Tonnage Regulations Amendments

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard amends its tonnage regulations to implement amendments to the tonnage measurement law made by the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act, codify principal technical interpretations, and incorporate administrative, non-substantive clarifications and updates. The Coast Guard believes these changes will lead to a better understanding of regulatory requirements.

DATES:

This final rule is effective May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2011-0522. To view public comments or documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Marcus Akins, Marine Safety Center, Tonnage Division (MSC-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-795-6787, email Marcus.J.Akins@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826, toll free 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations

II. Regulatory History

III. Basis and Purpose

IV. Background

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes

A. Comments

B. Additional Changes

C. Change Summary

VI. 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

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

E.O. Executive Order

FR Federal Register

IMO International Maritime Organization

MSC Marine Safety Center

MSSC Marine Safety and Security Council

MTN Marine Safety Center Technical Note

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Pub. L. Public Law

§  Section Symbol

SBA Small Business Administration

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History

We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19420) in the Federal Register. This document invited public comment on proposed changes to the tonnage regulations to implement amendments to the tonnage measurement law made by section 303 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2924 (2010), referred to in this document as the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act), to codify principal technical interpretations issued by the Coast Guard, and to incorporate administrative, non-substantive clarifications and updates. We subsequently published a notice of public meeting on May 21, 2014 (79 FR 29149) and held the public meeting on June 5, 2014.

III. Basis and Purpose

The tonnage measurement law, codified in Title 46, United States Code (U.S.C.), Subtitle II, Part J, “Measurement of Vessels,” provides for assignment of gross and net tonnages to any vessel to which a law of the United States applies based on the vessel's tonnage. The 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act included amendments which updated, clarified, and eliminated inconsistencies in the tonnage measurement law. Under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 14302, 14512, and 14522, and delegation of that authority to the Coast Guard in Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 para. 92(j), the Coast Guard administers the implementing regulations for the tonnage measurement law. The regulations are found in title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 69, “Measurement of Vessels,” and referred to as the tonnage regulations.

The purpose of this rule is to implement the changes made to the vessel measurement statutes by the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act. This rule also codifies principal policy interpretations, and incorporates additional clarifications and other administrative updates to the tonnage regulations.

IV. Background

In this final rule, we are amending 46 CFR part 69, “Measurement of Vessels.” These regulations are referred to as the “tonnage regulations” and provide for assignment of vessel gross and net tonnages and registered dimensions.

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes

A. Comments

We received comments on the NPRM from six individuals or entities through submissions to the online docket. We heard from one person whose affiliation or occupation was not disclosed, one naval architect, one shipbuilder, one owner-operator of offshore vessel services, and two industry associations. We received no oral or written comments on the NPRM at the public meeting. A summary of the comments that we received follows, along with our resolution to each.

1. One commenter requested that the Coast Guard clarify the rule with regards to when the owner may, or must, use Convention Measurement System or Regulatory Measurement System tonnage to determine applicability of an international requirement.

While we acknowledge the usefulness of including more detailed information in the regulation on how assigned tonnages are used, we believe that this could result in an overly detailed regulation that would be difficult to keep up to date. We believe that the new section on tonnage applicability, included in the regulatory text, strikes the correct balance between providing limited information on the use of tonnage, as is the case with the existing regulations, and providing extensive detail on the large number of individual tonnage thresholds that appear in international agreements and other laws of the United States.

2. One commenter expressed concern that, absent a clarification from the Coast Guard, the terminology “vessel that engages on a foreign voyage” could have the effect of broadening the universe of vessels for which Convention Measurement System tonnage must be used to apply international requirements. The commenter cited the distinction between a vessel that is currently engaged on an international voyage and one that is currently engaged on a domestic voyage but also engages on international voyages from time to time.

We disagree and believe the regulatory text in question, as drafted, does not affect how assigned tonnages are used when applying tonnage-based requirements. The regulation comes into play only in determining whether a vessel must be measured under the Convention Measurement System and, if so, whether an International Tonnage Certificate (1969) must be carried onboard. If a U.S. flag vessel of 79 feet or more in length, regardless of keel-laid date, is engaged on a domestic voyage but also engages on foreign voyages from time to time, then Convention measurement is required. However, whether or not the assigned Convention tonnage is used when applying international agreements depends on tonnage applicability language in those agreements. The regulatory text in question only clarifies that requirements for Convention measurement apply at all times to such vessels, and are not exclusively limited to those times when such vessels are engaged on a foreign voyage.

