carried

when a vessel is operated under a Permit to Proceed. Neither the law

nor the existing regulation contain such a specific prohibition. The

OCMI must evaluate each vessel on a case-by-case basis to determine

whether it remains safe to carry passengers while operating under a

Permit to Proceed. This section of the SNPRM has been revised to let

the OCMI determine whether or not the vessel is safe to carry

passengers while operating under a Permit to Proceed.

Section 176.204 Permit to Carry Excursion Party

Adopted from existing Sec. 176.01-30, this section would authorize

an OCMI to allow a vessel to carry extra passengers or operate beyond

the route on its COI. One comment requested to know if the statement in

the proposed section that ``The permit acts as a temporary one-time

supplement to the vessel's COI* * *'' means that an excursion permit

may be issued only once during the term of a COI. The intent of the

excursion permit, which is authorized by 46 U.S.C. 2113, is to allow a

vessel to carry more passengers than normally allowed by its COI or to

operate outside the route permitted by its COI for a limited time in

order to participate in special events such as regattas, to serve as a

viewing platform for races, or otherwise provide passenger service for

or due to an event that does not occur on a frequent basis and which

will last for only a limited time. A vessel could be issued an

excursion permit more than once during the term of its COI, but an

individual permit may only be issued for a limited time and may not be

used as a device to circumvent normal inspection requirements. Prior to

issuing an excursion permit, the OCMI must consider whether there are

other inspected vessels already available to adequately provide the

services for which the permit is being requested and whether it would

be economically feasible for the vessel to routinely meet all the

inspection requirements for the passenger capacity and route for which

the excursion permit is being requested. The wording proposed in the

NPRM has been changed to show that an excursion permit is of ``limited

duration'' rather than a ``one time-supplement.''

Three comments recommended that excursion permits not be issued

which would allow vessels to circumvent stability restrictions and

structural fire protection requirements imposed by subchapter T. They

also recommended that the existing restrictions on the issuance of

excursion permits in the MSM concerning stability, capacity, and fire

protection be incorporated into regulation. The Coast Guard agrees.

Volume II, section 10.B, of the MSM presently states that:

1. The OCMI shall not waive the applicable minimum stability and

fire safety standards when issuing an excursion permit;

2. The number of passengers normally permitted on an excursion

vessel shall be governed by 46 CFR 176.01-25; and

3. Vessels that do not comply with the structural fire protection

requirements of 46 CFR 177.10-5 shall not carry more than 150

passengers.

The Coast Guard is proposing to incorporate these restrictions in

this SNPRM.

Subpart C--Posting of Certificates, Permits and Stability Letters

The regulations proposed in the NPRM mirrored the existing

regulations in requiring the posting of certificates, permits, and

stability letters. In order to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980, which requires federal agencies to seek ways to reduce

regulatory paperwork burdens placed on individuals and other entities,

the Coast Guard reviewed the posting requirements of this subpart and

is revising two of its posting requirements. The Coast Guard is

proposing to delete the requirement to post a Permit to Proceed, Form

CG-948, and a Permit to Carry Excursion Parties, Form CG-949. The

Permit to Proceed serves as a substitute for the COI after the OCMI

determines that a major deficiency requires immediate repairs. The

permit is intended to be valid only until a vessel reaches the port

where repairs will be conducted. The Coast Guard has determined that

just carrying a permit in a readily available location is sufficient

and less burdensome than requiring posting. Likewise, a Permit to Carry

Excursion Party may modify the route, operating conditions, or required

emergency equipment, and is also intended to be valid for a short

period. Posting is not considered necessary. Section 176.302 has

therefore been revised by deleting the requirement for the posting of a

Permit to Proceed or an Excursion Permit. Permits which are posted

would be considered readily available.

Consideration was also given to deleting the requirement to post a

stability letter. However, due to the type of operations and the

frequent crew turnover on small passenger vessels, the Coast Guard's

position is that stability letters, when issued to small passenger

vessels, should be posted to better ensure the vessel's officers are

aware of its contents.

One comment stated that all pages of a stability letter should be

clearly visible. The Coast Guard agrees. All pages of a vessel's

stability letter contain vital information which, if not visible, may

not be read by the operator. Because it also contains important

information, the vessel's COI is required to be posted by law. The

Coast Guard has revised Secs. 176.302 and 176.306 to require that all

pages of a COI or stability letter be clearly visible. It is the owner

or managing operator's responsibility to ensure that the master has

read and understands the provisions and limitations in these documents.

