78064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Parts 71, 114, 115, 122, 170, 

171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, and 

185 

[Docket No. USCG–2007–0030] 

RIN 1625–AB20 

Passenger Weight and Inspected 

Vessel Stability Requirements 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard amends its 

regulations governing the maximum 

weight and number of passengers that 

may safely be permitted on board a 

vessel and other stability regulations, 

including increasing the Assumed 

Average Weight per Person (AAWPP) to 

185 lb. The Coast Guard determines the 

maximum number of persons permitted 

on a vessel by several factors, including 

an assumed average weight for each 

passenger, which is in need of an 

update because the average American 

weighs significantly more than the 

assumed weight per person utilized in 

current regulations. Updating 

regulations to more accurately reflect 

today’s average weight per person will 

maintain intended safety levels by 

accounting for this weight increase. The 

Coast Guard is also taking this 

opportunity to improve and update 

intact stability and subdivision and 

damage stability regulations. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

14, 2011, except for the amendments to 

46 CFR 170.120 and 178.210 that have 

not yet been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). The 

Coast Guard will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

date when those amendments become 

effective. The incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the rule 

is approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of March 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2007–0030 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2007–0030 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call Mr. 

William Peters, U.S. Coast Guard, Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards, 

Naval Architecture Division (CG–5212), 

telephone 202–372–1371. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for the Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. List of Terms 

III. Regulatory History 

IV. Background 

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

2008 IS Code—International Code on Intact 

Stability, 2008 

AAWPP—Assumed Average Weight per 

Person 

ABS—American Bureau of Shipping 

CDC—Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

COI—Certificate of Inspection 

DHS—Department of Homeland Security 

DOT—Department of Transportation 

EO—Executive Order 

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration 

FR—Federal Register 

GM—Metacentric height 

LBP—Length Between Perpendiculars 

LCG—Longitudinal Center of Gravity 

MARPOL—International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

MSC—Marine Safety Center 

MISLE—Marine Information for Safety and 

Law Enforcement 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System 

NCHS—National Center for Health Statistics 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 

NHANES—National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board 

OCMI—Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

PSSC—Passenger Ship Safety Certificate 

PSST—Pontoon Simplified Stability Proof 

Test 

SBA—United States Small Business 

Administration 

SNAME—The Society of Naval Architects 

and Marine Engineers 

SOLAS—International Convention for the 

Safety of Life at Sea 

SST—Simplified Stability Proof Test 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

VCG—Vertical Center of Gravity 

II. List of Terms 

The following definitions are 

intended only as an aid to readers of 

this rulemaking, and are not defined in 

regulations. They are not intended to 

replace or otherwise change regulatory 

provisions in any way. Readers who are 

unfamiliar with stability or marine 

inspection terms are encouraged to 

access the definitions contained in 

regulations at 46 CFR 170.055 and 

175.400, which are available to the 

public on line from the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

at, respectively, http:// 

edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/ 

pdf/46cfr170.055.pdf and http:// 

edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/ 

pdf/46cfr175.400.pdf. 

Angle of heel means the angle from 

the upright to the vessel’s centerline 

when the vessel is inclined. 

Deadweight survey: See lightweight 

survey. 

Freeboard means the vertical distance 

from the deck edge to the waterline. 

Heel is the degree to which a ship 

inclines transversely as a result of an 

applied force or moment. 

Heeling moment is the product of a 

force acting through a distance that 

causes a vessel to roll or heel to one 

side. 

Inclining or stability test is a 

methodical process that involves 

moving a series of known weights on a 

vessel and measuring the resulting 

change in the equilibrium heel angle to 

determine the vessel’s stability 

characteristics. 

Intact stability generally means the 

stability properties of a vessel without 

any damage to its watertight buoyant 

envelope. 

Lightweight survey is a part of the 

stability test that is used to determine 

the lightship displacement and 

longitudinal center of gravity (LCG). 

Often referred to as a deadweight 

survey. 

Longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) 

means the location along the vessel’s 

length at which the total weight of the 

vessel may be assumed to act. 

Operator means the person or 

business entity who provides 

operational instructions to and receives 

reports from the master of the vessel and 

is responsible for the vessel’s 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78065 

maintenance and repair, crewing, and 

other operations. An operator may also 

be a vessel’s master. 

Owner means the person or entity 

holding title to the vessel. 

Passenger heel is the result of the 

heeling moment that occurs when 

passengers move to one side of the 

vessel’s centerline, causing the vessel to 

heel. 

Pontoon vessel means any vessel 

having two or more watertight hulls, 

which are structurally independent 

from the vessel’s deck or cross structure. 

Subdivision and damage stability 

means the stability characteristics of a 

vessel when damaged, generally 

focusing on flooding of watertight 

compartments. 

Vertical center of gravity (VCG) means 

the height above the keel at which the 

total weight of the vessel may be 

assumed to act. 

Vessel stability refers to the tendency 

of a ship to remain upright or return to 

upright when inclined by forces such as 

those caused by the action of waves, 

wind or passenger movement. 

Wind heel refers to the result of the 

wind acting on the lateral area of the 

vessel above the waterline, causing the 

vessel to heel. 

III. Regulatory History 

On August 20, 2008, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Passenger 

Weight and Inspected Vessel Stability 

Requirements’’ in the Federal Register 

(73 FR 49243). The NPRM followed 

notices to the public, published in the 

Federal Register on April 26, 2006 (71 

FR 24732) and November 2, 2006 (71 FR 

64546), recommending voluntary 

interim measures for passenger vessel 

owners and operators to follow while 

the Coast Guard studied the issue of 

increased passenger weight. In 

summary, those voluntary measures 

advised owners and operators of 

pontoon vessels and other small 

passenger vessels to (1) more stringently 

monitor wind and wave conditions 

prior to departure, and (2) begin using 

185 pounds as the new AAWPP when 

calculating passenger capacity. A 

discussion of how 185 pounds was 

chosen is contained in the April 26, 

2006 notice and in the discussion of 

§ 170.090 in this preamble. 

Approximately 108 commenters 

responded to those notices and 66 

commenters responded to the NPRM. 

All comments are posted for public 

view at http://www.regulations.gov 

under docket number USCG–2007– 

0030, and can be viewed by following 

the directions in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble. No public meeting was 

requested and none was held. 

The Coast Guard considered the 

comments submitted in response to the 

two 2006 notices in the drafting of both 

the NPRM and in this final rule. After 

publication of the NPRM, many of the 

comments on the 2006 notices became 

moot. Those comments to the notices 

that remain pertinent are repeated by 

later comments on the NPRM and are 

addressed in the Discussion of 

Comments and Changes section of this 

preamble, although they are not 

included in the comment count for each 

section. 

IV. Background 

A number of different design factors, 

including stability, limit the total 

number of persons permitted on a 

passenger vessel inspected and 

certificated under 46 CFR subchapters 

H, K, or T. Stability requirements 

include intact stability for almost all 

vessels, as well as subdivision and 

damage stability, generally, for any 

vessel carrying more than 49 passengers 

and all passenger vessels over 65 ft in 

length. We intend this rule to clarify 

and update both intact stability 

regulations and subdivision and damage 

stability regulations, primarily related to 

the carriage of passengers for hire, and 

to update the weight per person used for 

all vessels. Further, the intent of this 

rulemaking is to prevent passenger 

vessels from operating in overloaded 

conditions. Although this final rule will 

become effective 90 days from today on 

March 14, 2011, the new Assumed 

Average Weight per Person (AAWPP) of 

185 lb will not become effective until 

December 1, 2011. 

A vessel’s stability information, 

including any restrictions on route and 

the number of persons permitted, is 

provided to the vessel operator most 

often in the form of a stability letter 

issued by the Coast Guard’s Marine 

Safety Center (MSC), and/or a Coast 

Guard Certificate of Inspection (COI) 

issued by the Officer in Charge, Marine 

Inspection (OCMI). When both are 

provided, the more conservative 

restrictions govern because, in that case, 

the regulations require the operator to 

comply with both (46 CFR 78.17–22, 

122.315, 185.315). This stability 

information is issued after the vessel’s 

stability has been evaluated. 

For vessels greater than 65 ft in 

length, stability is evaluated through 

detailed design calculations, which are 

submitted to the MSC and identify the 

vessel’s stability-related limitations. 

This process, which takes into account 

the assumed total weight of persons on 

board, is described in 46 CFR, 

subchapter S, parts 170 and 171. 

Vessels not greater than 65 feet in 

length and carrying less than 150 

passengers normally undergo a 

performance test conducted in the 

presence of the Marine Inspector, 

instead of submitting design stability 

calculations to the MSC (46 CFR part 

178). Vessels in this category consist of 

monohull vessels, powered catamarans 

carrying less than 49 passengers, and 

pontoon vessels operating on protected 

waters. This performance test, which 

also takes into account the assumed 

total weight of persons on board, is 

either a simplified stability proof test 

(SST) or, if the vessel is a pontoon 

vessel, a pontoon simplified stability 

proof test (PSST). The SST is used to 

evaluate the stability of monohull 

vessels and powered catamarans 

carrying less than 49 passengers, and 

the PSST is used to evaluate the 

stability of pontoon vessels operating on 

protected waters. Further, simplified 

subdivision calculations may be 

necessary for some vessels not greater 

than 65 feet in length. 

Vessels to which these tests do not 

apply, or vessels that do not pass these 

tests, may need to be evaluated through 

design calculations to show that they 

meet minimum intact stability 

requirements. Alternatively, a vessel 

might satisfy stability requirements by 

complying with a standard acceptable to 

the Marine Safety Center. Finally, where 

stability may be safely assessed through 

other means, stability tests may be 

waived. 

Vessel stability calculations and 

stability proof tests employ a number of 

assumptions and approximations to 

account for factors ranging from 

uncertainties associated with 

calculation procedures to variations in 

operating conditions. When originally 

developed, regulatory stability 

standards included an inherent margin 

of safety to account for these 

uncertainties and the current safety 

record of the passenger vessel industry 

reflects the validity of this approach. 

The assumed weight of passengers is 

a component of stability calculations 

and stability proof tests and, as such, 

directly impacts the resulting margin of 

safety. Over time, as passenger weight 

increases, the inherent margin of safety 

decreases across all measures of 

stability, including vertical center of 

gravity, freeboard and passenger heeling 

moment, increasing the risk of stability 

problems. As described in the NPRM, 

the primary goal of the rule is to restore 

the margin of safety inherent in the 

vessel stability requirements that has 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1The report, Advance Data From Vital Health 

Statistics Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body 

Mass Index, United States 1960–2002, No. 347, 

October 27, 2004, is available in the docket. 

been eroded by increased passenger 

weight. 

Section 178.330 of Title 46 of the CFR 

currently specifies that the AAWPP is 

160 pounds, except that vessels 

operating exclusively on protected 

waters and carrying a mix of men, 

women, and children may use an 

AAWPP of 140 pounds per person. 

Section 171.080 uses a weight of 75 

kilograms (165 pounds) per person for 

damage stability calculations. These 

weights were established in the 1960s, 

and have not been updated since. 

In a report issued in October 2004, the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) concluded that the 

average weight of an individual in the 

United States has increased significantly 

in the last 40 years, with the greatest 

increase seen in adults.1

On December 20, 2004, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

issued Safety Recommendation M–04– 

04 (available in the docket), which 

included findings that the current 140 

pound per person weight allowance for 

operations on protected waters does not 

reflect actual loading conditions. The 

NTSB recommended that the Coast 

Guard revise its guidance to OCMIs for 

determining the maximum passenger 

capacity of small passenger pontoon 

vessels either by: Dividing the vessel’s 

assumed total weight of persons on 

board (total test weight) by 174 lb per 

person; or, restricting the actual 

cumulative weight of passengers and 

crew to the vessel’s total test weight. In 

correspondence to the NTSB dated 

April 7, 2005 (available in the docket), 

the Coast Guard concurred that the 

average weight per person used in SSTs 

needed to be updated, and noted that an 

internal Coast Guard study identified 

the same issue. That study, which is 

entitled Study of Effects on Commercial 

Passenger Vessels Due to Weight 

Standards, is available in the docket. 

Additionally, this rulemaking 

presents an opportunity to identify 

where corrections, clarifications, and 

updates need to be made to existing 

regulations. The Coast Guard discussed 

these changes, which include changes 

in international requirements, in the 

NPRM preamble, under ‘‘Corrections, 

Clarifications, and Updates.’’ 

V. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

The Coast Guard received no 

comments on the following sections of 

the proposed rule, and will adopt them 

as proposed in the NPRM: §§ 71.75–1, 

71.75–5, 115.112, 115.900, 115.910, 

115.920, 115.930, 170.070, 170.075, 

170.080, 170.085, 170.093, 170.100, 

170.105, 170.120, 170.135, 170.160, 

170.173, 170.175, 170.180, 170.185, 

170.190, 170.235, 171.060, 171.065, 

171.075, 171.082, 172.020, 172.070, 

176.112, 176.900, 176.910, 176.920, 

176.930, 178.115, and 179.220, as well 

as part 170 subpart E and part 171 

subpart headings. 

Section 71.25–50. Stability Verification 

Annual Stability Information 

Verification 

We received 27 comments concerning 

the proposed annual stability 

information verification in §§ 71.25– 

50(a), 115.505(a), and 176.505(a). 

A majority of commenters expressed 

concern that the proposed regulations 

would be too costly and unjustified by 

risk. Eight commenters felt that simple 

calculations or loading marks should be 

an option that could be used in lieu of 

stability testing for verification, but one 

commenter said that draft marks would 

be very unreliable for passenger vessels 

less than 65 feet in length. Two 

commenters opined that all passenger 

vessels without a stability letter or other 

similar guidance should have stability 

tests conducted. Many commenters 

strongly preferred a risk-based method 

of determining the need for stability 

verification instead of the proposed 

approach. One commenter viewed the 

proposed annual stability information 

verification and the 10-year verification 

as redundant, and one supported 

adoption of the changes as proposed. 

As we explained in the NPRM, the 

provisions in proposed §§ 71.25–50(a), 

115.505(a) and 176.505(a) were 

intended to help ensure that the current 

assumed weight per person would be 

properly considered, and that vessels 

maintain safety levels after initial 

certification. Further, the provisions 

were intended to ensure not only that 

the proper weight standard had been 

applied to a particular vessel, but also 

that the Master is familiar with the 

stability-related operating restrictions, 

and has a reasonable means of 

determining if the vessel is in 

compliance at any given time. 

After additional consideration, 

however, we determined that additional 

regulatory authority in this area is 

unnecessary because existing 46 CFR 

71.17–22, 122.315, and 185.315 require 

masters to ensure their vessels comply 

with all applicable stability 

requirements at all times necessary to 

assure the safety of the vessel. 

These existing sections provide the 

Coast Guard with the broad authority 

and necessary flexibility to verify vessel 

compliance with applicable stability 

requirements. Accordingly, we have 

removed proposed §§ 71.25–50(a), 

115.505(a), and 176.505(a) from the final 

rule. 

Verification of 10-Year Lightship 

Stability 

We received 42 comments on the 

proposed 10-year stability verification 

in §§ 71.25–50(b), 115.505(b) and 

176.505(b). All commenters, except one, 

opposed this part of the proposed rule 

for several reasons: Commenters 

expected it to be prohibitively 

expensive in some cases; the 

verification was perceived to be 

redundant with the annual stability 

information verification; commenters 

believed there is low risk of stability 

casualties associated with increased 

vessel weight; and, no study has been 

performed that identifies the degree to 

which passenger vessels tend to get 

heavier over time. 

Five commenters suggested using load 

marks to verify that vessels are not 

overloaded and to check that the 

vessel’s weight has not changed 

substantially. Fourteen commenters 

challenged the justification for the 

proposed requirement because of 

perceived low safety risk associated 

with vessel weight change. Sixteen 

commenters urged use of a risk-based 

process to trigger lightship verifications. 

We have observed that the lightweight 

of some passenger vessels has increased 

substantially since the initial lightship 

characteristics were determined at the 

time of construction. This 

undocumented weight growth, caused 

by unapproved additions and 

modifications to the vessel, or by 

carriage of additional deadweight, could 

cause a vessel to exceed its authorized 

draft when loaded with the authorized 

complement of passengers. However, no 

unbiased study has been performed of 

the U.S. flag inspected passenger vessel 

fleet to assess the degree to which the 

lightweight of these vessels has 

increased, or identify segments of the 

fleet, if any, which have experienced 

significant weight growth. For these 

reasons, the Coast Guard agrees that 

further study is necessary before 

determining whether promulgation of 

additional regulations applicable to the 

fleet is necessary and we have removed 

the 10-year lightship verification 

provisions in proposed §§ 71.25–50, 

115.505, and 176.505 from this final 

rule. 

Baseline stability data, though, can 

and should be gathered as documenting 

this information will enable owners, 

operators and the Coast Guard to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78067 

2 Id. at p. 37. 

monitor future growth in vessel weight. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard intends to 

improve internal processes to 

accomplish this goal. 

Section 71.50–1. Definitions Relating 

to Hull Examination 

One commenter inquired about the 

necessity of verifying draft marks at 

each drydock examination if the draft 

marks are already permanent and 

properly located. 

The datum used for draft marks is 

often the lowest navigational projection 

and may not have any relation to the 

drafts referred to in the stability 

information. The Coast Guard intends 

this part of the rule to ensure that draft 

marks, where used to verify compliance 

with stability requirements, were 

properly referenced in the stability 

guidance. Detailed marking drawings 

enable masters to properly associate 

draft marks with the draft or freeboard 

restrictions provided in the stability 

letter. The Coast Guard agrees that 

verification of draft marks does not need 

to be repeated at each drydock 

examination, and we revised §§ 71.50– 

1, 115.610, and 176.610 accordingly. 

Further, because the stability 

verification sections contained in the 

NPRM have been removed from this 

final rule, we have removed the 

proposed requirement to confirm that 

draft marks correspond with approved 

stability guidance. 

Section 114.400 Definitions of Terms 

Used in This Subchapter 

Although we received no comments 

on this section, we added a definition of 

‘‘variable load’’ to improve its 

consistency and retain original intent. 

Section 115.110. Routes Permitted 

We received two comments 

concerning proposed changes to ‘‘Routes 

permitted.’’ We proposed adding a new 

subparagraph to this section and 

§ 176.110 explicitly calling attention to 

the OCMI’s prerogative to consider a 

vessel’s suitability for use in all 

environmental conditions. 

One commenter stated that strong 

wind and waves challenge pontoon 

vessels to a greater degree than they do 

monohull vessels, and therefore the 

OCMI should place specific 

environmental limitations on 

certificates of inspection (COIs) for all 

such vessels. The Coast Guard disagrees. 

As we explained in the NPRM, it is not 

possible to accurately enumerate all 

combinations of safe environmental 

conditions on a given passenger vessel’s 

COI. Further, limiting winds, speeds, 

and wave heights alone cannot 

adequately define a safe operating 

envelope for any vessel. This regulation, 

however, does not preclude the OCMI 

from placing specific restrictions on any 

vessel’s COI if clearly warranted for that 

vessel and route. Ultimately, the master 

must be responsible for determining 

whether or not to embark upon or 

continue a voyage or to seek shelter 

based on consideration of all relevant 

factors including prevailing and 

forecasted environmental conditions. 