The language in the rule is substantially the same as it is defined in the statute in 46 U.S.C. 14101. We are not permitted to enlarge or reduce the language that is in U.S. statute.

3. One commenter requested that the tonnage regulations clearly pronounce the preclusion from measurement under the Regulatory Measurement System of certain foreign flag vessels.

We know of no practical way to add this single pronouncement without substantively restructuring and expanding the regulatory text to identify other preclusions related to measurement system applicability. For example, whether or not a particular tonnage measurement system applies to a vessel can depend on a number of factors, including the vessel's flag, length, voyage type, keel laid or substantial alteration date, and whether or not it is self-propelled. Our Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 11-93 Change 3, “Applicability of Tonnage Measurement Systems to U.S. Flag Vessels,” presents this kind of information using a matrix approach that cross-references eight different tables, with each table listing applicable requirements and restrictions. We believe that presenting information in this fashion, while potentially helpful in explaining the requirements, is not suited for inclusion in the tonnage regulations, especially in an expanded form to address foreign flag vessels. Accordingly, we have not incorporated any corresponding change to the regulatory text.

4. One commenter requested changes to the tonnage regulations to make clear that a foreign flag vessel engaged on a foreign voyage between places outside of the United States is effectively outside the jurisdiction of United States law.

We agree that where laws of the United States, including obligations under international agreements, do not apply to a vessel, tonnage measurement requirements under U.S. law similarly do not apply, as in the case the commenter cited. However, along the same lines as our response to the previous comment, we believe that the regulation, as drafted, is sufficiently clear to cover this case, especially in view of the language in §§ 69.3 and 69.11, as amended by this rulemaking, that addresses when tonnage measurement under U.S. law is required.

5. One commenter took issue with the amendment to § 69.17 clarifying that the vessel owner is responsible for submitting applications for measurement. The commenter cited difficulties in identifying the owner in certain cases where, for vessels under construction, ownership may reside in contractual relationships between the yard, prospective owners, and lien holders.

We believe the clarification regarding vessel owner responsibility is appropriate, as the tonnage measurement law and existing regulations provide for owners to exercise certain measurement options. However, we recognize that identifying the specific individual or entity who owns the vessel may be especially problematic early in the construction process, when the current regulation requires application submission. Accordingly, we have amended the associated regulatory text to replace the term “must” with the term “should”, so that early application submission is recommended, rather than mandatory.

6. One commenter stated that portable enclosed spaces should not be included in a vessel's tonnage, as they effectively serve the function of deck cargo, which is similarly not included. The commenter described the unique mission requirements of offshore support vessels, noting that they frequently involve the fitting of equipment used to service offshore energy exploration and production facilities and other infrastructure that do not usually form a permanent part of a vessel's structure. The commenter argued that an offshore support vessel transporting such items was equivalent to a cargo ship transporting deck cargo, and proposed possible mechanisms for evaluating the point at which such installations could be treated as permanent additions to the vessel.

We disagree. Fundamentally, the question of whether or not a space should be included in a vessel's tonnage depends on whether the enclosed volume in question is treated as part of the vessel. With limited exceptions, national and international measurement systems dating to at least the 18th century have not treated deck cargo as part of the vessel, with deck cargo generally taken to mean freight carried on the weather decks for the purpose of its transport between two separate and distinct locations. Under this historical framework, the relatively recent adaptation for shipboard use of portable quarters units, equipment vans and similar portable spaces that all function as part of the vessel, even for periods of short duration, argues for their treatment as part of the host vessel, as opposed to deck cargo.

7. Two commenters expressed the view that the Convention does not provide for including portable enclosed spaces in tonnage, and therefore, such spaces should not be included under the Convention Measurement System.

While we agree that the matter of portable enclosed spaces is not explicitly addressed in the Convention, we interpret Regulation 2(4) of the Convention to require including their volumes in tonnage, unless they are effectively open to the weather and meet other conditions for treatment as excluded spaces. We consider the side boundaries of portable enclosed spaces to be analogous to the “portable partitions” described in this regulation. Further, we believe that Article 2 of the Convention, which defines gross tonnage as a measure of the vessel's overall size, supports this interpretation. Accordingly, we maintain that portable enclosed spaces should be accounted for in a similar manner to enclosed spaces that are part of the vessel's permanent structure, when assigning vessel tonnage under the Convention Measurement System.