Section 176.402 Initial Inspection for Certification

Paragraph (a) of this section in the NPRM states that the plans

required by part 177 must be submitted prior to starting construction

or prior to the initiation of the initial inspection of an existing

vessel being converted to a small passenger vessel. One comment stated

that to require the submission of plans before the inspection is too

restrictive. In most cases the required plans should be submitted prior

to the inspection. Experience has shown that the initiation of an

inspection before plans are submitted and approved often results in a

wasteful use of the Coast Guard, owners', and builders' time. During

initial and new construction inspections, vessels are often found to be

in non-compliance with requirements. Initial plan review may detect

non-compliance before a vessel is built or inspected. However, the

Coast Guard does agree that there are instances where the delay of the

submission of plans may be necessary or beneficial. Paragraph (a) has

therefore been revised so that the OCMI may allow a delay in plan

submittal. Owners and builders should realize that any construction or

changes made prior to actual plan approval is at their risk.

Another comment stated that plans should not only be submitted but

approved prior to initiation of an inspection. The Coast Guard agrees

that, ideally, plans should be approved prior to initiation of an

inspection. Lack of approved plans will often hinder an inspector from

conducting an adequate inspection and result in delays. However, due to

workload and limited personnel resources, there is often a delay

between submittal and when the staff of the OCMI or the Marine Safety

Center can review a plan. Requiring plan approval before inspection

would, in many cases, place an undue burden on an owner. Therefore, the

Coast Guard does not intend to normally require plan approval before

initiation of an inspection. However, neither an initial inspection

will be completed nor will a vessel be certificated without approved

plans and the vessel found to be constructed in accordance with those

plans. Additionally, certain aspects of an inspection may not be able

to be initiated until certain plans have been approved. No change was

made to the NPRM.

Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 176.402 states that the owner shall

ensure that a vessel complies with applicable laws and regulations. One

comment stated that the owner should only be required to ensure

compliance ``as far as can be reasonably determined.'' The Coast Guard

disagrees. The owner has a responsibility to comply with all

requirements and to make the vessel safe for its intended route and

service. The addition of this type of caveat would diminish the

responsibility of the owner to comply.

Section 176.404 Subsequent Inspections for Certification

This section of the NPRM states the inspection requirements for

renewal of a COI and directs the owner to conduct all tests as required

by the marine inspector. One comment suggested that the inspector

should only require those tests specified by Subchapter T. The

intention of this section is to require those tests and drills listed

in subpart H of part 176. However, the OCMI and the inspector are

specifically allowed to use their judgment in directing the owner to

perform other tests, inspections, and drills. This section has been

revised to specifically include drills in the wording.

One comment stated this section should be revised to require that,

once an application for inspection is received and an inspection is

begun, the existing COI should be void. The Coast Guard disagrees.

Under some circumstances, inspections for certification can take 2 to 4

weeks to complete. In these situations, important lifesaving and

firefighting equipment is usually examined on the first visit. If a COI

has not yet expired when an inspection begins and the vessel does not

have any discrepancies which would invalidate the COI or make the

vessel unsafe, the COI should not be considered void. Once an

inspection begins, the COI for a vessel is sometimes removed but this

is not necessary in all cases. Often a requirement is issued by the

inspector which restricts the route or conditions of operation because

of equipment which is missing or expired. Under the restrictions the

vessel can still operate safely. No changes have been made to the NPRM.

Subpart E--Reinspection

Section 176.500 When Required

This section requires that the owner or managing operator make the

vessel available for annual reinspections within 60 days of the

anniversary date of the COI and that the OCMI be contacted to arrange

for the reinspections. One comment stated that an annual deck

inspection is too frequent, but that an inspection every three years is

not enough. The comment recommended a biennial inspection for

certification. The Coast Guard disagrees. Presently all small passenger

vessels, depending upon their length, undergo either an annual

inspection for certification or an annual reinspection. The reasons for

proposing a thorough inspection for certification for all small

passenger vessels every three years are to comply with the intent of

Public Law 96-378, as presently codified in 46 U.S.C. 3307, to provide

more uniform requirements for all small passenger vessels, and to

decrease the administrative burden on both the industry and the Coast

Guard. The Coast Guard has concluded that a reinspection should be

conducted on all small passenger vessels at least annually due to the

rigorous use of most vessels.

One comment stated that because a small passenger vessel may be

laid up for long periods, it should be reinspected if it has not

carried passengers for a period exceeding 120 days. The Coast Guard

does not agree that such a specific requirement is necessary. In

addition to the annual reinspection, paragraph (b) of this proposed

section gives the OCMI authority to require a reinspection whenever it

is determined that one is necessary, which could include the situation

where a vessel has been laid up for a long period. No revisions were

made to the NPRM.