Another commenter recommended 

that OCMIs should have the option to 

consider the experience of the 

passengers being carried. In support of 

this suggestion, the commenter stated 

that his vessel does not carry school 

groups or tourists but rather boat owners 

and their guests, who are generally 

familiar with vessel operating 

characteristics. We do not agree because 

passenger experience can neither 

enhance nor compensate for a domestic 

passenger vessel’s operating 

characteristics or design limitations in a 

given environment, nor does such 

experience relieve a master from the 

obligation to exercise due diligence in 

operational decisions. 

Section 115.505. Stability Verification 

Please see the discussion of comments 

concerning the proposed annual 

stability information and ten year 

lightship verifications in § 71.25–50 of 

this preamble. 

Section 115.610. Scope of Drydock and 

Internal Structural Examinations 

Please see the discussion of comments 

concerning draft mark verification at 

drydock examinations in § 71.50–1 of 

this preamble. 

Section 122.304. Navigation Underway 

We received three comments 

concerning changes to the navigation 

underway regulations in this section 

and § 185.304. The Coast Guard 

proposed adding forecasted visibility 

and weather conditions to the list of 

factors to which vessel masters should 

give special attention in both sections, 

and a requirement in § 185.304 for 

vessels not greater than 65 feet in length 

to have means to obtain or monitor the 

latest marine broadcast. 

Two commenters stated that new 

regulations are not necessary because 

their companies have always taken 

additional safety precautions in the 

event of rough seas or inclement 

weather, and also because a vessel’s 

master knows it is prudent to check 

weather forecasts. We agree that giving 

special attention to environmental 

conditions is part of the due diligence 

required of a master prior to beginning 

a voyage. The changes we are making to 

these sections are consistent with these 

responsibilities, and do not limit the 

exercise of a master’s discretion in this 

area. Further, stating these 

responsibilities explicitly in regulations 

reinforces the need to monitor and give 

due consideration to forecasted 

conditions so appropriate decisions can 

be made in the face of changing 

environmental conditions. 

One commenter stated this part of the 

proposed rule is nothing more than 

good marine practice since it would 

require the operator only to obtain the 

latest marine weather forecast and plan 

voyages accordingly. While we agree 

this is good marine practice, codifying 

it here reinforces its importance. 

The same commenter also objected to 

continued use of ‘‘reasonable operating 

conditions’’ on a pontoon vessel’s COI, 

instead of providing definitive 

operational guidance to each vessel’s 

master by listing specific environmental 

limitations on the COI. The commenter 

believed this use of ‘‘reasonable 

operating conditions’’ may place 

passengers at unnecessary risk and 

recommended listing limiting 

environmental conditions on the 

vessel’s COI. 

In support of this recommendation, 

the commenter referred to an April 28, 

2005 study conducted by a team of 

Coast Guard members and entitled, 

Study on the U.S. Domestic Intact 

Stability and Subdivision Requirements 

for Twin Hull Pontoon Passenger Boats 

Less Than 65 Feet in Length. That study 

included a preliminary recommendation 

that the Coast Guard consider restricting 

pontoon vessels with a COI based on a 

pontoon simplified stability test to 

operating in wind conditions not greater 

than Beaufort force 4 (16 knots of wind), 

but acknowledged the ramifications of 

implementing such guidance were 

unknown.2

After further consideration, and as we 

previously explained in response to 

comments on §§ 115.110 and 176.110, 

limiting environmental conditions on a 

vessel’s COI in the manner suggested 

would neither be practical nor likely to 

effectively improve vessel safety. We no 

longer believe that the recommendation 

contained in the 2005 study is 

appropriate, because pontoon vessels 

come in all sizes, types and seakeeping 

abilities. An attempt to take a one-sizefits-all approach by specifying limiting 

environmental conditions for vessel 

operation, even if applied only to 

pontoon vessels, is fraught with 

difficulty and may well have 

unintended consequences. Many other 

conditions involving both the vessel and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78068 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

its environment must be constantly 

observed, monitored, interpreted and 

responded to by the master in order to 

evaluate the advisability of embarking 

on a voyage, or of continuing on a 

voyage when conditions progressively 

deteriorate. Masters are, and remain, 

responsible for evaluating all relevant 

factors in order to operate their vessels 

safely at all times. 

Section 122.315. Verification of Vessel 

Compliance With Applicable Stability 

Requirements 

We received nine comments on this 

proposed section, all of which related to 

draft and loading marks. Existing 

regulations require a vessel master to 

verify compliance with the stability 

letter and COI prior to departure. 

Operators have traditionally verified 

compliance with the COI by ensuring 

the count of passengers does not exceed 

that which is specified, rather than 

ensuring that the total permitted weight 

is not exceeded. 

To prevent overloading, this final rule 

requires a master to consider the total 

weight of passengers and all variable 

loads prior to getting underway. This 

can be accomplished through the 

verification of draft or load marks. 

Acceptable alternatives include adding 

the weights or estimated weights of each 

individual passenger, or multiplying the 

passenger count by the current AAWPP 

or another value accepted by the OCMI 

and representative of the weight of 

passengers and crew aboard the vessel. 

One comment suggested requiring a 

loading mark on the side of the vessel. 

The Coast Guard agrees that this is a 

viable method for many vessels, but also 

concurs with other commenters that due 

to inaccuracies involved in reading such 

marks, this method may only identify 

gross overloading situations, depending 

on the size of the vessel and the weather 

conditions. Because of these limitations, 

other options are also acceptable, as 

discussed above. 

One comment stated that small 

passenger vessel masters are not 

sufficiently trained for stability checks 

beyond ensuring the passenger count is 

within the limit on the COI, and that 

maximum drafts have not been 

exceeded. This level of training, 

however, does not preclude masters 

from complying with this regulation. 

Possible compliance options include 

checking draft marks or multiplying the 

passenger count by the current AAWPP, 

which are skills a small passenger vessel 

master should possess. 

Four comments objected to using draft 

marks because environmental factors 

and mooring arrangements often make 

the marks difficult to read, which may 

cause delays in departures. We disagree. 

Existing regulations take these 

difficulties into account and require 

alternative arrangements to determine 

vessel drafts. Both §§ 122.602 and 

185.602 require certain vessels over 65 

feet in length to be fitted with a reliable 

draft indicating system from which the 

bow and stern drafts can be determined 

where the draft marks are obscured due 

to operational constraints or by 

protrusions. 

Two comments expressed concern 

that small changes in draft could 

disproportionately affect passenger 

count, and movement of passengers 

during loading would make reading 

draft or loading marks difficult. The 

Coast Guard recognizes that movement 

of passengers may inhibit accurate draft 

or loading mark verification. In these 

circumstances, where vessels are 

nearing their maximum allowable drafts 

and concerns about accuracy exist, 

operators may wish to employ 

additional tools to verify compliance as 

previously discussed. 

One comment suggested that the 

Coast Guard consider options other than 

checking drafts that an operator may use 

to verify a vessel is not overloaded. As 

discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, 

the Coast Guard agrees. The commenter 

recommended various methods in three 

categories: Load marks, weight 

measurement, and weight estimation. 

The Coast Guard agrees, that use of the 

methods proposed by the commenter 

could satisfy this section of the rule. 

The same commenter also proposed 

the use of several physical methods to 

measure passenger weight prior to 

loading. These methods are described in 

detail in document number USCG– 

2007–0030–0208.1, which can be 

viewed; this document is available in 

the docket by following the directions 

under the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. OCMIs will generally 

consider physical methods that 

accurately measure or estimate 

passenger weight to be acceptable 

means for satisfying the requirements of 

this section. 

Section 122.602. Hull Markings 

We received 12 comments on 

proposed requirements for vessels that 

comply with subchapter S to have 

loading marks or draft marks. This 

section expands existing applicability of 

the requirement to have draft marks to 

passenger vessels less than or equal to 

65 ft in length if their stability 

compliance was determined in 

accordance with subchapter S instead of 

a simplified stability test. 

Two comments supported requiring 

loading marks as a means to verify 

compliance. For the reasons discussed 

below, we agree. 

One commenter stated that draft 

marks are impractical on smaller vessels 

and suggested viewing the boot stripe as 

a means to determine if a vessel is 

overloaded. The Coast Guard does not 

agree. In most cases, due to trim 

restrictions, a vessel’s bootstripe is not 

a sufficiently accurate measure to verify 

compliance with stability criteria unless 

it is referenced as a loading mark on a 

stability letter. 

One commenter suggested that load 

marks be required where draft marks are 

not measured to a vessel’s baseline. The 

Coast Guard partially agrees in that 

§§ 115.610 and 176.610 now require any 

operating restrictions associated with 

stability information to correspond to 

draft or loading marks. Draft marks must 

be shown to be in compliance with 

those sections, but loading marks are 

also an acceptable option. 

Four comments objected to requiring 

draft marks because docking 

arrangements, wakes, and constant 

waves often make the marks difficult or 

impossible to read. The Coast Guard 

acknowledges these conditions often 

make the use of draft or loading marks 

difficult, but they do not prevent the 

need for a draft or loading mark 

requirement. Existing regulations take 

these difficulties into account, and 

permit alternative arrangements to 

determine vessel drafts. As we 

discussed in § 122.315 of this preamble, 

§§ 122.602 and 185.602 currently 

require certain vessels over 65 feet in 

length to be fitted with a reliable draft 

indicating system from which the bow 

and stern drafts can be determined 

when the draft marks are obscured due 

to operational constraints or by 

protrusions. 

Four comments expressed concern 

over accuracy of draft marks when 

weight changes lead to draft changes of 

less than an inch. While use of draft 

marks or a draft indicating system may 

not always be the best way to satisfy the 

requirements and intent of §§ 122.315 

and 185.315, it is a valuable tool to 

assist the master in determining 

compliance with draft and freeboard 

restrictions contained in the vessel’s 

stability information. If there is concern 

about the accuracy of draft readings as 

a vessel approaches its maximum draft 

or full load of passengers, operators 

should employ additional tools to 

ensure vessels are not overloaded, such 

as ensuring their assumed weight per 

person is truly representative of the 

passengers and crew aboard. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78069 

3 47 FR 35090 at 35092 (Aug. 12, 1982). 

4 48 FR 50996 at 51011 (Nov. 4, 1983). 

Section 170.001. Applicability 

We received no comments on this 

section, but added the word ‘‘Either’’ 

after paragraph (a)(1) to improve the 

clarity of the provision. 

Section 170.015. Incorporation by 

Reference 

One commenter recommended 

leaving year designations out of 

citations to ASTM standards in this 

section and suggested the most current 

version of a standard should be used. 

The Coast Guard agrees in part and has 

revised the rule to remove year 

designations from provisions other than 

the centralized incorporation by 

reference (IBR) sections. However, the 

regulations covering IBR require that we 

provide the year of each standard 

incorporated in centralized IBR sections 

(1 CFR part 51). 

Also, when we considered the options 

available for the incorporation by 

reference of the new SOLAS subdivision 

and damage stability requirements 

contained in chapter II–1, we realized 

that a consolidated SOLAS text that 

accurately contains these requirements 

is not available. Instead, reference to the 

IMO resolution that adopted the new 

requirements would be the most direct 

way to incorporate the new provisions 

in the final rule. As a result, the 

incorporation by reference sections and 

the sections incorporating the new 

SOLAS requirements have been 

changed to refer to IMO Resolution 

MSC.216(82), which contains the full 

text of SOLAS chapter II–1, parts A, B, 

B–1, B–2, B–3, and B–4 (sections 

170.015, 170.140, 170.248, 171.001, 

171.012, 171.080, 174.007, 174.360, 

179.15, and 179.212). 

Section 170.055. Definitions Concerning 

a Vessel 

This section has been modified to 

include a definition of Assumed 

Average Weight Per Person (AAWPP), 

which is discussed in § 170.090, and to 

correct a deficiency in the definition of 

‘‘lightweight’’. When the Coast Guard 

proposed the creation of subchapter S in 

1982, the NPRM indicated the definition 

of ‘‘lightweight’’ was to be the same as 

that in 33 CFR 157.03.3 However, the 

words ‘‘the displacement of a vessel’’ 

were inadvertently omitted from the 

definition in the final rule.4 Because the 

definition of this term should be the 

same in both titles of the CFR, this final 

rule corrects the earlier omission. 

Since the Coast Guard received no 

comments on this section as published 

in the NPRM, the proposed definition of 

‘‘constructed’’ has been adopted in this 

final rule. 

Section 170.090. Calculations 

Discussion of comments in this 

section has been divided into 

subsections on the increase in the 

AAWPP, the new AAWPP effective 

date, the process for documenting 

compliance, and updates to the 

AAWPP. 

Increased Assumed Weight per Person 

The Coast Guard received 55 

comments on the proposal to increase 

the assumed weight per person to 185 

lb. Of those, 40 supported using 185 lb 

as the new Assumed Average Weight 

per Person (AAWPP). We agree, and this 

final rule contains an AAWPP of 185 lb. 

Two commenters advocated an 

AAWPP of 187 lb because the most 

recent Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) report, which was 

issued after publication of the NPRM, 

showed an increase in average 

American weight of approximately two 

lb since the previous report. Using the 

AAWPP proposed in the NPRM, 

however, is strongly preferred for the 

following reasons: 

The Coast Guard understands the 

passenger vessel industry has been, and 

is, planning for implementation of a 185 

lb AAWPP, and increasing that number 

at this time would disrupt 

implementation of what is already a 

challenging transition. If the marginal 

safety improvement to be realized from 

a further two lb increase was significant, 

the cost-benefit analysis of these 

alternatives might be different. But it is 

not—a two lb increase from 185 is 

approximately 1%, which would 

produce a negligible draft change even 

on a small vessel. This very small 

additional improvement in stability is 

an insufficient reason to disrupt 

business plans and vessel modifications 

essential to the implementation of this 

final rule. Public safety is not enhanced 

when implementation of the change 

from the obsolete assumed weight of 

140 lb to a weight closely approximating 

the actual average American weight is 

delayed by moving the target at this late 

date to incorporate relatively 

insignificant changes. 

Additionally, as is also discussed 

under AAWPP updates, the AAWPP 

will not be updated until the procedure 

in § 170.090 produces a value at least 10 

lb greater than the effective AAWPP. If 

current trends in the growth of 

Americans’ weight continue, the next 

increase in the AAWPP would occur 

sooner if 185 lb is used in the regulation 

at this point than it would if 187 lb is 

used. Although a minor difference exists 

between the new AAWPP and the body 

weight data in the most current 

NHANES report, that difference will be 

eliminated when the 10 lb stability risk 

threshold is met and the AAWPP is next 

updated. 

Several commenters also questioned 

why the Coast Guard did not include 

different AAWPPs for protected and 

unprotected waters in the regulation. 

Many were also concerned that a single 

AAWPP would not adequately account 

for passenger groups with a high 

percentage of children. Others 

recommended that stability guidance 

simply refer to the total weight of 

people a vessel would be permitted to 

carry and that the master would then 

have the responsibility to limit loading 

to that number by weighing everyone on 

board, using load lines or a draft 

indicating system or, as is possible with 

amphibious craft, weighing the vessel. 

Several of these commenters also 

recommended that OCMIs be vested 

with authority to take route, passenger 

group composition, and other relevant 

circumstances into account when 

assessing vessel stability. The Coast 

Guard agrees, and notes that OCMIs 

currently have the authority and 

responsibility to take all relevant factors 

into account when evaluating vessel 

stability. 

With regard to the question of 

preserving a separate, lower AAWPP for 

vessels operating exclusively on 

protected waters, and carrying a 

passenger load consisting of men, 

women and children, the Coast Guard 

does not concur. The weight of an 

average American is independent of the 

route, and existing regulations already 

include reduced stability requirements 

for protected routes. Additionally, as 

explained in the NPRM, this rule 

incorporates provisions that allow the 

OCMI to consider and approve another 

assumed weight per person based on an 

alternative mix of passengers. 

One of the more important parts of 

this rule is the principle, embodied in 

§ 170.090(c), that ‘‘[t]he assumed weight 

per person for calculations showing 

compliance with this subchapter must 

be representative of the passengers and 

crew aboard the vessel while engaged in 

the service intended.’’ Although 185 lb 

will be the minimum default AAWPP 

until later updated, the Coast Guard 

emphasizes that the same paragraph 

also provides the OCMI the authority to 

permit the use of other values when 

deemed appropriate. 

This principle, and the authority 

explicitly granted to OCMIs to assure 

passenger vessel stability in accordance 

with that principle rather than by 

rigidly applying a single AAWPP 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78070 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5SOLAS, Ch. II–1, Regulation 7–2, para. 4.1.1; 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) Resolution 

MSC.194(80), Annex 2. 

6 International Code on Intact Stability (IS Code), 

para. 3.1.1.1; IMO MSC Resolution MSC.267(85), 

Annex 2. 

7 Id. at p. 4. 

8 Id. at p. 19. 

regardless of circumstances, should 

result in reasonable assumptions 

regarding the average weight of people 

aboard each vessel. Where an owner or 

operator has a passenger group with a 

large number of children, or can show 

some other reason that applying the 

AAWPP does not result in a load limit 

representative of the passengers and 

crew aboard the vessel while engaged in 

the service intended, the OCMI has the 

authority to approve use of an average 

weight less than the AAWPP that more 

accurately represents the actual 

passenger load on a case-by-case basis. 

Three commenters stated that 

increasing the AAWPP to more closely 

match the average American’s weight 

will produce no improvement in safety. 

We disagree. The 45-lb difference 

between the current AAWPP for vessels 

operating on protected waters with a 

mixed passenger load and the weight of 

an average American is likely to result 

in a 24% underestimation of passenger 

load. Using an AAWPP that is as close 

as practicable to the actual average 

passenger weight is the most effective 

way to protect against vessel 

overloading and to restore the margin of 

safety intended in existing stability 

criteria. 

One commenter was concerned that 

the proposed increase in the AAWPP 

might be inconsistent with the 

International Maritime Organization’s 

(IMO) standard assumed passenger 

weight. The 1974 International 

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

(SOLAS) used an assumed weight per 

person, set in 1990, of at least 75 kg 

(approximately 165 lb) for damage 

stability calculations.5 Additionally, the 

IMO Intact Stability Code uses an 

assumed passenger weight, established 

in 1963, of at least 75 kg for intact 

stability calculations.6

Although this final rule establishes an 

AAWPP greater than the minimum 

international requirements, the higher 

AAWPP used in loading calculations is 

necessary for safety reasons because the 

AAWPP more closely approximates the 

actual average American weight. While 

the AAWPP is based on recent CDC 

studies of the US population, the 

current international standards were set 

in 1990 and 1963 respectively and based 

on worldwide data not representative of 

the U.S. population. Rather than being 

inconsistent with international 

standards, the AAWPP complies with 

those standards by exceeding their 

minimum requirements. 

One commenter stated the NPRM’s 

use of a single AAWPP would be 

inconsistent with an assumption in the 

U.S. Coast Guard Study of Effects on 

Commercial Passenger Vessels Due to 

Increasing Passenger Weight Standards 

in the Code of Federal Regulations, 

dated May 19, 2005. The Coast Guard 

disagrees. The study was conducted 

based on the assumption, among others, 

that ‘‘[t]he current method of reducing 

passenger weight for vessels operating 

on protected waters and carrying men, 

women and children was not used.’’ 

Further, the study was not referring to 

the NPRM, which post-dated the study.7

The same commenter pointed out that 

the study recommended ‘‘the Coast 

Guard should investigate whether 

vessels that operate solely on protected 

waters should be subject to a reduction 

factor based on operational constraints 

which may be stipulated in the 

Certificate of Inspection.’’ 8 As the study 

itself stated, ‘‘[t]he results of this initial 

analysis are preliminary* * *.’’ 

Additionally, after further 

consideration, the Coast Guard 

concluded that passenger vessel 

stability assessments would be 

conducted more efficiently and 

accurately by adopting a single AAWPP 

and relying to an extent, as we have in 

the past, on OCMIs to take varying 

factors into account, instead of 

complicating the regulations with 

exceptions that may be overly broad or 

not well tailored to realities in the field. 

One commenter questioned the basis 

for a clothing allowance of 7.5 lb, 

particularly in view of seasonal 

differences. Although we recognize 

seasonal and regional variations in 

clothing weight, we determined that 7.5 

lb is a reasonable approximation of the 

average weight of clothing based on the 

FAA Advisory Circular 120–27E, 

paragraph 210, dated June 10, 2005. 

Two commenters supported an 

increase in the AAWPP, but expected 

the increase to cause an adverse 

financial impact. Please see the 

Regulatory Assessment in part VI of this 

preamble for a discussion of the 

expected costs associated with this rule. 

Although the rule will have some 

economic impact on some vessels, use 

of a realistic AAWPP is essential to 

prevent overloading and protect the 

public. 

One comment pointed out that in 

proposed § 178.330(b), in the formula 

for Mp, units for the term ‘‘W’’ should 

be in pounds (kilograms). We agree and 

have corrected the final rule. 

The Initial AAWPP Effective Date 

We received 31 comments on the 

length of a phase-in period for the 

AAWPP. This period would determine 

the date by which each vessel would 

have to comply with the final rule and 

subsequent AAWPP updates. As 

proposed in the NPRM, the new 

AAWPP would become effective 90 

days after publication of the final rule, 

and vessel owners and operators would 

be required to demonstrate compliance 

at the next annual inspection. Only one 

commenter supported these proposals. 

Several commenters supported 

differing time periods for phasing in the 

requirement for existing vessels to 

comply with the new weight standard. 

Seventeen advocated five to five and a 

half years. One recommended a four 

year period. Two proposed a two year 

period, and three supported a one year 

phase-in, one of which suggested one 

operating season as an alternative. 

Several advocated using risk-based 

methods to address the highest risk 

vessels first. Nine comments did not 

propose a phase-in period, but agreed 

with the majority of other comments 

that it would be infeasible for all 

operators to assess stability and for the 

Coast Guard to revise stability letters or 

amend Certificates of Inspection 

associated with implementing a new 

AAWPP within a year after publication 

of the final rule. 

Several commenters made the point 

that business plans, booked charters, 

ticket prices, rate settings, and 

interactions with government agencies 

other than the Coast Guard can be 

affected by changes in passenger 

capacity. One commenter noted that 

group charters are reserved up to a year 

in advance. The Coast Guard agrees that 

the need to bring the AAWPP up to date 

must be balanced with the practical 

effects of implementing the change on 

vessel owners and operators. For this 

reason, the Coast Guard does not agree 

with the commenter who advocated 

implementing the new AAWPP 

immediately. 

Making the initial AAWPP effective 

on December 1, 2011 will provide 

owners and operators an operating 

season in which to plan, allocate 

revenues and costs, and prepare for the 

new requirements. Further, nearly all 

commenters on this subject emphasized 

that failure to afford a reasonable 

implementation period would cause 

them financial hardship. For these 

reasons, a period of approximately one 

year leading to the AAWPP effective 

date represents a necessary balance 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78071 

between implementing a new AAWPP 

as quickly as possible to protect public 

safety, and providing a reasonable 

amount of time for owners and 

operators to adjust their operations. All 

subsequent AAWPP updates will 

become effective one calendar year after 

public notice. 

Many commenters also maintained 

that at least five years would be 

necessary to assess stability and 

accomplish the documentation 

associated with implementing a new 

AAWPP throughout the affected fleet 

because of an insufficient supply of 

naval architects and Coast Guard 

personnel. We agree that the rule, as 

proposed, would have required more 

than a year to fully implement. 

However, as discussed in § 71.25–50 of 

this preamble, provisions in the NPRM 

proposing annual stability information 

verifications have not been included in 

this final rule. Additionally, the Coast 

Guard’s regulatory analysis and studies 

show that some vessels may only need 

an update or revision of their stability 

letters and COIs, and may not require a 

stability test as a result of this rule. 

Further, as we discuss in greater detail 

below in the section on documenting 

compliance, many owners and operators 

will be permitted to certify compliance 

with stability requirements for a total 

weight of passengers and crew 

associated with the new AAWPP and 

will not need new documentation before 

operating in accordance with this 

certification. Because we gave notice of 

our intent to update the average weight, 

and emphasized managing total weight 

in our April 2006 notice of voluntary 

compliance, owners and operators 

received sufficient time to prepare for 

the updated AAWPP. For these reasons, 

a period longer than approximately one 

year leading to the new AAWWPP’s 

effective date is not warranted. 

Although the Coast Guard is unable to 

predict the amount of time necessary to 

revise stability letters or amend 

Certificates of Inspection, no commenter 

presented, and the Coast Guard is not 

aware of, any compelling reason for the 

effective date of the new AAWPP to be 

delayed until documentation is 

complete. However, the Coast Guard 

realizes the time needed to complete 

documentation for all vessels will likely 

exceed the approximate one year period 

prior to the effective date, and 

documentation will be completed as 

available resources permit. 

Accordingly, beginning December 1, 

2011, passenger vessel owners and 

operators must ensure that the total 

weight of passengers, crew, and variable 

loads does not exceed the total weight 

for which stability has been 

satisfactorily evaluated. The total 

permitted weight is often based on a 

maximum number of persons in 

association with an AAWPP of 185 lb or 

another weight approved in writing by 

an OCMI. It should be emphasized that, 

while this final rule will become 

effective 90 days from today on March 

14, 2011, the 185 lb AAWPP will not 

become effective at the same time. 

Under § 170.090 of this final rule, the 

initial AAWPP issued pursuant to the 

provisions of that section, which will be 

185 lb, will become effective on 

December 1, 2011. 

Subsequent AAWPP updates will 

normally be issued as interpretive rules 

without further rulemaking procedures 

and will become effective one calendar 

year after publication of a notice in the 

Federal Register unless an earlier 

effective date is necessary for urgent 

public safety reasons. The Coast Guard 

reserves the authority, however, to 

update the AAWPP using notice and 

comment rulemaking procedures, and to 

delay or dispense with any update of 

the AAWPP. In the event the Coast 

Guard elects to dispense with or delay 

an update, the Coast Guard will inform 

the public of the decision and explain 

the reasons in a Federal Register notice. 

Process for Documenting Compliance 

Beginning on December 1, 2011, each 

passenger vessel must be in compliance 

with stability criteria based on the new 

AAWPP of 185 lb or another weight 

approved in writing by the cognizant 

OCMI. If the Coast Guard has not issued 

a stability letter associated with the new 

AAWPP or greater average weight, or 

the Coast Guard has not confirmed that 

existing stability guidance is acceptable 

relative to the new AAWPP, then the 

owner or operator must certify to the 

OCMI that the vessel complies with 

applicable stability requirements. 

Certification of stability compliance by 

an owner or operator means that– 

(1) The owner or operator has 

provided a written statement to the 

OCMI together with documentation 

clearly supporting the total weight and 

number of passengers and crew 

permitted to be carried at the new 

AAWPP; and 

(2) A copy of this information has 

been provided to the MSC if the vessel 

is a pontoon vessel or demonstrates 

compliance with the provisions of 

subchapter S. 

In each case, a copy of the vessel’s 

current stability letter should be 

included with the documentation. 

Owners and operators must provide 

the documentation referred to in 

paragraph 1 above to the OCMI, in 

writing, not later than December 1, 

2011. Pending the effective date of this 

regulation, owners and operators are 

encouraged to voluntarily comply with 

the new AAWPP as soon as practicable. 

A number of options exist for this 

certification, including but not limited 

to the following: 

(1) Weight ratio. The simplest method 

for demonstrating compliance with the 

new AAWPP requirement is to reduce 

the total passengers and crew permitted 

by existing stability guidance to a 

number not greater than the former 

passenger and crew capacity multiplied 

by the ratio of the old assumed weight 

per person (the assumed weight per 

person the current stability guidance 

was based on) to the new AAWPP. If 

documentation of the old assumed 

weight per person is not available, the 

most conservative existing weight per 

person commensurate with the vessel’s 

service should be assumed. 

In formula, this means: 

New passenger and crew capacity = 

existing passenger and crew capacity × 

old assumed weight per person/new 

AAWPP. 

(2) Weight compensation. A method 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

new AAWPP requirement available to 

vessels carrying either deck or vehicular 

cargo in addition to passengers is to 

reduce the cargo weight carried by an 

amount equal to the difference between 

the total permitted weight of passengers 

and crew associated with the new and 

old AAWPPs. Owners or operators who 

opt to proportionally reduce cargo 

capacity would see no reduction in 

passenger capacity. 

(3) Direct verification. The owner or 

operator ensures that the total weight of 

persons loaded aboard the vessel does 

not exceed the total permitted weight of 

persons associated with the existing 

stability guidance. For vessels that have 

undergone an SST, this is the total test 

weight. The method by which the owner 

or operator ensures the total weight does 

not exceed the limiting value may 

include weighing of all persons on 

board or another method accepted in 

writing by the cognizant OCMI. 

(4) Stability calculations. The owner 

or operator may prepare or have 

prepared revised stability calculations 

demonstrating that the vessel complies 

with applicable stability requirements 

when loaded with persons at the new 

AAWPP. These calculations may use the 

results of previous or new stability tests. 

New stability tests associated with 

revised stability calculations must be 

conducted in the presence of a Coast 

Guard Marine Inspector. 

(5) New stability proof tests. The 

owner or operator may choose to 

conduct a new SST or PSST to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9COMDTINST M16000.9, Marine Safety Manual, 

Vol IV, § 6.D.4; Marine Safety Center Technical 

Note, Lightship Change Determination, WeightMoment Calculation vs. Deadweight Survey vs. Full 

Stability Test, 11 May 1995; and, 2008 IS Code, 

para. B/8.1.5, IMO MSC Resolution MSC.267(85), 

Annex 2. 

demonstrate compliance with the same 

number of passengers and crew at the 

new AAWPP. New SSTs must be 

conducted in the presence of a Coast 

Guard Marine Inspector. 

The number of passengers permitted 

aboard small passenger vessels is also 

limited by the criteria listed in 

§§ 115.113 and 176.113: Length of rail, 

deck area, or fixed seating. As the total 

test weight for these vessels is typically 

determined with consideration of that 

restriction, it may be possible for a 

vessel to continue to carry close to, if 

not the same, number of passengers at 

the new AAWPP. Adequate stability in 

this regard will, however, still need to 

be determined by either method (4) or 

(5). Vessels for which the Certificate of 

Inspection restricts the number of 

passengers carried to a number 

significantly less than that indicated in 

the stability guidance may have little or 

no reduction in passenger capacity. 

Owners and operators who determine 

that their vessel will incur no reduction 

in the total number of passengers and 

crew permitted still must certify to the 

OCMI that there will be no impact on 

the total passenger and crew capacity, 

and must develop sufficient 

documentation to support their 

findings. 

The Coast Guard will verify the owner 

or operator’s certification that the vessel 

meets stability requirements based on a 

total weight at the new AAWPP no later 

than the vessel’s next annual inspection 

following December 1, 2011. Stability 

letters will be revised and Certificates of 

Inspection will be amended as needed 

and as Coast Guard resources permit. 

Owners and operators of vessels with 

stability letters issued by the MSC or a 

Coast Guard District must submit this 

certification information to the MSC, 

with a copy to the OCMI, who will 

review and issue a new stability letter 

as appropriate. Pending revision of 

these documents, owners and operators 

must still comply with the provisions of 

this regulation and ensure that their 

vessels are not overloaded. 

Owners and operators should keep 

appropriate copies of this 

documentation aboard their vessels as 

evidence of compliance after the new 

AAWPP becomes effective, pending 

receipt of revised stability letters. 

Additional information and or tests as 

appropriate may be required by the 

OCMI or Commanding Officer, Marine 

Safety Center if the OCMI questions the 

vessel’s stability. 

Subsequent AAWPP Updates 

We received 36 comments addressing 

the subject of how the AAWPP would 

be updated. Instead of promulgating 

future updates without further 

rulemaking procedures, as proposed, 23 

commenters advocated updating the 

average weight only when a threshold 

corresponding with significantly 

increased safety risk is met. One 

commenter suggested a threshold of 3% 

of the current assumed weight, another 

supported a value between 3 and 5%, 

and another recommended 5% or more. 

Fourteen commenters felt this matter 

should be re-addressed in a 

supplemental rulemaking entirely, and 

ten commenters believed that updates 

should only occur through notice and 

comment rulemakings. Only one 

commenter supported this part of the 

proposed rule as written. 

As noted above in the discussion of 

this section, 55 comments were 

submitted on the proposal to increase 

the AAWPP and 40 of those supported 

the proposed change. As we explained 

in the NPRM, and as a substantial 

majority of commenters agreed, the 

AAWPP must be increased because it is 

no longer consistent with the average 

American passenger weight, and a 

significant risk of overloading passenger 

vessels exists without an increase. 

The same reasons strongly support 

inclusion of a mechanism in regulation 

that maintains an up-to-date AAWPP 

over time. With such a mechanism, the 

AAWPP will be updated to reflect 

changes in the American population’s 

weight in the most efficient manner 

practicable. The current disparity 

between the AAWPP prescribed in 

regulations and the average American 

weight would have been much less 

likely to develop if an updating 

mechanism had been previously 

included in regulations. Advantages in 

public safety and use of Coast Guard 

resources make inclusion of such a 

mechanism the better choice. 

Additionally, use of such a 

mechanism to update objective 

numerical values based upon data 

issued by an authoritative source is not 

unusual. As one example, Federal 

agencies, including the Coast Guard, 

commonly keep their regulations 

consistent with the current consumer 

price index using similar methods. In 

those cases and in this rulemaking, the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics and the 

National Center for Health Statistics are 

widely recognized as the leading 

authoritative sources of statistics in 

their respective fields. 

Under these circumstances, and in 

light of the strong public policy interests 

served by keeping the AAWPP current, 

notice and comment rulemaking 

procedures are not expected to be 

required by law for every update. In the 

future, the Coast Guard anticipates it 

will periodically update the AAWPP for 

purposes of 46 CFR 170.090 by 

interpreting the term to keep it 

consistent with the current average 

American weight as reported by 

NHANES. The Coast Guard will justify 

an interpretive rule each time it is 

published in the Federal Register, and 

conduct a notice and comment 

rulemaking if a particular update would 

not qualify as interpretive because of 

future circumstances. 

At the same time, the Coast Guard 

recognizes the need of vessel owners 

and operators for a reasonable degree of 

predictability in the rate of change to 

the AAWPP, and agrees with 

commenters who advocated that future 

updates should be tied to a risk-based 

threshold. For these reasons, the Coast 

Guard added a provision to this final 

rule that permits an increase in the 

AAWPP through an interpretive rule 

only when CDC data yield an AAWPP 

that differs by at least 10 lb from the 

AAWPP then in effect. The rule also 

permits the Coast Guard to conduct 

rulemaking procedures at any time. 

The Marine Safety Manual and the 

International Code on Intact Stability, 

2008 (2008 IS Code) require stability 

testing when a vessel’s lightship 

displacement changes more than 2 

percent.9 Although these standards 

address changes in lightship 

displacement as a threshold for 

conducting stability evaluations, this 

concept is also useful in this context 

when applied to changes in total 

displacement. A 10-lb threshold on 

AAWPP changes corresponds to 5 

percent of the new 185-lb AAWPP. 

Considering that passenger weight is 

only a portion of a passenger vessel’s 

displacement, however, a 5 percent 

change in the passenger loads typical of 

many small passenger vessels results in 

a total displacement change of 

approximately 2 percent. For this 

reason, a 10-lb threshold for AAWPP 

updates is a reasonable approximation 

of an established risk threshold. 

Although future changes in average 

American weight are unknown, a 10-lb 

threshold is likely to provide vessel 

owners and operators a more stable 

AAWPP than provisions proposed in 

the NPRM. 

Additionally, the Coast Guard 

recognizes that unforeseen events may 

make implementation of an AAWPP 

update without further rulemaking 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78073 

procedures contrary to public interest. 

To preclude the possibility of such an 

update proceeding automatically, a 

provision has been added preserving the 

Coast Guard’s flexibility to dispense 

with or delay any update that would 

otherwise issue as an interpretive rule 

without further rulemaking procedures. 

Similarly, a provision has been added to 

explicitly maintain the Coast Guard’s 

prerogative to conduct a rulemaking at 

any time to amend the AAWPP or any 

other part of CFR Title 46. With these 

provisions, the Coast Guard will ensure 

that AAWPP updates issued as 

interpretive rules without further 

rulemaking procedures are reasonable in 

light of circumstances existing at the 

time and will protect the public. 

Two commenters suggested tying 

future updates to a fixed time period 

such as 10 or 20 years. We disagree. 

Although an update every ten years 

would likely be appropriate if past 

trends continue, there is no assurance 

that Americans’ weight will continue to 

increase at the same rate in the future. 

Updating the AAWPP when reliable 

data show average weight has changed 

significantly will result in a more 

accurate AAWPP over time. 

One commenter pointed out that 

proposed § 170.090(e) used the mean 

weights of adults ‘‘20 years and over’’ to 

calculate the AAWPP, while the 

discussion of this subject in the NPRM 

preamble used the weights of adults 

‘‘between 20 and 74 years old.’’ This 

commenter also advocated using the 

latter age range because the commenter 

expected that using the former would 

bias the AAWPP downward. 

The CDC changed the reporting of 

American weight data after publication 

of the NPRM, and mean weights of 

adults aged 20 to 74 years are no longer 

provided in NCHS reports. Further, in 

the absence of any data showing that 

inclusion of those over 75 would 

produce a less accurate AAWPP, it is 

not clear that doing so would bias the 

standard. The different age ranges in the 

NPRM preamble and regulatory text 

resulted from that change in CDC 

reporting. 