Section 176.502 Scope

This section of the NPRM states that the scope of a reinspection is

the same as an inspection for certification but in less detail. Two

comments believed that paragraph (b) of this section limited the extent

of a reinspection which a marine inspector could conduct. Paragraph (a)

of this section already states the extent of a reinspection is the same

as an inspection for certification, ``but in less detail * * *''. Other

sections in subchapter T already cite the inspection authority of a

reinspection. The MSM details the normal manner in which a reinspection

should be carried out. In this SNPRM the Coast Guard is proposing to

delete paragraph (b).

Section 176.600 Drydock and Internal Structural Examination Intervals

This section in the NPRM proposed to increase the intervals between

drydock exams. Several persons specifically approved of the general

increase in intervals. Others had some specific concerns. Two comments

stated that the drydock interval should actually be decreased to 12

months citing two casualties which may have been prevented, the COMET

and the JOAN LA RIE III. The Coast Guard disagrees and believes that a

two year drydock interval is adequate for most vessels. As noted in the

NPRM, when the COMET sank it did not have a valid COI. If it had been

under certification, any inadequacies in the hull, which may have

caused its sinking, would probably have been discovered during routine

inspections and drydock examinations. There is no evidence that the

JOAN LA RIE III casualty was caused by inadequacies which could have

been discovered only during a drydock exam. Section 176.802 provides

for the inspection of all accessible parts of the exterior and interior

of hulls during all inspections and reinspections. Such inspections

should normally allow the OCMI to determine if the hull is in

satisfactory condition. If, during inspection or reinspection, it is

determined that the hull may not be in satisfactory condition, the OCMI

has the authority under Sec. 176.600 (K Sec. 115.600) to require a

special drydock examination to verify the condition of the hull.

Underway tests may be required during the inspection or reinspection

that would also help prove the integrity of the hull.

One comment requested that the drydock interval be extended to

three years, while another recommended that the interval should be made

the same as passenger vessels under 46 CFR subchapter H, i.e., two

drydockings every five years but not more than 3 years between

drydockings. The Coast Guard disagrees, believing that there is

insufficient information available to adequately determine whether

drydock examination intervals can be safely extended to three years for

small passenger vessels. If the proposed two year period is adopted,

and there is sufficient data accumulated on the condition of the

underwater body of vessels using the two year examination interval, the

Coast Guard may review the issue and consider further interval

extensions.

One comment stated that underwater surveys should be allowed in

lieu of drydockings especially in areas where there are no drydock

facilities. Due to the level of safety to which vessels carrying

passengers should be held, the Coast Guard's position is that the

drydock exam of small passenger vessels should not normally be waived

or the exam interval extended. However, the Coast Guard realizes that

special circumstances may necessitate extensions on a case-by-case

basis. Proposed Sec. 176.670 would authorize the extension of the

drydock interval for extenuating circumstances. Equivalencies to

drydock exams, such as underwater surveys, could also be accepted in

unusual cases under the provisions of Secs. 175.540 or 175.550. In

extending drydocking intervals from 18 months to 2 years the Coast

Guard took into account disruptions in operating schedules. A 2 year

interval allows drydockings at the same time of year without alternate

year interruptions.

One comment suggested that the use of the word ``operates'' in

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the NPRM may allow some owners to

circumvent a required drydocking by taking a vessel ``out of service''

and not operating it. The intent of paragraph (c) is to establish

differing drydock exam intervals based on the amount of time the

underwater body of a vessel is exposed to salt water. If an owner

temporarily takes a vessel out of service while its COI is still valid,

the drydock intervals of this section remain valid. To clarify this,

the Coast Guard has revised proposed paragraph (c) by changing the

words ``that operates in salt water'' to ``which is exposed to salt

water.''

Paragraph (d) of this section would decrease the drydock interval

of wooden hull vessels operating in fresh water from 5 years to 2

years. One comment objected to the decreased interval stating that

wooden vessels operating on inland routes are not exposed to the

hogging and sagging experienced by vessels on oceans routes. The Coast

Guard disagrees and has retained the two year interval in this SNPRM.

There is evidence that fresh water accelerates the deterioration of

wood due to rot, and wooden vessels in fresh water should be drydocked

at shorter intervals than metal hull vessels. Although it is true that

inland vessels are not exposed to hogging and sagging as severe as that

to which a seagoing vessel is exposed, it is also true that they are

allowed to be built to reduced scantlings as compared to seagoing

vessels.

As a result of the casualty analysis discussed under part 180,

subpart E of this preamble, the Coast Guard has determined that wooden

vessels over 20 years old are more at risk from hull and through hull

fitting failures than other categories of vessels. The Coast Guard is

proposing in this SNPRM that wooden vessels over 20 years old be

drydocked every year.