One commenter observed that the 

update procedures described in the 

NPRM represented a zero risk approach 

and would greatly limit the Coast 

Guard’s flexibility in updating the 

AAWPP. We agree, and therefore have 

added a provision explicitly 

maintaining the Coast Guard’s 

prerogative to conduct a rulemaking in 

this area at any time. The CDC will 

publish data, which will be used 

according to the procedure in § 170.090 

to produce an AAWPP as close as 

reasonably practicable to the actual 

average American passenger weight. An 

AAWPP differing at least 10 lb from that 

in effect at the time will become 

effective pursuant to the provisions of 

this final rule unless the Coast Guard 

decides to postpone or delay the update 

or to conduct further rulemaking 

procedures. 

Section 170.140. Applicability 

See the discussion of changes in 

§ 170.015 of this preamble. 

Section 170.165. International Code on 

Intact Stability 

We received no comments on this 

section of the NPRM. After further 

consideration, however, the Coast Guard 

determined that the proposed 

provisions in §§ 170.248, 171.001 and 

179.212 would inadvertently terminate 

acceptance by the Coast Guard of 

compliance by certain vessels with 46 

CFR, subchapter T, in lieu of the 

stability requirements of SOLAS 

Chapter II–1. Because the Coast Guard 

did not intend such termination, we 

revised §§ 170.165, 170.248, 171.001, 

171.070, and 179.212 of this final rule 

to preserve the existing equivalence for 

certain small passenger vessels 

operating on international voyages 20 

miles or less from the nearest land. 

Section 170.170. Weather Criteria 

Eight comments were received 

concerning reformulation of the wind 

and passenger heeling requirements 

contained in §§ 170.170 and 171.050. 

Four commenters believed these 

proposed changes were beyond the 

appropriate scope of a rulemaking 

focused on passenger weight, regardless 

of their merit, and suggested this matter 

be dealt with in a separate rulemaking. 

One commenter suggested the proposed 

rule change be applied only to vessels 

built after the rule takes effect, while 

existing criteria would continue to 

apply to vessels built prior to the 

effective date. One commenter 

cautioned that the changes to § 170.170 

would affect all inspected vessels, all 

load lined uninspected vessels and, 

potentially, existing vessels that comply 

with current criteria. One commenter 

supported the proposed change to the 

criteria and explained that assessment 

of compliance based on a calculated 

equilibrium heel angle is more accurate 

than the existing, simplified calculation 

based on upright metacentric height 

(GM) (e.g., at zero heel angle). 

While the Coast Guard agrees that the 

assessment of compliance based on a 

calculated equilibrium heel angle is 

more accurate than the existing, 

simplified calculation, we also concur 

that additional study of the effects of the 

proposed changes to § 170.170 on the 

existing fleet is required prior to 

implementing these criteria. 

Accordingly, we have removed the 

proposed changes to § 170.170 from the 

final rule. 

However, for the reasons discussed in 

the NPRM, we have modified § 170.170 

to clearly indicate the limitation of the 

existing criteria to those conditions for 

which the formula is valid and reflect 

the requirement for additional 

calculations—generally addressed by 

demonstrating compliance with 

§ 170.173—for vessels of unusual 

proportion and form. 

One commenter pointed to a 

typographical error in the proposed rule 

for § 170.170(a)(2). While we agree, 

modifications to this section have been 

removed from the final rule. 

Section 170.248. Applicability 

See the discussion of changes in 

§§ 170.015 and 170.165 of this 

preamble. 

Section 171.001. Applicability 

See the discussion of changes in 

§§ 170.015 and 170.165 of this 

preamble. 

Section 171.045. Weight of Passengers 

and Crew 

See the discussion of changes to the 

AAWPP in § 170.090 of this preamble. 

Section 171.050. Passenger Heel 

Requirements for a Mechanically 

Propelled or a Non-Self Propelled Vessel 

Eight comments were received 

concerning reformulation of the wind 

and passenger heeling requirements 

contained in this section. Four 

commenters believed these proposed 

changes were beyond the appropriate 

scope of a rulemaking focused on 

passenger weight, regardless of their 

merit, and suggested this matter be dealt 

with in a separate rulemaking. With 

respect to proposed changes to 

§ 171.050 and the proposed new section 

on passenger crowding in § 171.052, one 

commenter suggested that it would be 

more precise and simpler to develop a 

single passenger heel criteria by 

combining the two sections. This 

commenter advocated criteria based on 

a vessel’s actual stability performance, 

use of an appropriate passenger loading 

density, and residual righting energy 

margins. The Coast Guard concurs; 

however additional study of the effects 

of passenger loading densities and 

residual righting energy margins is 

required prior to implementing 

performance-based criteria for nonpontoon vessels and possibly combining 

§ 171.050 and § 171.052. Accordingly, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78074 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

10The Coast Guard Office of Vessel Activities was 

previously designated G–MOC, and is now 

designated Commandant (CG–543). This policy 

letter is available in the docket. 

we have removed the proposed 

provisions in this section of the final 

rule. 

Instead, this section of the final rule 

retains provisions in existing 

regulations concerning simplified 

calculation of metacentric height and 

the proposed provisions concerning the 

2008 IS Code. 

For the reasons explained in § 170.170 

of this preamble and in the NPRM, we 

have also modified § 171.050 to clearly 

indicate the limitation of the existing 

criteria to those conditions for which 

the formula is valid and reflect the 

requirement for additional 

calculations—generally addressed by 

demonstrating compliance with 

§ 170.173—for vessels of unusual 

proportion and form. 

Section 171.052. Passenger Heel 

Requirements for Pontoon Vessels 

Ten comments were received on the 

proposal for passenger crowding 

criteria. While acknowledging the 

motivation for this proposal, no 

commenter supported the proposal as 

written in the NPRM. All commenters 

advocated withdrawing the proposal to 

permit further investigation, and urged 

a careful approach to resolving this 

apparent safety gap. 

Four commenters indicated that the 

passenger crowding study on which the 

proposed regulation was based only 

considered small vessels and was not 

sufficiently rigorous to serve as a basis 

for regulations applying to larger 

vessels. Two commenters questioned 

the use of passenger fraction as a basis 

for application of passenger crowding 

criteria. Those commenters also argued 

that the results of the pontoon study 

support the conclusion that the 

passenger crowding issue appears to be 

generally limited to small light vessels, 

such as pontoon vessels. Further, the 

commenters pointed out that the study 

did not assess the degree to which 

application of passenger crowding 

criteria would affect larger, heavier 

vessels, which make up most of the 

remainder of the fleet. One commenter 

indicated that, based on service and 

configuration, the proposed passenger 

crowding standard would also 

inappropriately penalize certain small 

vessels. Three commenters identified 

monohull vessels for which the SST was 

not conservative when compared to the 

proposed passenger crowding standards. 

In those cases, the proposed standard 

would result in reductions of up to 45 

percent of the passenger capacity 

permitted by the SST. 

The Coast Guard agrees that, for 

vessels other than pontoon vessels, 

further research is required to determine 

the risk associated with passenger 

crowding. Accordingly, we have limited 

the applicability of § 171.052 to pontoon 

vessels. 

Section 171.070. Subdivision 

Requirements—Type II 

See the discussion of changes in 

§ 170.165 of this preamble. 

Section 171.080. Damage Stability 

Standards for Vessels With Type I or 

Type II Subdivision 

See the discussion of changes to the 

AAWPP under § 170.090, and of the IBR 

in § 170.015, of this preamble. 

Section 174.007. Incorporation by 

Reference 

One commenter recommended 

leaving year designations out of 

citations to ASTM standards in this 

section and suggested the most current 

version of a standard should be used. 

The Coast Guard agrees in part and has 

revised the rule to remove year 

designations from provisions other than 

the centralized IBR sections. In 

addition, see the discussion of changes 

in § 170.015 of this preamble. 

Section 174.360. Calculations 

See the discussion of changes in 

§ 170.015 of this preamble. 

Section 175.400. Definitions of Terms 

Used in This Subchapter 

Although we received no comments 

on this section, the definition of 

‘‘variable load’’ has been modified to 

improve clarity. We also added a 

definition of ‘‘pontoon vessel’’ to section 

175.400 because that term is used 

frequently in part 178. 

Section 176.110. Routes Permitted 

Please see the discussion of comments 

on routes permitted in § 115.110 of this 

preamble. 

Section 176.505. Stability Verification 

Please see the discussion of comments 

concerning the proposed annual 

stability information and ten-year 

lightship verifications in § 71.25–50 of 

this preamble. 

Section 176.610. Scope of Drydock and 

Internal Structural Examinations 

Please see the discussion of comments 

concerning draft mark verification in 

§ 71.50–1 of this preamble. 

Section 178.210. Stability Information 

Four comments were submitted on 

the proposed changes in this section 

and §§ 178.320(b) and 178.340 

associated with PSSTs. One commenter 

opposed allowing simplified stability 

tests for pontoon vessels. Another 

commenter expressed disbelief that the 

safety of pontoon passenger vessels 

would be enhanced by the Marine 

Safety Center issuing stability letters for 

vessels that undergo a PSST. 

One commenter urged that future 

regulations prohibit OCMIs from 

dispensing with the requirement for a 

simplified stability test on a pontoon 

passenger vessel. The commenter also 

opined that proposed changes to the 

PSST would introduce inconsistencies 

between the PSST and the SST used for 

monohulls, and could reduce safety 

margins for pontoon vessels. In 

addition, the commenter objected to the 

proposed regulatory requirement of a 

minimum passenger and crew heeling 

moment because the required heeling 

moment would be reduced from the 

guidance provided. Finally, this 

commenter advocated inclusion of a 

specific pontoon vessel dynamic 

stability standard. 

One commenter was concerned about 

the large passenger capacity reduction 

on a pontoon passenger vessel due to 

changes in the average weight per 

person and the perceived rigor of the 

proposed pontoon vessel stability 

evaluation. 

Over the past four years, the U.S. 

Coast Guard MSC reviewed records of 

PSSTs of all certificated pontoon type 

passenger vessels and found that 

pontoon vessel stability calculations 

and results are hypersensitive to even 

minor errors made in the conduct of the 

PSST. Because of this hypersensitivity, 

the Coast Guard has determined that 

centralized review of PSST results and 

pontoon vessel stability calculations is 

necessary to ensure compliance with 

applicable stability standards. This is 

the basis for the proposed rule’s 

addition of 46 CFR 178.210(d), which 

requires that each pontoon passenger 

vessel be issued a stability letter by the 

MSC. Because the Coast Guard 

recognizes a small number of stability 

letters will not need revision, 

§ 178.210(d) will apply only to stability 

letters issued after the effective date of 

this rule. 

MSC’s review of the PSST data also 

revealed significant discrepancies in 

how the simulated load was relocated to 

the ‘‘extreme outboard position of the 

deck,’’ as required by existing 46 CFR 

178.340. The PSST guidance, in G–MOC 

policy letter 10–04, Evaluation of 

Stability and Subdivision Requirements 

for Small Passenger Vessels Inspected 

Under 46 CFR Subchapter T,10


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78075 

suggested that the heeling moment be 

based on the entire simulated load, 

which would be centered at the extreme 

outboard edge of the deck and require 

some of the simulated load to be placed 

further outboard than the outboard edge 

of the deck—a difficult condition to 

achieve in practice. To correct this, a 

minimum heeling moment is specified 

in the final rule that requires the 

simulated load to be centered not more 

than one foot inboard from the extreme 

outboard edge of the deck available to 

passengers. This requirement would 

correct previous guidance and otherwise 

increase the conservatism and 

consistency of the PSST from previous 

practice. 

MSC field guidance requires tanks to 

be either 100 percent full or empty, 

whichever is more conservative, for the 

conduct of PSSTs. Rather than the 

current requirement of 75 percent, the 

trim and immersion difference caused 

by these tank conditions typically 

reduce a pontoon vessel’s stability by a 

greater amount than the free surface 

effect resulting from 75 percent full 

tanks required in the SST. To maintain 

the conservatism of the PSST, the 

proposed requirement is incorporated 

into this final rule in § 178.340. In other 

considerations, the new rule maintains 

consistency in the loading conditions 

between the SST and the PSST. 

This final rule formalizes the MSC’s 

prerogative to dispense with the 

requirement of a PSST if the vessel’s 

stability can be adequately assessed by 

alternate means, which include, but are 

not limited to, the form, arrangement, 

construction, number of decks, route, 

and operating restrictions of the vessel. 

In the case of a pontoon vessel, the 

Coast Guard will rely on the expertise 

of the MSC, which will issue the 

stability letter. Doing so will help 

ensure that a PSST would only be 

dispensed with when compliance with 

minimum stability standards can be 

assured without testing. 

With respect to dynamic stability for 

pontoon vessels, the Coast Guard does 

not agree on the viability of or need for 

such criteria for several reasons. First, to 

our knowledge, dynamic intact stability 

criteria based on state-of-the-art 

methodologies are presently under 

development for monohulls and have 

not yet been adopted for any vessel type 

anywhere in the world, except a guide 

for the assessment of parametric roll 

resonance in the design of container 

vessels. Because of the unique hull 

characteristics of a pontoon vessel and 

general lack of comprehensive research 

in pontoon vessel dynamic stability, 

development of dynamic stability 

criteria for this vessel type using stateof-the-art methodologies is premature. 

Second, existing intact stability 

criteria contained in 46 CFR 170.173 

include righting energy or the work 

done in heeling a vessel to a given angle 

of heel, which is a traditional 

consideration of dynamic stability. The 

use of righting energy criteria is a timeproven, internationally accepted 

method of evaluating quantities known 

to be related to dynamic stability, 

including the stability of vessels 

spanning a broad spectrum of hull forms 

and operating routes. Application of 

these standards provides an indication 

of the vessel’s ability to safely operate 

under the loading scenarios and 

environmental conditions the vessel is 

anticipated to encounter in service. 

Because most pontoon vessels 

demonstrate compliance by satisfactory 

performance of a PSST, we have verified 

that a satisfactory PSST performed 

according to 46 CFR 178.340 ensures 

compliance with 46 CFR 170.173— 

frequently with large margins. 

Section 178.215. Weight of Passengers 

and Crew 

See the discussion of comments on 

changes to the AAWPP in § 170.090 of 

this preamble. 

Section 178.230. Stability Letter or 

Certificate of Inspection Stability Details 

Two comments were received 

addressing issues associated with 

stability letters. One commenter 

requested that this rulemaking clarify 

how second deck passenger capacity 

should be reflected in a stability letter 

based on the performance of a 

simplified stability test (SST). While the 

Coast Guard agrees that calculation 

methods should be examined for clarity, 

and additional guidance issued as 

necessary, the information required in 

the proposed regulation is adequate. 

Another commenter recommended 

that draft and freeboard information 

from SSTs be clearly identified on 

stability letters. The Coast Guard agrees 

that providing such information to a 

vessel’s master would improve 

awareness of vessel stability limitations. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard will 

consider issuing additional guidance 

regarding the information required in 

stability letters issued for vessels that 

have undergone SSTs. Because this 

information is already required to be 

recorded during the SST, however, the 

proposed regulation does not need 

revision on this subject. 

Section 178.310. Intact Stability 

Requirements—General 

Six comments were submitted on the 

proposal to reorganize and clarify the 

intact stability requirements applicable 

to Subchapter T passenger vessels. 

One commenter indicated the 

proposed rules have ‘‘little potential for 

clarifying’’ applicable standards and are 

‘‘difficult to follow, in large part because 

of the multitude of cross-references.’’ 

The Coast Guard agrees and has rewritten §§ 178.310, 178.320 and 178.325 

to minimize cross-references. 

One commenter indicated that, while 

the newly introduced flowchart and 

table were welcome additions, they 

were ‘‘job assistants’’, helpful in 

determining regulatory applicability, 

rather than regulatory requirements and 

would be more appropriately published 

as guidance. The Coast Guard agrees 

and has removed the flowchart and 

table from the regulations. 

One commenter urged the Coast 

Guard to require a 50 percent full load 

submergence criterion, in addition to 

the nine criteria already proposed, for 

governing application of the PSST. The 

Coast Guard does not agree. The new 

cross sectional area requirement 

effectively imposes the 50 percent 

submergence limit to any case with 

greater submergence. Consequently, 

compliance with the performance safety 

standard detailed in the PSST can be 

achieved by certain pontoon vessels 

which are loaded beyond the 50 percent 

pontoon submergence level, and an 

arbitrary submergence limitation of 

these vessels would be inappropriate 

and superfluous. 

One commenter advocated 

eliminating SSTs, especially for sailing 

vessels, while another commenter 

lauded the inclusion of flush deck 

catamaran vessels in those eligible for 

an SST. Another commenter questioned 

the immersion standard for the SST, and 

questioned whether a ‘‘more reasonable 

number for the Passenger Heeling 

Moment’’ may be determined 

considering the construction, service, 

and route of the vessel. 

The Coast Guard intends to study the 

SST requirements to ensure that they 

remain conservative with respect to 

currently applicable stability 

requirements. Pending the results of 

such a study, however, no action 

beyond that proposed in the NPRM will 

be taken to modify the SST 

requirements or applicability. 

Section 178.320. Intact Stability 

Requirements—Non-Sailing Vessels 

See the discussion of comments on 

changes concerning pontoon passenger 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

vessel simplified stability proof tests in 

§ 178.210, and on revisions to the intact 

stability requirements for Subchapter T 

vessels in § 178.310 of this preamble. 

Section 178.325. Intact Stability 

Requirements—Monohull Sailing 

Vessels 

See the discussion of comments on 

changes to the intact stability 

requirements for Subchapter T vessels 

in § 178.310 of this preamble. 

Section 178.330. Simplified Stability 

Proof Test (SST) 

See the discussion of comments on 

changes to the AAWPP in § 170.090 of 

this preamble. 

Section 178.340. Stability Standards for 

Pontoon Vessels on Protected Waters 

Although no commenter suggested it, 

we corrected paragraph (c) by removing 

the words ‘‘without consideration of the 

cross-structure area on that side,’’ and 

the definition of ‘‘Area’’ in paragraph (b) 

by removing the words ‘‘masts’’ and ‘‘but 

not protruding fixed objects such as 

antennas or running rigging’’ to align 

those provisions with the commonly 

accepted definition of ‘‘area’’ in that 

context. Additionally, see the 

discussion of comments on revisions 

concerning pontoon passenger vessel 

simplified stability proof tests in 

§ 178.210 of this preamble. 

Section 179.15. Incorporation by 

Reference 

See the discussion of changes in 

§ 170.015 of this preamble. 

Section 179.212. Watertight Bulkheads 

for Subdivision and Damage Stability 

We received one comment on 

proposed changes to this section. The 

commenter objected to limiting the use 

of the simplified subdivision 

requirements of part 179 to vessels that 

use the simplified intact stability 

requirements of part 178, and vice versa. 

The commenter maintained that the two 

simplified rules are not related and the 

simplified subdivision provides a level 

of transverse subdivision that is equal or 

greater than that permitted by the Type 

II subdivision calculations required in 

46 CFR 171.070. 

The proposed clarification of the 

linkage between simplified subdivision 

and the simplified stability proof test 

did not constitute the introduction of a 

new requirement, and that linkage 

cannot be removed without further 

study. This final rule contains revisions 

to this section in a further effort to 

improve its organization and 

readability. For more information, see 

the discussion of changes in § 170.165 

of this preamble. 

We revised this section to preserve 

the equivalence of Subchapter T to 

SOLAS Chapters II–1, II–2, and III for 

certain small passenger vessels 

operating on international voyages 20 

miles or less from the nearest land. No 

other substantive changes have been 

made to the provisions of this section as 

proposed in the NPRM. For a discussion 

of minor changes to the incorporation 

by reference, see § 170.015 of this 

preamble. 

Section 179.230. Damage Stability 

Requirements 

This section has been removed 

because its requirements have been 

incorporated into revised § 179.212. 

Section 185.304. Navigation Underway 

See the discussion of comments on 

regulations concerning navigation 

underway in § 122.304 of this preamble. 

Section 185.315. Verification of Vessel 

Compliance With Applicable Stability 

Requirements 

See the discussion of comments on 

verification of compliance with stability 

information in § 122.315 of this 

preamble. 

Section 185.602. Hull Markings 

See the discussion of comments on 

requirements for vessels demonstrating 

compliance with Subchapter S to have 

draft marks in § 122.602 of this 

preamble. 

General Comments 

Some commenters agreed with the 

Society of Naval Architects and Marine 

Engineers (SNAME) Ad Hoc Panel No. 

15’s recommendations for a risk-based 

approach, and objected that these 

recommendations had not been 

incorporated into the proposed rule. 

One commenter stated that SNAME is 

the organization most qualified to assist 

with the technical aspects of this 

rulemaking. Another asserted that using 

SNAME’s recommendations would 

constitute an unspecified conflict of 

interest. 

The Coast Guard is grateful for the 

significant time and effort that members 

of SNAME’s Ad Hoc Panel No. 15 

expended. Its recommendations, 

together with other comments received 

from the public, have been considered 

in the development of both the 

proposed rule and this final rule. The 

Coast Guard is unaware of any conflict 

of interest involved in doing so, 

particularly in view of the fact that 

SNAME’s activities and 

recommendations in this rulemaking 

have been completely disclosed and 

subject to public comment. 

One commenter pointed out that 

angle of heel is measured from the 

upright to the vessel’s centerline, not 

from the centerline to the upright. We 

agree, and have corrected the definition 

in the List of Terms. 

Forty-three commenters offered 

suggestions on how the rule should be 

configured or how the rulemaking 

should proceed. There were 24 

commenters who concurred that the 

AAWPP should be updated by a final 

rule as soon as possible, while all other 

elements of the NPRM should be 

deferred to a supplemental NPRM. 

Seven commenters requested a riskbased decision making process be used 

as a general approach. Four commenters 

felt that no rulemaking was required at 

all because they believed casualty 

history was not related to passenger 

weight. Three commenters objected to 

parts of the proposed rule that might 

require new stability tests because, in 

the commenters’ views, the provisions 

were overly conservative and did not 

properly account for the safety margins 

included in existing stability 

regulations. For answers to these 

comments, see discussion of the 

proposed increase in the AAWPP, the 

annual stability information 

verification, and the ten year stability 

verification in §§ 71.25–50 and 170.090 

of this preamble. 

Two commenters acknowledged the 

need to examine pontoon vessels more 

closely. They emphasized, however, 

that pre-sailing stability checks should 

consist of no more than ensuring the 

passenger count doesn’t exceed limits, 

checking the draft and, where 

appropriate, the number of passengers 

on an upper deck. We agree that 

checking the passenger count and draft 

marks are acceptable methods of 

verifying stability compliance in many 

situations. As discussed in §§ 122.315 

and 185.315 of this preamble, though, 

other means may be more appropriate. 

Regardless of the means used, the 

master of a vessel must take into 

account the total weight of passengers, 

crew and variable loads. 

One commenter recommended that 

the proposed rule take into account the 

characteristics and safety record of 

various types of vessels, such as 

pontoon vessels, amphibious vehicles 

(e.g., DUKWs), and small ferry boats. 

Because the safety of amphibious 

vehicles and small ferries generally has 

been addressed through added guidance 

to existing regulations, the final rule 

does not specifically address each of 

those types of vessels. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78077 

Another commenter stated the ‘‘one 

size fits all’’ approach of the proposed 

rule is flawed and arbitrary because it 

attempts to apply standards across the 

board from small pontoon boats to large 

passenger ferries, and to do so 

retroactively when there is no data to 

support the imposition of such 

standards on large vessels. The Coast 

Guard disagrees. The AAWPP for all 

passenger vessels must be consistent 

with the actual average American 

weight to protect the public, as the vast 

majority of commenters agreed. 

Another commenter stated the 

proposed rule was complicated by the 

addition of too many ‘‘housekeeping’’ 

items, re-definitions, updates and 

corrections. We disagree that these 

changes complicate or otherwise 

negatively affect other provisions of the 

final rule. Other changes are necessary 

to fulfill obligations under the SOLAS 

and International Load Line 

conventions. 

One commenter complained the 

proposed rule would unfairly burden 

the operator with the responsibility to 

retrieve stability records for the vessel, 

and that the Coast Guard should 

maintain stability records for all 

passenger vessels. We disagree that 

requiring vessel owners and operators to 

maintain stability information for their 

vessels is, in any way, unfair. Owners 

and operators of other types of vehicles 

engaged in the business of public 

transportation—such as commercial 

aircraft and buses—have long been 

required to maintain their vehicles in a 

safe condition together with related 

documentation. 

One commenter supported the Coast 

Guard’s efforts to thoroughly review 

stability regulations. The commenter 

also approved of harmonizing United 

States regulations with international 

standards, and minimizing 

discrepancies and loopholes that can 

develop when a piece-meal approach is 

taken to regulatory development. This 

commenter believed regulatory changes 

should address risks inherent in smaller 

passenger vessel designs, namely lower 

freeboards, higher wind area/draft 

ratios, and smaller righting moment 

values. We generally agree for reasons 

discussed in previous sections of this 

preamble under §§ 170.170, 171.050, 

171.052, 178.210, and 178.310. 

Two commenters inquired about 

whether the Coast Guard intends to 

issue regulations in the future 

concerning seat size and spacing, 

window and aisle width, life jackets and 

life rafts. We have not determined what, 

if any, additional regulations are 

necessary in those areas. 

One commenter suggested the Coast 

Guard require certification of all 

passenger vessels in the United States. 

The Coast Guard regulates only those 

vessels for which it has statutory 

authority. 

Additionally, after further 

consideration, we removed unnecessary 

commentary from several terms listed in 

section II of this preamble. We also 

removed ‘‘length between 

perpendiculars’’ and ‘‘waterplane’’ 

because these terms are not used, and 

corrected and clarified the following 

terms: ‘‘heeling moment’’; ‘‘intact 

stability’’; ‘‘master’’; ‘‘passenger heel’’; 

‘‘pontoon vessel’’; ‘‘protected waters’’; 

and ‘‘wind heel’’. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material in §§ 170.015, 

171.012, 172.020, 174.007 and 179.15 

for incorporation by reference under 5 

U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of 

the material are available from the 

sources listed in those sections. 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. The Office of 

Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. 

A combined Regulatory Analysis and 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

report (‘‘regulatory analysis’’) is available 

in the docket as indicated under 

ADDRESSES. In this regulatory analysis, 

we evaluated public comments on the 

regulatory analysis supporting the 

NPRM and revised the estimates of 

impacts for this final rule. A summary 

of the regulatory analysis follows: 

Since the publication of the NPRM in 

2008, public comments led us to 

reconsider the cost impacts of the rule. 

We received several comments that the 

unit costs for stability tests were too 

low. We have amended the cost 

estimates of the rulemaking to include 

the higher unit costs for stability tests 

based on data and information provided 

by public comments. We have also 

amended the cost estimates for lost 

revenues from passengers to include 

revenue loss from concessions on board 

vessels based on information provided 

by public comments. In addition, we 

have updated the number of passenger 

trips per year for small passenger 

vessels. These changes are summarized 

below. 

Stability Test Costs 

We received 31 comments on the cost 

of stability tests. Commenters stated the 

Coast Guard’s estimates of these tests 

were low. The comments also suggested 

that the costs of stability tests vary and 

depend upon many factors unique to 

vessel type and size. In response to 

these comments, we updated these costs 

by including a range of cost estimates 

for stability tests. We revised the final 

regulatory analysis to include low and 

high cost estimates. The low cost 

estimates per affected vessel are $200 

for a simplified stability test, $2,500 for 

a lightweight survey, and $5,000 for an 

inclining test. The high cost estimates 

per affected vessel are about $2,000 for 

a simplified stability test, $7,500 for a 

lightweight survey, and $15,000 for an 

inclining test. 

Revenue Loss Due to Concessions 

We received three comments that our 

revenue estimates did not include 

concessions of the vessel. We received 

some estimates that concessions may 

represent twenty percent of passenger 

revenue for certain vessel operations. 

We have adjusted our costs to include 

concessions-related revenue loss for 

vessels in the excursion, ferry, general, 

harbor, and river cruise categories. Our 

original estimates for many vessel 

categories, such as gaming and party 

boats, included the estimate of all 

revenues—not just ticket revenue. We 

did not adjust revenue loss related to 

these estimates. 

Revenue Loss Due to Reduced Passenger 

Capacity 

We received 26 comments relating to 

the amount of lost revenue due to the 

reduction in passenger capacity. Several 

commenters told us that a percent 

reduction in passenger capacity would 

result in an equivalent percent 

reduction in revenues (i.e., a reduction 

in vessel passenger capacity of 15 

percent would result in a total revenue 

loss of 15 percent). In order for this 

condition to be true, all vessel trips 

would have to currently be operating in 

a fully loaded (full passenger capacity) 

condition on every trip. We did not find 

any industry data to support that all 

passenger vessel trips operate on a fully 

loaded basis. Also, some commenters 

provided revenue loss if one passenger 

per trip is lost based on the assumption 

that all trips are fully loaded. We do not 

believe that this is a reasonable 

assumption and the assumption is not 

supported by average passenger loading 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78078 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

11See the USCG Lady D Marine Board report, 

conclusions 3 and 8, and recommendation 3 

(http://marinecasualty.com/documents/ladyd.pdf). 

See the NTSB Report on the Ethan Allen capsizing, 

pages 40, 44, 48 [Finding 11], and 49 [Probable 

Cause] (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/ 

MAR0603.pdf). Note that the Ethan Allen was not 

a Coast Guard inspected vessel. 

data. According to data from the BMT 

Group report presented in the regulatory 

analysis (available in the docket), small 

passenger vessels have an average 

passenger load of between 50 to 60 

percent. Coast Guard recognizes that 

some portion of vessel trips would 

indeed face full or near full loads under 

some conditions and would therefore 

incur a reduction in the number of 

passengers carried with a corresponding 

reduction in revenue for some trips. 

Several commenters noted that full or 

near full loads occur during peak 

season, usually the summer months. 

In the regulatory analysis supporting 

the NPRM, we estimated the fraction of 

vessel trips per year that would have 

full or near full loads and experience a 

reduction in passengers to be 

approximately 3 to 6 percent. We based 

these estimates on the average 

passengers per trip and vessel capacity 

data from the BMT Group report and the 

assumption that the number of 

passengers per trip is normally 

distributed. Several commenters stated 

that the normal distribution assumption 

underestimates the number of trips 

subject to passenger loss since demand 

can be concentrated in peak (seasonal) 

months. However, none of the 

commenters provided specific data or 

estimates of the fraction of annual trips 

that operate at or near capacity. We 

understand that vessel operations vary 

considerably by vessel service, demand, 

season, and location leading to 

considerable uncertainty in the 

occurrence of fully loaded vessels and 

passengers lost. Due to this variation in 

operations and the lack of specific data, 

we acknowledge that some vessels may 

experience greater than estimated loss of 

passengers and revenues under some 

conditions, but we are unable to provide 

a revised estimate based on the lack of 

available data. We do provide additional 

discussion of the uncertainty related to 

revenue loss in the regulatory analysis 

available in the docket. In addition, we 

also note that the subject passenger and 

revenue loss is related to unsafe 

operations. This rule mitigates these 

unsafe operations through the 

restoration of the original regulatory 

margin of safety for vessel stability (see 

‘‘Risk basis of rulemaking’’ section below 

for additional discussion). 

Number of Passengers 

Several commenters noted that the 

estimate for the number of passengers 

per year is underestimated. Coast Guard 

concurs that the total number of 655,000 

passengers per year cited in the Benefits 

section of the regulatory analysis 

supporting the NPRM is in error. The 

figure of 655,000 is actually an estimate 

of the number of available passenger 

vessel seats and was incorrectly 

characterized as the number of 

passenger trips per year for small 

passenger vessels. Supported by public 

comments, we revised the regulatory 

analysis to reflect an estimate of the 

total number of passenger trips per year 

which is considerably higher at 125 

million passengers per year. 

Risk Basis of Rulemaking 

We received nine comments on the 

NPRM regarding the justification for the 

rule in terms of safety. Several 

commenters noted the findings in a 

2005 Coast Guard study (available on 

the docket) that no casualties have been 

directly attributable to increased 

passenger weight and conclude from 

this that there is no identifiable safety 

risk or that no lives have been put at 

risk as a result of the increased 

passenger weight. We disagree with the 

premise that there is no risk related to 

increased passenger weight. The lack of 

casualties directly attributable to 

increased passenger weight does not 

equate to no risk. Vessel casualties are 

often complicated events with multiple 

factors contributing to the accident. It is 

not surprising that passenger weight 

cannot be identified as the sole causal 

factor for an incident and has, in fact, 

been identified as a potential 

contributory factor for two recent 

casualties with multiple loss of life: The 

Lady D (2004) and the Ethan Allen 

(2005).11

Further, as described in the NPRM, 

the primary goal of the rule is to restore 

the margin of safety that had been built 

into vessel stability engineering 

calculations and has been eroded by 

increased passenger weight, increasing 

the risk of stability problems. When 

originally developed, stability standards 

included a margin of safety to allow for 

the safe operation of vessels even under 

adverse operating conditions. The 

average weight of passengers was a 

component of the stability calculations 

and resulting margin of safety. As 

passenger weight increases, the margin 

of safety decreases across all measures 

of stability, including vertical center of 

gravity, freeboard and passenger healing 

moment. 

Summary of Rule Impacts: Affected 

Population, Costs and Benefits 

Based on Coast Guard data, we 

estimate this rule will affect 6,073 

inspected passenger vessels. For the 

purpose of the regulatory analysis, we 

assumed that all vessels will be required 

to have updated stability letters. Of 

these vessels, 1,140, or 19% of all 

vessels, would require both a new 

stability test and a reduction in 

maximum passenger load to obtain an 

updated stability letter. Additionally, 

3,542 vessels, or 58% of all vessels, 

would require compliance through 

either a new stability test and/or 

stability calculations, but would not 

need to reduce maximum passenger 

load. Finally, 1,391 vessels, or 23% of 

all vessels, would require no additional 

stability test and/or stability 

calculations and no reduction in 

passenger load in order to receive an 

updated stability letter. 

As previously discussed, we revised 

the total costs of this rulemaking after 

consideration of the comments on the 

NPRM. These changes resulted in an 

increase in costs. We estimate the 

undiscounted first-year cost of the rule 

to range from $10 million to $27.6 

million (average of $18.8 million). We 

estimate the total present value 10-year 

cost of this rule to range from $24.6 to 

$44.2 million at a 7% discount rate. The 

following table summarizes regulatory 

costs for the NPRM and the final rule. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES: NPRM AND FINAL RULE

[$ Million] * 

Cost NPRM Final rule 

First Year Costs (Undiscounted) ................................................................... $10 Range of $10–$27.6 (Average of $18.8). 

Annual Recurring Costs (Undiscounted) ....................................................... 2.5 Range of $2.5–$3 (Average of $2.75). 

10-Year Present Value Costs (7% discount rate) ......................................... 24.6 Range of $24.6–$44.2 (Average of $34.4). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78079 

12 ‘‘Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in 

Homeland Security Regulatory Analyses’’, DHS/ 

CBP, June 2008, (see http://www.regulations.gov, 

docket entry # USCG–2005–21869–003). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES: NPRM AND FINAL RULE—Continued 

[$ Million] * 

Cost NPRM Final rule 

Annualized Costs (10 year; 7% discount rate) .............................................. 3.5 Range of $3.5–$6.3 (Average of $4.9). 

* See the ‘‘Regulatory Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis’’ for additional information on costs, including cost ranges, uncertainties, and estimates at different discount rates. 

The primary benefit of the rule is the 

increased safety and reduced risk of 

casualties through the restoration of the 

margin of safety for vessel stability. An 

increase in passenger and crew weight 

has an adverse effect on the stability of 

passenger vessels due to several factors, 

including increased vertical center of 

gravity, reduced freeboard and 

increased passenger healing moment. As 

previously discussed, in 2004 the CDC 

found that the average mean body 

weight for men and women had 

increased by 24 pounds since the 1960s. 

A subsequent 2008 CDC report confirms 

that the average weight continues to 

rise. Passenger vessel owners and 

operators may not be aware of the 

increased total passenger weight being 

carried on their vessels and the resulting 

erosion of the margin of safety that can 

occur with increased passenger weight. 

Without the restoration of the margin 

of safety from the revised weight 

standard, an increased casualty risk 

remains under certain conditions. The 

public places a value on reducing even 

small risks of transportation accidents, 

particularly those involving fatalities 

and injuries. For example, DHS agencies 

(including Coast Guard) have used a 

value per statistical life (VSL) of $6.3 as 

an average measure of the public’s 

willingness to pay to reduce the risk of 

a fatality by 1 in a million, $0.63 to 

reduce risk by 1 in 10 million, and $.063 

to reduce risk by 1 in 100 million.12 As 

passenger vessels carry millions of 

passengers each year, very small 

reductions in risk can result in a fairly 

large aggregate willingness to pay for 

that risk reduction. In response to 

comments received, we revised our 

estimate of the number of passengers 

carried on small passenger vessels each 

year to approximately 125 million 

passenger trips per year. Therefore, as 

an example based on 125 million trips 

per year, passengers would be willing to 

pay $7.875 million to reduce the risk of 

a fatality by 1 in 100 million (125 

million × $0.063). Thus, the risk of 

fatalities from passenger vessels and the 

amount of risk reduced by the rule need 

to be very small (about 1 in 100 million 

risk reduction) for the rule to reach a 

breakeven point where costs equal 

benefits. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

A Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) discussing the impact 

of this rule on small entities is available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

As previously discussed, we revised 

our regulatory analysis of the rule as a 

result of public comments on stability 

test costs, the uncertainties of revenue 

loss, and the impacts on certain 

operators as a result of revenue loss. We 

estimate that approximately 5,760 

entities are regulated by this rule and 

17.3 percent (approximately 1,000 

entities) are small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Given these 

revisions, we determined that 20 

percent or more of the small entities 

affected by this rule will incur an 

annual cost impact on revenue of more 

than 1 percent. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

this rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under section 

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking. In 

accordance with section 212 of the Act, 

the Coast Guard prepared a Small Entity 

Compliance Guide, which will be 

available on a Coast Guard web site, to 

assist small entities comply with this 

final rule. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

D. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for a collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). The title and description of the 

information collections, a description of 

those who must collect the information, 

and an estimate of the total annual 

burden follow. The estimate covers the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing sources of data, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection. 