Paragraph (e) of this section authorizes the OCMI to conduct an

internal structural examination or a drydocking when damage or

deterioration to hull plating or structural members is discovered. One

comment stated that this authorization should be extended to include

when a grounding occurs. The intent of this section is to allow the

OCMI to satisfactorily examine the vessel whenever damage or

deterioration is suspected. Paragraph (e) is revised in this SNPRM to

reflect this intent.

One comment requested that paragraph (g) be revised to indicate

that credit may be given whenever a vessel is drydocked and examined by

a marine inspector in excess of the minimal intervals required by this

section. The Coast Guard agrees that credit should be given whenever a

satisfactory examination is conducted and believes that this is already

indicated by the use of the words ``at least'' before the specified

intervals.

Paragraph (f) of this section allows a vessel on a foreign voyage

which becomes due for a drydock examination during the voyage to

complete the voyage before drydocking. One comment questioned the need

for this clause. This paragraph is based on Chapter I, Regulation 14,

of SOLAS which allows such a delay for vessels which are on

international voyages and have valid SOLAS certificates. For clarity,

Sec. 176.600(f) (K Sec. 115.600(e)) has been changed in this SNPRM to

apply to a vessel on an ``international voyage.''

One comment wanted a 30 day grace period for the drydock due date

to allow for scheduling. The Coast Guard disagrees. The NPRM already

increases the drydock exam interval. Allowing such a grace period would

further extend the interval. Owners should arrange drydockings

sufficiently in advance to avoid exceeding due dates. If unforeseen

problems arise, an extension may be requested under Sec. 176.670.

Section 176.610 Scope of Drydock and Internal Structural Examinations

This section describes what is inspected during a drydock

examination. One comment recommended that the section be revised to

include a specific statement that fasteners for wooden vessels may be

required to be pulled for examination. The Coast Guard concurs and

consequently has incorporated this existing policy into this section.

Section 176.612 Notice and Plans Required

Paragraph (a) of this section in the NPRM requires that the OCMI be

notified whenever the owner intends to drydock a vessel in order to

make ``major repairs or alterations affecting the safety or

seaworthiness of a vessel.'' One comment stated, ``major repairs or

alterations'' should be defined. The Coast Guard acknowledges that the

term ``major repairs or alterations'' is subject to inconsistent

interpretation and has revised the paragraph to indicate the type of

drydock hull repair which would require an owner to notify the OCMI.

Paragraph (b) of this section requires that whenever a vessel is

drydocked only for the purpose of minor repairs or maintenance, no

report need be made to the OCMI. Two comments stated that the OCMI

should be notified so he can determine whether or not the repairs are

minor. The Coast Guard agrees that whenever damage repairs are made the

OCMI should be notified and is revising paragraph (b) by deleting the

words ``minor repairs.'' Other vessel inspection subchapters also

require that an owner notify the OCMI whenever a vessel is to be

drydocked. Because of the comparative ease of drydocking many small

passenger vessels, many owners pull their vessels out of the water for

routine maintenance in excess of the required drydocking intervals. The

Coast Guard does not deem notification necessary for routine

maintenance work.

Section 176.670 Extension of Examination Intervals

This section proposes that the Commandant authorize extensions of

the required drydock examination interval. Existing Sec. 176.15-1(a)

also authorizes the Commandant to grant extensions. As noted in the

MSM, Commandant (G-MVI) has delegated to OCMIs the authority to extend

drydock examinations for up to one year. Two comments stated that OCMIs

should keep their authority to grant extensions, whereas one comment

believes Commandant (G-MVI) should retain extension authority to ensure

consistent application. To minimize the administrative burden, the

Coast Guard has revised this section of this SNPRM by specifically

stating that the Commandant may delegate authority to grant extensions

to OCMIs. The Coast Guard expects that with the increase in drydock

examination intervals, the need for and length of extensions will

decrease. To ensure better consistency among inspection zones, the MSM

will be revised to include more specific guidance on when extensions

may be considered.

Section 176.700 Permission for Repairs and Alterations

This section of the NPRM states that repairs or alterations to

machinery which affects the safety of the vessel may not be made

without the approval of the OCMI, and lists examples. One comment

stated that ``* * * overhaul, disassembly, or repair or alterations to

mechanical systems not limited to the main engines, transmissions,

generators, steering gear, pumps and hydraulic systems * * *'' should

be added to the list of examples. The Coast Guard disagrees. The

intention of this section is that the OCMI be made aware of any damage,

repairs, alterations to, or replacements of (other than replacements in

kind), the vessel's hu

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.