This rule will call for revisions of two 

collections of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 46 CFR 170.120 and 

178.210 require the collection of 

information. The updated average 

weight per person will require revisions 

of the existing OMB-approved 

collections of information. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0064. 

Title: Plan Approval and Records for 

Subdivision and Stability Regulations— 

Title 46 CFR Subchapter S. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: This collection of 

information requires owners, operators, 

or masters of certain inspected vessels 

to obtain and/or post various documents 

as part of the Coast Guard commercial 

vessel safety program. The collection 

also requires the reporting of certain 

information. 

Need for Information: The Coast 

Guard needs this information to 

determine whether an entity meets the 

statutory requirements. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78080 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

Coast Guard will use this information to 

determine whether an entity meets the 

statutory requirements. 

Description of the Respondents: 

Owners, operators, and/or masters of 

passenger vessels. 

Burden of Response: The burden of 

this collection of information is the 

provision of documentation of stability 

analysis and posting of a stability letter. 

During this period, we estimate the total 

number of respondents is 1,388. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

existing OMB-approved total annual 

burden is 4,539 hours. The revision 

includes a one-time annual burden of 

approximately 5,791 hours. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0057. 

Title: Small Passenger Vessels—Title 

46 Subchapters K and T. 

Summary of the Collection Of 

Information: This collection of 

information requires information 

necessary for the proper administration 

and enforcement of the program on 

safety of commercial vessels as it affects 

small passenger vessels. 

Need for Information: The Coast 

Guard needs this information to 

determine whether an entity meets the 

statutory requirements. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

Coast Guard will use this information to 

determine whether an entity meets the 

statutory requirements. 

Description of Respondents: Owners, 

operators, and/or masters of small 

passenger vessels. 

Burden of Response: The burden of 

this rule for this collection of 

information is the posting of a stability 

letter, as required by 46 CFR 115.306 

(subchapter K) or 46 CFR 176.306 

(subchapter T). Of the 5,487 

respondents, there are 3,669 vessels 

inspected under 46 CFR subchapters K 

or T that will need to post a new 

stability letter. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

existing OMB-approved annual burden, 

related to the posting of a stability letter, 

is 11 hours. The revision includes a onetime increase in the annual burden of 

approximately 305 hours to post the 

new stability letter. 

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we 

submitted a copy of this rule to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for its review of the collection of 

information. OMB has not yet 

completed its review of this collection, 

and the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of this rule will not be 

enforced until this collection is 

approved by OMB. We will publish a 

notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date of those 

requirements after OMB approves the 

collection. 

You are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. 

Title 46 U.S.C. 3301 subjects 

passenger vessels to Coast Guard 

inspection, and 46 U.S.C. 3306 provides 

the Coast Guard with clear authority to 

establish safety regulations for such 

vessels. This rule revises and updates 

stability standards for passenger vessels 

in 46 CFR subchapters H, K and T, 

which are issued pursuant to authority 

in 46 U.S.C chapter 33. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has long 

recognized the field preemptive impact 

of the Federal regulatory regime for 

inspected vessels. See, e.g., Kelly v. 

Washington ex rel Foss, 302 U.S. 1 

(1937) and the consolidated cases of 

United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. 

Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 113–116 (2000). 

Therefore the Coast Guard’s view is that 

regulations issued under the authority 

of 46 U.S.C. 3306 in the areas of design, 

construction, alteration, repair, 

operation, superstructures, hulls, 

fittings, equipment, appliances, 

propulsion machinery, auxiliary 

machinery, boilers, unfired pressure 

vessels, piping, electric installations, 

accommodations for passengers and 

crew, sailing school instructors, sailing 

school students, lifesaving equipment 

and its use, firefighting equipment, its 

use and precautionary measures to 

guard against fire, inspections and tests 

related to these areas and the use of 

vessel stores and other supplies of a 

dangerous nature have preemptive effect 

over state regulation in these fields, 

regardless of whether the Coast Guard 

has issued regulations on the subject or 

not, and regardless of the existence of 

conflict between the state and Coast 

Guard regulation. 

While it is well settled that States may 

not regulate in categories in which 

Congress intended the Coast Guard to be 

the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, 

as these categories are within a field 

foreclosed from regulation by the States 

(see U.S. v. Locke, above), the Coast 

Guard recognizes the key role state and 

local governments may have in making 

regulatory determinations. Additionally, 

Sections 4 and 6 of Executive Order 

13132 require that for any rules with 

preemptive effect, the Coast Guard shall 

provide elected officials of affected state 

and local governments and their 

representative national organizations 

the notice and opportunity for 

appropriate participation in any 

rulemaking proceedings, and to consult 

with such officials early in the 

rulemaking process. The Coast Guard 

received no comments from state or 

local governments, or their 

representative national organizations, in 

response to the NPRM. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such expenditure, we 

do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. As 

described in the NPRM, we made a 

preliminary determination that this rule 

does not have tribal implications under 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78081 

Executive Order 13175. We received 

neither any comments on this subject, 

nor any other information contradicting 

that determination. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule uses the following voluntary 

consensus standards: American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and 

Military Specification, Naval 

Publications and Forms Center, Code 

1052. The sections that reference these 

standards and the locations where these 

standards are available are listed in 

§§ 170.015, 170.270, 174.007 and 

174.100. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2– 

1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction, 

and under section 6(a) of the ‘‘Appendix 

to National Environmental Policy Act: 

Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical 

Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency 

Policy’’ (67 FR 48244, July 23, 2002).’’ 

This rule amends regulations 

concerning inspection and 

documentation of vessels, and 

particularly those governing the stability 

of passenger vessels and the maximum 

number of people that may safely be 

permitted on board. An environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects 

46 CFR Parts 71, 114, 175, 185 

Marine safety, Passenger vessels, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

46 CFR Parts 115 and 176 

Fire prevention, Marine safety, 

Passenger vessels, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

46 CFR Part 122 

Marine safety, Passenger vessels, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

46 CFR Parts 170 and 174 

Marine safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, 

Incorporation by reference. 

46 CFR Parts 171 and 179 

Marine safety, Passenger vessels, 

Incorporation by reference. 

46 CFR Part 172 

Cargo vessels, Hazardous materials 

transportation Marine safety, 

Incorporation by reference. 

46 CFR Part 178 

Marine safety, Passenger vessels. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 

CFR parts 71, 114, 115, 122, 170, 171, 

172, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, and 185 as 

follows: 

PART 71—INSPECTION AND 

CERTIFICATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 

2113, 3205, 3306, 3307; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 

58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 351; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 71.50–1 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 71.50–1, in the definition for 

‘‘Drydock examination’’, after the words 

‘‘and appurtenances’’, add the words ‘‘, 

including verification of the accuracy of 

draft marks if not already verified at a 

previous drydock examination.’’ 

■ 3. Revise the heading to subpart 71.75 

to read as follows: 

Subpart 71.75—Certificates Under the 

International Convention for Safety of 

Life at Sea, 1974 

§ 71.75–1 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 71.75–1(a), after the word ‘‘on’’, 

add the words ‘‘or certificated for’’. 

§ 71.75–5 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 71.75–5— 

■ a. In paragraph (a), after the word 

‘‘on’’, add the words ‘‘or certificated for’’, 

and immediately before the word 

‘‘Passenger’’, add the word ‘‘SOLAS’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b), after the words 

‘‘vessels on’’, add the words ‘‘or 

certificated for’’; and after the words 

‘‘international voyage’’, add the words 

‘‘in addition to the applicable 

requirements of SOLAS.’’ 

PART 114—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 6. Revise the authority citation for part 

114 to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; 

Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2439; 49 U.S.C. 

App. 1804; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 114.900 

also issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

■ 7. In § 114.400(b)— 

■ a. Remove ‘‘; or’’ from the end of 

paragraph (2) of the definition of 

‘‘Length’’ and add a period in its place; 

■ b. Remove paragraph (3) from the 

definition of ‘‘Length’’; and 

■ c. Add, in alphabetical order, a 

definition for ‘‘Variable load’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 114.400 Definition of terms used in this 

subchapter. 

* * * * * 

Variable load means the weight of all 

items brought on board a vessel for 

which explicit account is not made in 

approved stability calculations, 

including but not limited to, personal 

effects, carry-on items, luggage, and 

equipment of any kind. 

* * * * * 

PART 115—INSPECTION AND 

CERTIFICATION 

■ 8. Revise the authority citation for part 

115 to read as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 

2103, 3205, 3306, 3307; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; 

E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 9. In § 115.110, revise paragraphs 

(d)(2) and (d)(3), and add new paragraph 

(d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 115.110 Routes permitted. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) The performance capabilities of 

the vessel based on design, scantlings, 

stability, subdivision, propulsion, 

speed, operating modes, 

maneuverability, and other 

characteristics; 

(3) The suitability of the vessel for 

night-time operations; and 

(4) The suitability of the vessel for use 

in all environmental conditions. 

■ 10. Revise § 115.112 to read as 

follows: 

§ 115.112 Total persons permitted. 

The cognizant Officer in Charge, 

Marine Inspection (OCMI) determines 

the total number of persons permitted to 

be carried on a vessel. In determining 

the total number of persons, the OCMI 

may consider the total weight of 

passengers, crew, and variable loads; 

stability restrictions and subdivision 

requirements of the vessel; the vessel’s 

route, general arrangement, means of 

escape, and lifesaving equipment; 

minimum manning requirements; and 

the maximum number of passengers 

permitted in accordance with § 115.113 

of this subpart. 

■ 11. In § 115.610(a), add a sentence at 

the end of the paragraph to read as 

follows: 

§ 115.610 Scope of drydock and internal 

structural examinations. 

(a) * * * The accuracy of draft or 

loading marks, if required by § 122.602 

of this subpart, must be verified if not 

already verified at construction or a 

previous drydock examination. 

* * * * * 

§ 115.900 [Amended] 

■ 12. In § 115.900(a), after the word 

‘‘which’’, add the words ‘‘is certificated 

for or’’; remove the word ‘‘an’’; and 

remove the word ‘‘voyage’’ and add, in 

its place, the word ‘‘voyages’’. 

§ 115.910 [Amended] 

■ 13. In § 115.910(a), in the second 

sentence, remove the word ‘‘issues’’ and 

add, in its place, the words ‘‘authorizes 

the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine 

Inspection (OCMI) to issue’’; and in the 

last sentence, after the word ‘‘will’’, add 

the words ‘‘authorize the cognizant 

OCMI to’’. 

§ 115.920 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 115.920(d), in the first 

sentence, after the word ‘‘will’’, add the 

words ‘‘authorize the cognizant OCMI 

to’’, and in the second sentence, after the 

word ‘‘Commandant’’, remove the word 

‘‘shall’’ and add the words ‘‘will 

authorize the cognizant OCMI to’’. 

§ 115.930 [Amended] 

■ 15. In § 115.930, in the last sentence, 

remove the words ‘‘Commandant will 

indicate the’’ and after the word 

‘‘equivalent’’, add the words ‘‘must be 

indicated’’. 

PART 122—OPERATIONS 

■ 16. The authority citation for part 122 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 6101; 

E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., 

p. 277; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 17. In § 122.304, revise paragraph 

(a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 122.304 Navigation underway. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Prevailing and forecasted visibility 

and environmental conditions, 

including wind and waves; 

* * * * * 

■ 18. In § 122.315, designate the existing 

paragraph as paragraph (a), and add 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 122.315 Verification of vessel 

compliance with applicable stability 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) In order to fulfill the requirements 

of paragraph (a) of this section and 

avoid overloading the vessel, the master 

must take into account the total weight 

of passengers, crew, and variable loads. 

§ 122.602 [Amended] 

■ 19. In § 122.602— 

■ a. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘that complies with the stability 

requirements of §§ 170.170, 170.173, 

171.050, 171.055, and 171.057 of this 

chapter or with § 178.310 of this 

chapter’’; 

■ b. Remove paragraph (b); and 

■ c. Redesignate paragraphs (c) through 

(g) as paragraphs (b) through (f). 

PART 170—STABILITY 

REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL INSPECTED 

VESSELS 

■ 20. The authority citation for part 170 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 

3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 

1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 21. Revise § 170.001(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 170.001 Applicability. 

(a) This subchapter applies to each 

vessel that is— 

(1) Contracted for on or after March 

11, 1996, except where specifically 

stated otherwise; and 

(2) Either— 

(i) Inspected under another 

subchapter of this chapter, or is a 

foreign vessel that must comply with 

the requirements in subchapter O of this 

chapter; or 

(ii) Required by either subchapter C or 

subchapter E of this chapter to meet 

applicable requirements contained in 

this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Revise § 170.015 to read as 

follows: 

§ 170.015 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish a notice 

of change in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. It is also available 

for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards 

(CG–521), 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7126, 

Washington, DC 20593–7126, and is 

available from the sources listed below. 

(b) American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428– 

2959. 

(1) ASTM F 1196–00, Standard 

Specification for Sliding Watertight 

Door Assemblies, 2008, incorporation 

by reference (IBR) approved for 

§ 170.270. 

(2) ASTM F 1197–00, Standard 

Specification for Sliding Watertight 

Door Control Systems, 2007, IBR 

approved for § 170.270. 

(c) Naval Publications and Forms 

Center, Code 1052, 5801 Tabor Avenue, 

Philadelphia, PA 19120. 

(1) MIL–P–21929B, Military 

Specification, Plastic Material, Cellular 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78083 

Polyurethane, Foam-in-Place, Rigid (2 

Pounds per Cubic Foot), 15 January 

1991, IBR approved for § 170.245. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(d) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), Publications 

Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London 

SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 

7735 7611, http://www.imo.org/. 

(1) Resolution MSC.216(82), Adoption 

of Amendments to the International 

Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 

1974, As Amended (IMO Res. 

MSC.216(82), Adopted on 8 December 

2006, IBR approved for §§ 170.140 and 

170.248. 

(2) Resolution MSC 267(85), Adoption 

of the International Code on Intact 

Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code), Adopted 

on 4 December 2008, IBR approved for 

§ 170.165. 

■ 23. In § 170.055— 

■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (e) through 

(w) as paragraphs (g) through (y), 

respectively, and redesignate paragraphs 

(a) through (d) as paragraphs (b) through 

(e), respectively, and; 

■ b. Add new paragraphs (a) and (f); and 

■ c. Revise redesignated paragraph (k) to 

read as follows: 

§ 170.055 Definitions concerning a vessel. 

(a) Assumed average weight per 

person means the weight calculated in 

accordance with § 170.090 of this part. 

* * * * * 

(f) Constructed means the date— 

(1) The vessel’s keel was laid; or 

(2) Construction identifiable with the 

vessel began and assembly of that vessel 

commenced comprising of 50 metric 

tons or at least 1 percent of the 

estimated mass of all structural material, 

whichever is less. 

* * * * * 

(k) Lightweight means the 

displacement of a vessel with fixed 

ballast and with machinery liquids at 

operating levels but without any cargo, 

stores, consumable liquids, water 

ballast, or persons and their effects. 

* * * * * 

§ 170.070 [Amended] 

■ 24. In § 170.070(b) introductory text, 

after the word ‘‘OCMI’’, add the words ‘‘, 

or regulations by which the vessel is 

inspected require their application:’’. 

§ 170.075 [Amended] 

■ 25. In § 170.075(a), remove the words 

‘‘or four copies for plan review being 

conducted by the American Bureau of 

Shipping (ABS)’’. 

§ 170.080 [Amended] 

■ 26. In § 170.080, remove the words ‘‘or 

four copies for plan review being 

conducted by the ABS.’’. 

§ 170.085 [Amended] 

■ 27. In § 170.085, remove the words ‘‘or 

the ABS’’. 

■ 28. In § 170.090, revise paragraph (a), 

and add paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and 

(g) to read as follows: 

§ 170.090 Calculations. 

(a) All calculations required by this 

subchapter must be submitted with the 

plans required by § 170.075 of this 

subpart. Calculations must account for 

the weight of all loads carried aboard 

the vessel. 

* * * * * 

(c) The assumed weight per person for 

calculations showing compliance with 

the regulations of this subchapter must 

be representative of the passengers and 

crew aboard the vessel while engaged in 

the service intended. Unless the Officer 

in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) 

permits or requires the use of other 

values in writing, the assumed weight 

per person of passengers and crew must 

not be less than that the Assumed 

Average Weight per Person (AAWPP) 

calculated in accordance with 

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. 

(d)(1) The AAWPP is 185 lb from 

December 1, 2011 until the AAWPP is 

first updated pursuant to the provisions 

of this section. As of the effective date 

of the first AAWPP update after 

December 1, 2011, this paragraph (d)(1) 

will be superseded and cease to be 

effective. 

(2) The formula in paragraph (e) of 

this section will be used to determine an 

update to the AAWPP. It requires the 

use of data in the most recent report 

released by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) through 

the National Center for Health Statistics 

(NCHS), or any successors to those 

centers. This report can be found on the 

CDC’s Web site. 

(3) Each time the CDC releases a 

report containing mean weights of 

United States adult males and females, 

the Coast Guard will apply the formula 

in paragraph (e) of this section to that 

data. The resulting value will become 

the new AAWPP only if the sum equals 

or exceeds 10 pounds more than the 

AAWPP then in effect. The Coast Guard 

will notify the public of the new 

AAWPP in the Federal Register and 

other appropriate media. 

(4) Updates to the AAWPP used in 

calculations showing compliance with 

this subchapter will be promulgated as 

interpretive rules and become effective 

in accordance with the provisions of 

this section without further rulemaking 

procedures. 

(5) Notwithstanding any other 

provisions of this section, the Coast 

Guard may choose, in its discretion, to 

conduct further rulemaking procedures 

at any time to amend this subchapter, 

including updates of the AAWPP. 

(6) Updates to the AAWPP used in 

calculations showing compliance with 

this subchapter will be published in a 

separate Federal Register notice and 

other appropriate media, except when 

the Coast Guard conducts further 

rulemaking procedures under paragraph 

(d)(5) of this section. 

(7) Notwithstanding any other 

provisions of this section, the Coast 

Guard may choose, in its discretion, to 

delay or dispense with any update of 

the AAWPP. In the event the Coast 

Guard elects to dispense with or delay 

an update that would otherwise issue as 

an interpretive rule pursuant to the 

provisions of this section, the Coast 

Guard will inform the public of the 

decision and explain the reasons in a 

Federal Register notice. 

(e) To obtain an AAWPP update, add 

the mean weight of all U.S. males aged 

20 years and older to the mean weight 

of all U.S. females aged 20 years and 

older, and divide the sum by 2. To this 

average of the mean weights, add 7.5 

pounds of assumed clothing weight, and 

round the resulting sum to the nearest 

whole number in pounds. 

(f) Updates to the AAWPP will 

become effective beginning one calendar 

year after publication in the Federal 

Register of a notice described in 

paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(6) of this 

section, except the initial AAWPP 

issued pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section will become effective on 

December 1, 2011. Notwithstanding any 

other provisions of this title, the Coast 

Guard may implement updates to the 

AAWPP at any time with less than one 

year of public notice when required for 

public safety reasons. 

(g) The most recent Federal Register 

notice that publishes the AAWPP as 

determined by this section is also on file 

at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design 

and Engineering Standards (CG–521), 

2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7126, 

Washington DC 20593–7126, or go to: 

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5212.asp. 

§ 170.093 [Amended] 

■ 29. In § 170.093, remove the last 

sentence. 

§ 170.100 [Amended] 

■ 30. In § 170.100, remove paragraphs 

(c) and (d). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78084 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 31. Add § 170.105(b)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 170.105 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) A small passenger vessel inspected 

under subchapter T of this chapter if 

§ 178.210(c) of this chapter is 

applicable. 

§ 170.110 [Amended] 

■ 32. In § 170.110(b), remove the words 

‘‘or the ABS’’. 

§ 170.120 [Amended] 

■ 33. In § 170.120(a), remove the words 

‘‘or the ABS’’. 

§ 170.135 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 34. Remove and reserve § 170.135. 

■ 35. Add § 170.140 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 170.140 Operating information for a 

vessel constructed on or after January 1, 

2009 and issued a SOLAS safety certificate. 

(a) This section applies to each vessel 

that is— 

(1) Constructed on or after January 1, 

2009; and 

(2) Issued either a SOLAS Passenger 

Ship Safety Certificate or a SOLAS 

Cargo Ship Safety Construction 

Certificate. 

(b) In addition to the information 

required in § 170.110 of this part, the 

stability booklet of each vessel to which 

this section applies must contain the 

information required by applicable 

regulations of IMO Res. MSC.216(82) 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 170.015). 

(c) As used in SOLAS chapter II–1, 

Administration means the 

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard. 

■ 36. Revise the heading of subpart E to 

read as follows: 

Subpart E—Intact Stability Criteria 

■ 37. In § 170.160, revise paragraphs (a) 

and (c)(3) and add paragraph (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 170.160 Specific applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b) through (d) of this section, this 

subpart applies to each vessel. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) A vessel that performs one of the 

simplified stability proof tests described 

in subpart C of part 178 of this chapter. 

(d) A vessel that complies with 

§ 170.165 of this part need not comply 

with §§ 170.170 and 170.173 of this 

part. 

■ 38. Add § 170.165 to read as follows: 

§ 170.165 International Code on Intact 

Stability. 

(a) Each vessel issued one or more of 

the certificates listed in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (4) of this section, must 

comply with the Introduction and Part 

A of the International Code on Intact 

Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code), unless 

permitted otherwise (incorporated by 

reference, see § 170.015). 

(1) International Load Line Certificate. 

(2) SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety 

Certificate. 

(3) SOLAS Cargo Ship Safety 

Construction Certificate. 

(4) High-speed Craft Safety Certificate. 

(b) A vessel not subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section is permitted to comply with the 

applicable criteria contained in the 2008 

IS Code as an alternative to the 

requirements of §§ 170.170 and 170.173 

of this part. 

■ 39. In § 170.170: 

■ a. Revise the section heading to read 

as set forth below; 

■ b. In the first sentence of paragraph 

(d), add the words ‘‘the conditions of 

loading and operation of’’ after the 

words ‘‘application to’’; 

■ c. In the first sentence of paragraph 

(d), remove the words ‘‘that carry cargo 

below the main deck’’ and add, in their 

place, ‘‘for which the righting arm (GZ) 

at the angle (T), calculated after the 

vessel is permitted to trim free until the 

trimming moment is zero, is not less 

than the minimum metacentric height 

(GM) calculated in paragraph (a) of this 

section multiplied by sin(T)’’; and 

■ d. In the second sentence of paragraph 

(d), remove the words ‘‘or the ABS’’. 

§ 170.170 Weather criteria. 

* * * * * 

§ 170.173 [Amended] 

■ 40. In § 170.173(a) introductory text, 

remove the words ‘‘or the ABS’’. 

§ 170.175 [Amended] 

■ 41. In § 170.175: 

■ a. In paragraph (b) remove the words 

‘‘or ABS’’; and 

■ b. In paragraphs (c) and (d) remove the 

words ‘‘or the ABS’’. 

§ 170.180 [Amended] 

■ 42. In § 170.180 introductory text, 

remove the words ‘‘or ABS’’ in both 

places where it appears. 

§ 170.185 [Amended] 

■ 43. In § 170.185(b), remove the words 

‘‘or the ABS’’. 

§ 170.190 [Amended] 

■ 44. In § 170.190, remove the words ‘‘or 

ABS’’. 

§ 170.235 [Amended] 

■ 45. In § 170.235(b), remove the words 

‘‘or the ABS’’. 

■ 46. In § 170.248, revise paragraph (a) 

and add paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 170.248 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b) through (d) of this section, this 

subpart applies to vessels with 

watertight doors in bulkheads that have 

been made watertight to comply with 

the flooding or damage stability 

regulations in this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

(d) Unless permitted otherwise, each 

vessel constructed on or after January 1, 

2009 and issued a SOLAS Passenger 

Ship Safety Certificate or a SOLAS 

Cargo Ship Safety Construction 

Certificate must comply with the 

applicable regulations of IMO Res. 

MSC.216(82) in addition to the 

requirements of this subpart (IMO Res. 

MSC.216(82) incorporated by reference, 

see § 170.015). 

PART 171—SPECIAL RULES 

PERTAINING TO VESSELS CARRYING 

PASSENGERS 

■ 47. The authority citation for part 171 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 

12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 

277; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 48. In § 171.001, revise paragraph (a), 

and add paragraphs (c) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 171.001 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section, this part applies to 

passenger vessels inspected under 

subchapter K or H of this chapter, or a 

passenger vessel the stability of which 

is questioned by the Officer in Charge, 

Marine Inspection (OCMI). 

* * * * * 

(c) Specific sections of this part may 

also apply to a small passenger vessel 

inspected under subchapter T of this 

chapter. The specific sections are listed 

in subparts B and C of part 178 of this 

chapter and in subpart B of part 179 of 

this chapter. 

(d) Unless permitted otherwise, a 

passenger vessel constructed on or after 

January 1, 2009, and issued a SOLAS 

Passenger Ship Safety Certificate must 

meet the applicable requirements of 

IMO Res. MSC.216(82) (incorporated by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78085 

reference, see § 171.012), instead of the 

requirements of this part. For the 

purposes of this section, the applicable 

requirements of IMO Res. MSC.216(82) 

are equivalent to the requirements of 

this part when applied to such vessels. 

■ 49. Add new § 171.012 to read as 

follows: 

§ 171.012 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish a notice 

of change in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. It is also available 

for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards, 

Naval Architecture Division (CG–5212), 

2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7126, 

Washington, DC 20593–7126, and is 

available from the sources listed below. 

(b) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), Publications 

Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London 

SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 

7735 7611, http://www.imo.org/. 

(1) Resolution MSC.216(82), 

Amendments to the International 

Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 

1974, As Amended (IMO Res. 

MSC.216(82), Adopted on 8 December 

2006, incorporation by reference (IBR) 

approved for §§ 171.001 and 171.080. 

(2) Resolution MSC 267(85), Adoption 

of the International Code on Intact 

Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code), Adopted 

on 4 December 2008, IBR approved for 

§ 171.050. 

■ 50. Add the heading of subpart B to 

read as follows: 

Subpart B—Intact Stability 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 51. Remove the heading for subpart C 

and transfer §§ 171.045, 171.050, 

171.055, and 171.057 to subpart B. 

■ 52. Revise § 171.045 to read as 

follows: 

§ 171.045 Weight of passengers and crew. 

(a) This section applies to each vessel, 

regardless of when constructed. 

(b) Compliance with the intact 

stability requirements applicable to each 

vessel, using a total weight of 

passengers and crew carried, is based 

upon an Assumed Average Weight per 

Person, which is determined in 

accordance with § 170.090 of this 

chapter. 

■ 53. Revise § 171.050 to read as 

follows: 

§ 171.050 Passenger heel requirements for 

a mechanically propelled or a non-self 

propelled vessel. 

(a) Each mechanically propelled or 

non-self propelled vessel other than a 

pontoon vessel must be shown by 

design calculations, in each condition of 

loading and operation, to have a 

metacentric height (GM) in feet (meters) 

of not less than the value given by the 

following equation: 

GM = [(W/D)(2⁄3)(b)]/(tan(T)) 

Where— 

D = displacement of the vessel in long 

(metric) tons. 

W = total weight in long (metric) tons of 

persons other than required crew, 

including personal effects of those 

persons expected to be carried on the 

vessel. 

T = 14 degrees or the angle of heel at which 

the deck edge is first submerged, 

whichever is less; and 

b = distance in feet (meters) from the 

centerline of the vessel to the geometric 

center of the passenger deck on one side 

of the centerline. 

(b) The criteria specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section are limited in 

application to the conditions of loading 

and operation of vessels for which the 

righting arm (GZ) at the angle (T), 

calculated after the vessel is permitted 

to trim free until the trimming moment 

is zero, is not less than the minimum 

metacentric height (GM) calculated in 

paragraph (a) of this section multiplied 

by sin(T). In conditions not meeting this 

requirement, the Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Center requires calculations in 

addition to those in this section. 

(c) A vessel that complies with the 

requirements for passenger ships 

contained in the International Code of 

Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code) 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 171.012) need not comply with 

paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section. 

Vessels complying with the 2008 IS 

Code must use the Assumed Average 

Weight per Person obtained according to 

§ 170.090 of this title to be exempt from 

the other requirements of this section. 

■ 54. Add new § 171.052 to subpart B to 

read as follows: 

§ 171.052 Passenger heel requirements for 

pontoon vessels. 

(a) Each pontoon vessel, in each 

condition of loading and operation, 

must have an area under the righting 

arm curve from the angle of equilibrium 

to an angle of 40 degrees, the 

downflooding angle, or the angle of the 

maximum righting arm, whichever is 

less, of at least: 

(1) For operation on exposed or 

partially protected waters— 

(i) 10 foot-degrees with a crowding 

density of 5 square feet per person (2.15 

persons per square meter); and 

(ii) 7 foot-degrees with a crowding 

density of 2 square feet per person (5.38 

persons per square meter); and 

(2) For operation on protected 

waters— 

(i) 5 foot-degrees with a crowding 

density of 5 square feet per person (2.15 

persons per square meter); and 

(ii) 2 foot-degrees with a crowding 

density of 2 square feet per person (5.38 

persons per square meter). 

(b) When assessing compliance with 

the criteria of this section, passengers 

are assumed to be distributed in all 

areas accessible to passengers so as to 

produce the most unfavorable 

combination of heel and trim. 

■ 55. Add a new heading for subpart C, 

above § 171.060, to read as follows: 

Subpart C—Subdivision and Damage 

Stability 

§ 171.060 [Amended] 

■ 56. In § 171.060(a) introductory text, 

remove the words ‘‘or § 171.075 for Type 

III subdivision’’. 

§ 171.065 [Amended] 

■ 57. In § 171.065(b)(2), remove the 

second equation, ‘‘Y = (M + 2P)/(V + 

P1¥P)’’ and add, in its place, the 

equation ‘‘Y = (M + 2P1)/(V + P1¥P)’’. 

§ 171.070 [Amended] 

■ 58. In § 171.070 revise the 

introductory text of paragraph (e)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 171.070 Subdivision requirements—Type 

II. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Unless otherwise permitted, if the 

LBP of the vessel is 143 feet (43.5 

meters) or more, or the vessel makes 

international voyages, each main 

transverse watertight bulkhead must be 

at least 10 feet (3 meters) plus 3 percent 

of the vessel’s LBP from— 

* * * * * 

§ 171.075 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 59. Remove and reserve § 171.075. 

§ 171.080 [Amended] 

■ 60. In § 171.080— 

■ a. In paragraph (f)(4)(i), remove ‘‘w = 

passenger weight = 75 kilograms,’’ and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78086 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

add, in its place, ‘‘w = passenger weight 

used for calculations as determined in 

accordance with § 170.090(c) of this 

chapter’’; 

■ b. Revise paragraph (f)(4)(ii)(A) to read 

as set forth below; and 

■ c. In the heading to paragraph (g), after 

the word ‘‘vessels’’, add the words 

‘‘constructed before January 1 2009’’, 

and in paragraph (g) text, remove the 

words ‘‘chapter II–1, part B, regulation 

8’’ and, in their place, add the words 

‘‘the applicable regulations of IMO Res. 

MSC.216(82) (incorporated by reference, 

see § 171.012)’’. 

§ 171.080 Damage stability standards for 

vessels with Type I or Type II subdivision. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) The weight of each passenger is 

the weight used for calculations as 

determined in accordance with 

§ 170.090(c) of this chapter; 

* * * * * 

§ 171.082 [Removed] 

■ 61. Remove § 171.082. 

PART 172—SPECIAL RULES 

PERTAINING TO BULK CARGOES 

■ 62. The authority citation for part 172 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 5115; 

E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., 

p. 277; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 63. Revise § 172.020 to read as 

follows: 

§ 172.020 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish a notice 

of change in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. It is also available 

for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards, 

Naval Architecture Division (CG–5212), 

2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7126, 

Washington, DC 20593–7126, and is 

available from the sources listed below. 

(b) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), Publications 

Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London 

SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 

7735 7611, http://www.imo.org/. 

(1) Amendment to Chapter VI of the 

International Convention for the Safety 

of Life at Sea, 1960, Resolution 

A.264(VIII), incorporation by reference 

(IBR) approved for § 172.015. 

(2) Publication No. 240–E, 

International Code for the Safe Carriage 

of Grain in Bulk, IBR approved for 

§ 172.015. 

(3) Resolution MEPC.117(52), 

Amendments to the Annex of the 

Protocol of 1978 Relating to the 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973 (IMO Res. MEPC.117(52)), 

Adopted on 15 October 2004, IBR 

approved for § 172.070. 

■ 64. Revise § 172.070 to read as 

follows: 

§ 172.070 Intact stability. 

All tank vessels of 5,000 deadweight 

tons (DWT) and above, contracted after 

December 3, 2001, must comply with 

the intact stability requirements of IMO 

Res. MEPC.117(52) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 172.020). 

PART 174—SPECIAL RULES 

PERTAINING TO SPECIFIC VESSEL 

TYPES 

■ 65. The authority citation for part 174 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9118, 9119, 9153; 43 

U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; E.O. 

12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 

277; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 66. Revise § 174.007 to read as 

follows: 

§ 174.007 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish a notice 

of change in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. It is also available 

for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards, 

Naval Architecture Division (CG–5212), 

2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7126, 

Washington, DC 20593–7126, and is 

available from the sources listed below. 

(b) American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428– 

2959. 

(1) ASTM F 1196–00, Standard 

Specification for Sliding Watertight 

Door Assemblies, 2008, incorporation 

by reference (IBR) approved for 

§ 174.100. 

(2) ASTM F 1197–00, Standard 

Specification for Sliding Watertight 

Door Control Systems, 2007, IBR 

approved for § 174.100. 

(c) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), Publications 

Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London 

SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 

7735 7611, http://www.imo.org/. 

(1) Resolution MSC.216(82), Adoption 

of Amendments to the International 

Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 

1974, As Amended (IMO Res. 

MSC.216(82)), Adopted on 8 December 

2006, IBR approved for § 174.360. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 67. Revise § 174.360 to read as 

follows: 

§ 174.360 Calculations. 

Each ship to which this subpart 

applies must comply with the minimum 

standard of subdivision and damage 

stability applicable to that ship under 

IMO Res. MSC.216(82), (incorporated by 

reference, see § 174.007). Compliance 

with the applicable requirements must 

be demonstrated by calculations and 

reflected in information on loading 

restrictions, such as a maximum height 

of the center of gravity (KG) or 

minimum metacentric height (GM) 

curve, that is part of the stability 

information required by § 170.110 of 

this chapter. 

PART 175—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 68. Revise the authority citation for 

part 175 to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 

3703; Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2439; 49 

U.S.C. App. 1804; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 175.900 

also issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

■ 69. In § 175.400, add new definitions 

for ‘‘Pontoon vessel’’, ‘‘Total test weight’’ 

and ‘‘Variable load’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 175.400 Definition of terms used in this 

subchapter. 

* * * * * 

Pontoon vessel means any vessel 

having two or more watertight hulls, 

which are structurally independent 

from the vessel’s deck or cross structure. 

* * * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78087 

Total test weight means the weight 

used to simulate heeling and trimming 

moments when a simplified stability 

test is performed in accordance with 

§ 178.330 or § 178.340 of this 

subchapter. 

* * * * * 

Variable load means the weight of all 

items brought on board a vessel for 

which explicit account is not made in 

approved stability calculations, 

including but not limited to, personal 

effects, carry-on items, luggage, and 

equipment of any kind. 

* * * * * 

PART 176—INSPECTION AND 

CERTIFICATION 

■ 70. The authority citation for part 176 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 

2103, 3205, 3306, 3307; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; 

E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 743; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 

CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 71. In § 176.110, revise paragraphs 

(d)(2) and (d)(3), and add paragraph 

(d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 176.110 Routes permitted. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) The performance capabilities of 

the vessel based on design, scantlings, 

stability, subdivision, propulsion, 

speed, operating modes, 

maneuverability, and other 

characteristics; 

(3) The suitability of the vessel for 

nighttime operations; and 

(4) The suitability of the vessel for all 

environmental conditions. 

■ 72. Revise § 176.112 to read as 

follows: 

§ 176.112 Total persons permitted. 

The cognizant Officer in Charge, 

Marine Inspection (OCMI) determines 

the total number of persons permitted to 

be carried on a vessel. In determining 

the total number of persons, the OCMI 

may consider the total weight of 

passengers, crew, and variable loads; 

stability restrictions and subdivision 

requirements of the vessel; the vessel’s 

route, general arrangement, means of 

escape, and lifesaving equipment; 

minimum manning requirements; and 

the maximum number of passengers 

permitted in accordance with § 176.113 

of this part. 

§ 176.610 [Amended] 

■ 73. In § 176.610, add a sentence to the 

end of paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 176.610 Scope of drydock and internal 

structural examinations. 

(a) * * * The accuracy of draft or 

loading marks, if required by § 185.602 

of this chapter, must be verified if not 

verified at a previous drydock 

examination. 

* * * * * 

§ 176.900 [Amended] 

■ 74. In § 176.900(a)— 

■ a. Add the words ‘‘is certificated for 

or’’ after the word ‘‘which’’; 

■ b. Remove the word ‘‘an’’; and 

■ c. Remove the word ‘‘voyage’’ and add, 

in its place, the word ‘‘voyages’’. 

§ 176.910 [Amended] 

■ 75. In § 176.910(a)— 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘issues’’ in the 

second sentence and add, in its place, 

the words ‘‘authorizes the cognizant 

OCMI to issue’’; and 

■ b. In the last sentence, after the word 

‘‘will’’, add the words ‘‘authorize the 

cognizant OCMI to’’. 

§ 176.920 [Amended] 

■ 76. In § 176.920(d), after the word 

‘‘will’’ in the first and second sentences, 

add the words ‘‘authorize the cognizant 

OCMI to’’. 

§ 176.930 [Amended] 

■ 77. In § 176.930, in the last sentence, 

remove the words ‘‘Commandant will 

indicate the’’ and after the word 

‘‘equivalent’’, add the words ‘‘must be 

indicated’’. 

PART 178—INTACT STABILITY AND 

SEAWORTHINESS 

■ 78. The authority citation for part 178 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 

3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 

1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 178.115 [Amended] 

■ 79. In § 178.115, remove the word 

‘‘An’’ and add in its place ‘‘an’’, and at 

the beginning of the paragraph, add the 

words ‘‘Except where specifically stated 

otherwise,’’. 

■ 80. In § 178.210, revise the first 

sentence of paragraphs (a) and (b), 

revise paragraph (c), and add paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 178.210 Stability information. 

(a) Stability information (stability 

details indicated on the Certificate of 

Inspection, a stability letter, or a 

stability booklet), is required on certain 

vessels by paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of 

this section. * * * 

(b) A vessel which, under § 178.310 of 

this part, complies with requirements in 

subchapter S of this chapter, must have 

stability details on the vessel’s 

Certificate of Inspection, a stability 

letter issued by the cognizant Officer in 

Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) or 

the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety 

Center, or an approved stability booklet. 

* * * 

(c) When necessary for safe operation, 

the cognizant OCMI may place specific 

stability restrictions in a stability letter 

or on the Certificate of Inspection of a 

vessel not more than 65 feet (19.8 

meters) in length, which, under 

§ 178.310 of this part, complies with the 

requirements of § 178.320 of this part. 

(d) Each pontoon vessel must have a 

stability letter and each stability letter 

issued after March 14, 2011 must be 

issued by the Commanding Officer, 

Marine Safety Center. 

■ 81. Add new § 178.215 to read as 

follows: 

§ 178.215 Weight of passengers and crew. 

(a) This section applies to each vessel, 

regardless of when constructed, for 

which stability information is based on 

the results of a simplified stability proof 

test. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, and if not provided 

in the stability information required, the 

owner of each vessel must provide the 

master with the total test weight used in 

the simplified stability proof test and 

the number of passengers and crew 

included in the total test weight. 

Owners and masters must use a total 

weight of passengers and crew carried 

that is based upon an assumed weight 

per person, which is determined in 

accordance with § 170.090 of this 

chapter. 

(c) The information specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section need not be 

provided if the owner attests that the 

vessel complies with applicable intact 

stability requirements when carrying the 

number of passengers and crew 

permitted by the Certificate of 

Inspection with an assumed weight per 

person determined in accordance with 

§ 170.090 of this chapter. 

■ 82. In § 178.230, revise paragraphs (b) 

introductory text and (b)(1), and add 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 178.230 Stability letter or Certificate of 

Inspection stability details. 

* * * * * 

(b) If § 178.210(b) of this part applies, 

the applicable information described in 

subpart C of part 170 of this title, and 

the calculations used to determine that 

information, must be submitted in 

addition to the applicable information 

listed in paragraph (b) of this section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78088 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Allowable weight and number of 

passengers and crew on each deck; 

* * * * * 

(c) If § 178.210(c) of this part applies, 

the allowable weight and number of 

passengers and crew on each deck, and 

the necessary calculations used to 

determine that information, must be 

submitted in accordance with paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

■ 83. Revise § 178.310 to read as 

follows: 

§ 178.310 Intact stability requirements— 

general. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, each vessel must, in 

each condition of loading and operation, 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of— 

(1) Part 170 of this chapter, except 

subparts G and H; and 

(2) Part 171 of this chapter, subparts 

A and B. 

(b) Sailing vessels must meet the 

appropriate requirements of § 171.055 or 

§ 171.057 in subchapter S in this 

chapter while under sail, as well as the 

requirements of § 170.170 in subchapter 

S in this chapter while under bare poles 

(if an auxiliary sailing vessel as defined 

in § 170.055(a) of this chapter) and with 

storm sails set and trimmed flat (if a 

sailing vessel as defined in § 170.055(n) 

of this chapter). 

(c) As an alternative to meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, a vessel may demonstrate 

compliance with an appropriate 

standard set forth in either § 178.320 of 

this part for non-sailing vessels or 

§ 178.325 of this part for monohull 

sailing vessels if all of the following 

criteria are satisfied: 

(1) The length is not more than 19.8 

meters (65 feet) in length; 

(2) The vessel does not carry more 

than 12 passengers on an international 

voyage; 

(3) The vessel either does not have 

more than one deck above the bulkhead 

deck or, if without a bulkhead deck, 

does not have more than one deck above 

the deck from which freeboard is 

measured excluding a pilot house; and 

(4) The vessel’s stability has not been 

questioned by the cognizant Officer in 

Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI). 

(d) In lieu of the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section, a vessel may meet another 

stability standard approved by the 

Commanding Officer, Marine Safety 

Center. 

■ 84. Revise § 178.320 to read as 

follows: 

§ 178.320 Intact stability requirements— 

non-sailing vessels. 

(a) As permitted by § 178.310(c) of 

this part, the following vessels may 

undergo the simplified stability proof 

test detailed in § 178.330 of this part, in 

the presence of a Coast Guard marine 

inspector, if they do not have 

tumblehome at the deck, measured 

amidships, that exceeds 2 percent of the 

beam: 

(1) Monohull vessels; and 

(2) Flush deck catamaran vessels 

which are not pontoon vessels and carry 

not more than 49 passengers. 

(b) As permitted by § 178.310(c) of 

this part, a self-propelled pontoon 

vessel may undergo the pontoon 

simplified stability proof test detailed in 

§ 178.340 of this part, in the presence of 

a Coast Guard marine inspector, if it 

satisfies all of the following 

requirements: 

(1) The vessel carries not more than 

49 passengers and does not make 

international voyages; 

(2) The vessel operates on Protected 

Waters only; 

(3) The vessel is constructed with 

only one deck; 

(4) The buoyant hull volume consists 

of two symmetric, fully enclosed hulls; 

(5) The cross section of each hull is 

circular or of wall-sided construction 

without tumblehome, and constant for 

at least 90 percent of the length of the 

hull; 

(6) The hulls contain no machinery or 

tanks; 

(7) The portion of the deck accessible 

to passengers does not extend beyond— 

(i) The outboard edge of the hulls, and 

(ii) The forward or the aft end of the 

hulls; 

(8) There is no deck more than 0.15 

meters (6 inches) above any point on 

any of the buoyant hulls; 

(9) The distance between the 

centerlines of the hulls is not less than 

1.83 meters (6 feet); and 

(10) Each hull has a beam or diameter, 

as applicable, of not less than 0.61 

meters (2 feet). 

(c) For a vessel that carries not more 

than 49 passengers, carries no deck 

cargo, and is otherwise eligible to 

undergo the simplified stability proof 

test detailed in §§ 178.330 or 178.340 of 

this part, the authority issuing the 

stability letter may— 

(1) Dispense with the requirements of 

the simplified stability proof test in 

§§ 178.330 or § 178.340 of this part 

when the vessel’s stability can be 

adequately assessed by alternate means 

giving due consideration to each item 

that impacts a vessel’s stability 

characteristics which include, but are 

not limited to, the form, arrangement, 

construction, number of decks, route, 

and operating restrictions of the vessel; 

or 

(2) Authorize a change in the 

requirements of the simplified stability 

proof test in either §§ 178.330 or 

178.340 of this part, when necessary to 

adequately assess the vessel’s stability. 

■ 85. Revise § 178.325 to read as 

follows: 

§ 178.325 Intact stability requirements— 

monohull sailing vessels. 

(a) As permitted by § 178.310(c) of 

this part, a monohull sailing vessel may 

demonstrate compliance with 

paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section if it 

satisfies all of the following 

requirements: 

(1) It does not operate on exposed 

waters; 

(2) It only operates during the 

daylight hours; 

(3) It is of the usual type, rig, and hull 

form, excluding vessels without a 

weathertight deck, such as open boats; 

(4) It carries not more than 49 

passengers; 

(5) It is not a sailing school vessel that 

carries a combined total of six or more 

sailing school students and instructors; 

(6) Its minimum downflooding angle 

is greater than 60 degrees; 

(7) It does not have a cockpit greater 

than 20 percent of the Length Over 

Deck; and 

(8) If equipped with a cockpit and 

operating on Partially Protected Waters, 

the cockpit must be self-bailing. 

(b) The vessel may undergo the 

simplified stability proof test detailed in 

§ 178.330 of this part, in the presence of 

a Coast Guard marine inspector, if it 

does not have tumblehome at the deck, 

measured amidships, that exceeds 2 

percent of the beam. 

(c) The cognizant Officer in Charge, 

Marine Inspection (OCMI) may perform 

operational tests to determine whether 

the vessel has adequate stability and 

satisfactory handling characteristics 

under sail for protected waters or 

partially protected waters. 

(d) The Commanding Officer, Marine 

Safety Center, may prescribe additional 

or different stability requirements for a 

broad, shallow draft vessel with little or 

no ballast outside the hull. 

■ 86. In § 178.330, revise the section 

heading, paragraphs (a), (b), and (d)(6), 

and add paragraph (d)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 178.330 Simplified stability proof test 

(SST). 

(a) A vessel must be in the condition 

specified in this paragraph when a 

simplified stability proof test is 

performed. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78089 

(1) The construction of the vessel is 

complete in all respects. 

(2) Ballast, if necessary, is in 

compliance with § 178.510 of this part 

and is on board and in place. 

(3) Each fuel and water tank is 

approximately three-quarters full. Any 

sewage tank should be either empty or 

full. 

(4) A weight equal to the total weight 

of all passengers, crew, and variable 

loads permitted on the vessel is on 

board and distributed so as to provide 

normal operating trim and to simulate 

the vertical center of gravity, causing the 

least stable condition that is likely to 

occur in service. The assumed weight 

per person of passengers and crew must 

be representative of the passengers and 

crew on board the vessel while engaged 

in the service intended. Unless the 

cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine 

Inspection (OCMI) permits or requires 

the use of other values in writing, 

weight and vertical center of gravity are 

to be assumed as follows: 

(i) The weight of primary lifesaving 

equipment should be simulated at its 

normal location, if not on board at the 

time of the test. 

(ii) The assumed weight per person is 

determined as provided by § 170.090 of 

this chapter. 

(iii) The weight and associated 

vertical center of gravity of variable 

loads must be included as appropriate 

for the service intended and 

documented in the stability information 

required by subpart B of this part. 

(iv) The vertical center for the total 

test weight must be at least 30 inches 

(760 millimeters) above the deck for 

seated passengers, and at least 39 inches 

(1.0 meter) above the deck for standing 

passengers. 

(v) If the vessel carries passengers on 

diving excursions, the total weight of 

diving gear must be included in the 

loaded condition and placed in its 

stowed position. Not less than 80 

pounds (36.3 kilograms) should be 

assumed for each person for whom 

diving gear is provided. 

(vi) On vessels having one upper deck 

available to passengers above the main 

deck, the weight distribution must not 

be less severe than the following: 

Total Test Weight (W) = llll 

Passenger Capacity of Upper Deck: 

lllllllllllllllllll

Weight on Upper Deck = (Number of 

Passengers on Upper Deck) * (Wt 

per Passenger) * 1.33 

Weight on Main Deck = Total Test 

Weight¥Weight on Upper Deck. 

(5) All non-return closures on cockpit 

scuppers or on weather deck drains 

must be kept open during the test. 

(b) A vessel must not exceed the 

limitations in paragraph (d) of this 

section, when subjected to the greater of 

the following heeling moments: 

Mp = (W) (Bp)/6; or 

Mw = (P) (A) (H) 

Where: 

Mp = passenger heeling moment in footpounds (kilogram-meters); 

Mw = Wind heeling moment in foot-pounds 

(kilogram-meters) 

W = the total weight of persons other than 

required crew, plus the personal effects 

of those persons expected to be carried 

while aboard the vessel (total test 

weight) in pounds (meters); 

Bp = the maximum transverse distance in feet 

(meters) of a deck that is accessible to 

passengers; 

A = Area, in square feet (square meters), of 

the projected lateral surface of the vessel 

above the waterline (including each 

projected area of the hull, superstructure, 

cargo, masts, area bounded by railings 

and canopies, but not protruding fixed 

objects such as antennas or running 

rigging). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(6) On a non-sailing flush deck 

catamaran that is propelled by 

mechanical means, not more than onethird of the freeboard or one-third of the 

draft, whichever is less, may be 

immersed. 

(7) In no case may the angle of heel 

exceed 14 degrees. 

* * * * * 

■ 87. Revise § 178.340 to read as 

follows: 

§ 178.340 Stability standards for pontoon 

vessels on protected waters. 

(a) A pontoon vessel meeting the 

applicability requirements of § 178.320 

of this part must be in the condition 

described in § 178.330(a) of this part 

when the PSST is performed, except 

that fuel, water and sewage tanks should 

either be empty or filled to 100 percent 

capacity, whichever is more 

conservative. 

(b) A pontoon vessel must not exceed 

the limitations in paragraph (c) of this 

section when subjected to the greater of 

the following heeling moments: 

Mpc = [(W)(Bp¥K)]/2; or 

Mw = (P) (A) (H) 

Where: 

Mpc = passenger and crew heeling moment in 

foot-pounds (kilogram-meters); 

W = the total weight of passengers and crew 

aboard (total test weight) in pounds 

(kilograms); 

Bp = the maximum transverse distance of the 

deck accessible to passengers in feet 

(meters); 

K = 2.0 feet (0.61 meters); 

Mw = Wind heeling moment in foot-pounds 

(kilogram-meters) 

P = Wind pressure of 7.5 pounds/square foot 

(36.6 kilograms/square meter); 

A = Area, in square feet (square meters), of 

the projected lateral surface of the vessel 

above the waterline (including each 

projected area of the pontoons, 

superstructure and area bounded by 

railings and structural canopies); and 

H = Height, in feet (meters), of the center of 

area (A) above the waterline, measured 

up from the waterline. 

(c) With the appropriate heeling 

moment applied to the most adversely 

affected side of the vessel, the remaining 

exposed cross-sectional area of the 

pontoon must be equal to or greater than 

both— 

(1) The cross-sectional area 

submerged due to the load shift (for an 

example, see Figure 178.340(c)(1) of this 

section); and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
78090 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) One-quarter of the cross-sectional 

area on one pontoon. 

(d) A pontoon vessel must also be 

tested to determine whether trimming 

moments will submerge the bow or 

stern of the buoyant hull. The top of any 

pontoon must not be submerged at any 

location, as indicated in Figure 

178.340(d) of this section, with the total 

test weight (W) located on the centerline 

and positioned as far forward or aft on 

the deck as practicable, whichever 

position results in the least freeboard. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3ER14DE10.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78091 

PART 179—SUBDIVISION, DAMAGE 

STABILITY, AND WATERTIGHT 

INTEGRITY 

■ 88. The authority citation for part 179 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 

3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 

1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 89. Add new § 179.15 to subpart A to 

read as follows: 

§ 179.15 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish a notice 

of change in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. It is also available 

for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office 

of Design and Engineering Standards, 

Naval Architecture Division (CG–5212), 

2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7126, 

Washington, DC 20593–7126, and is 

available from the sources listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), Publications 

Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London 

SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 

7735 7611, http://www.imo.org/. 

(1) Resolution MSC.216(82), Adoption 

of Amendments to the International 

Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 

1974, As Amended (IMO Res. 

MSC.216(82)), Adopted on 8 December 

2006, IBR approved for § 179.212. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 90. Revise § 179.212 to read as 

follows: 

§ 179.212 Watertight bulkheads for 

subdivision and damage stability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, each vessel must 

comply with the Type II subdivision 

and damage stability requirements of 

§§ 171.070 through 171.073 and 171.080 

of this chapter if it meets one or more 

of the following criteria: 

(1) Is more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) 

in length; 

(2) Carries more than 49 passengers; 

(3) Is constructed of wood on or after 

March 11, 2001, and operates in cold 

water; or 

(4) Is constructed before January 1, 

2009 and carries more than 12 

passengers on an international voyage. 

(b) Vessels constructed on or after 

January 1, 2009 and carrying more than 

12 passengers on an international 

voyage must comply with the applicable 

requirements of IMO Res. MSC.216(82) 

(incorporated by reference, see § 179.15) 

unless permitted otherwise. 

(c) As an alternative to complying 

with the Type II subdivision and 

damage stability requirements of 

§§ 171.070 through 171.073 and 171.080 

of this chapter, a monohull vessel which 

undergoes a simplified stability proof 

test in accordance with § 178.330 of this 

chapter may comply with § 179.220 of 

this part. 

(d) For the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance with the Type II subdivision 

and damage stability requirements of 

§§ 171.070 through 171.073 and 171.080 

of this chapter, the requirements of IMO 

Res. MSC.216(82) may be considered 

equivalent. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3ER14DE10.007</GPH>
78092 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 91. In § 179.220— 

■ a. In Table 179.220(a) remove the term 

‘‘d/L’’ and in its place, add the term ‘‘x/ 

L’’ 

■ b. In note 1 to Table 179.220(a), 

remove the term ‘‘d = distance’’, and in 

its place, add the term ‘‘x = distance’’; 

and 

■ c. Add paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 179.220 Location of watertight bulkheads 

for subdivision. 

* * * * * 

(c) Calculations needed to 

demonstrate compliance with 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

must be submitted to, and approved by, 

the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety 

Center. 

§ 179.230 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 92. Remove and reserve § 179.230. 

PART 185—OPERATIONS 

■ 93. The authority citation for part 185 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 6101; 

E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., 

p. 277; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 94. In § 185.304, revise paragraph 

(a)(3) and add paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 185.304 Navigation underway. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Prevailing and forecasted visibility 

and environmental conditions, 

including wind and waves; 

* * * * * 

(b) Masters of vessels not greater than 

65 ft (19.8 m) in length must have 

means available, satisfactory to the 

Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 

(OCMI), to obtain or monitor the latest 

marine broadcast in order to comply 

with the requirements of paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

■ 95. In § 185.315, designate the existing 

paragraph as paragraph (a) and add 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 185.315 Verification of vessel 

compliance with applicable stability 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) In order to fulfill the requirements 

of paragraph (a) of this section and 

avoid overloading the vessel, the master 

must take into account the total weight 

of passengers, crew, and variable loads. 

§ 185.602 [Amended] 

■ 96. In § 185.602— 

■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

remove the words ‘‘that fits into any one 

of the following categories:’’ and add, in 

their place, the words ‘‘that does not 

demonstrate compliance in accordance 

with § 178.310(c) of this chapter.’’; 

■ b. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(3); and 

■ c. In paragraph (c), remove the words 

‘‘that complies with the stability 

requirements of §§ 170.170, 170.173, 

171.050, 171.055, and 171.057 of this 

chapter or in accordance with § 178.310 

of this chapter,’’. 

Dated: November 17, 2010. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30391 Filed 12–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3