8. One commenter stated that other governments do not include portable enclosed-space volumes in tonnage, and therefore, requested that the tonnage regulations be amended to align with internationally agreed-to requirements on this subject.

We disagree with the requested amendment. We are aware that some governments do not, in general, include the volumes of such spaces in tonnage, although we know of no reliable source of information on how the 156 governments currently party to the Convention treat these spaces. However, we note that during recent correspondence group work at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United States was among the majority of those governments that include these volumes in tonnage (see Table 1-4 of Annex 2 to IMO document SDC 1/INF.4 dated October 18, 2013), although international consensus was not obtained on this matter. In addition, we are unaware of any explicit internationally agreed-to requirements, or even guidance, on this subject. IMO recently considered tonnage implications of portable enclosed spaces (referred to as “temporary deck equipment” in IMO documents based on U.S. terminology at the time), but did not address this matter in the updated interpretations of TM.5/Circ.6 dated May 19, 2014 (see Annex 4 to IMO document SDC 1/4 dated October 18, 2013).

9. One commenter expressed the view that including portable enclosed spaces in tonnage under the Standard and Dual Regulatory Measurement Systems appears fair, but only in cases where these items serve as long-term fixtures aboard the vessel. However, the commenter cautioned that such treatment could be especially problematic for certain fixtures (e.g., survival craft or a submersible on a mother ship).

We believe that the operative statutory language for the Standard and Dual Regulatory Measurement Systems supports including such spaces in tonnage, without regard to the duration of their installation on board. Whether or not a portable enclosed space is included in tonnage under these systems should depend on whether the space is permanently closed-in (e.g., the bounding structure itself is of a permanent, rather than a temporary, nature), as opposed to whether it is permanently installed on the vessel. Accordingly, we maintain that the duration of installation has no bearing on a vessel's tonnage assignment. Also, we note that the Coast Guard treats survival craft and submersibles as separate vessels under the tonnage regulations, and their volumes are not included in the tonnages of the host vessels.

10. Two commenters expressed concern over the impact of including portable enclosed spaces in tonnage with regard to remeasuring a vessel following the installation or removal of such items, with both contending that this is especially problematic for vessels close to tonnage thresholds. One commenter noted that the Coast Guard is not codifying the related remeasurement criteria in this rulemaking.

We currently apply a volumetric remeasurement criterion following vessel changes exceeding 5 percent of the vessel's tonnage, which includes installation and removal of portable enclosed spaces (see NVIC 11-93, Change 3). This allows the installation and removal of many such items without the need for remeasurement. Also, beginning in 1997, we authorized a maximum allowance for such items, which is reflected in a vessel's assigned tonnage. This avoids the need to remeasure the vessel following the installation or removal of portable enclosed spaces, provided the maximum allowance is not exceeded. Based on the valuable information exchanged on this subject during the recent IMO work on the Convention, we continue to believe this approach offers the best way to account for the presence of these spaces, consistent with the Convention and the tonnage measurement law. This does not affect our long-standing use of the 5 percent criterion, and as such our policy on that issue remains consistent.

11. One commenter requested that the issue of enforcement be addressed with respect to the installation and removal of portable enclosed spaces, as it may not be obvious to owners and operators that such changes could impact tonnage assignments.

As stated in the NPRM, one of our objectives in codifying principal policy interpretations was to facilitate understanding of, and compliance with, the tonnage regulations. We believe that the codification of the interpretations related to portable enclosed spaces, coupled with our continued use of a 5 percent remeasurement criterion, will reduce those situations where an enforcement action is necessary.

12. One commenter highlighted terminology differences between the definition “portable enclosed space” and the term “temporary deck equipment” used in previous policy documents, noting that the term “not permanent” in the NPRM's regulatory text, as drafted, significantly differed from the term “semi-permanent” used in policy. The commenter questioned whether the changes were intended to constitute a substantive amendment to the language.

While we acknowledge the differences between the text in policy documents and the codified regulatory text, as drafted, we believe that the codification makes no substantive changes. When we developed the proposed definitions for the terms “deck cargo” and “portable enclosed space” that appeared in the NPRM, we made adjustments to the policy text for clarity and to better harmonize the definitions. These adjustments included avoiding the use of the term “temporary,” which like the term “semi-permanent,” can be construed in a variety of ways unless accompanied by amplifying text, and omitting the example of the portable aviation fuel (“JP-5”) tank that is treated as either deck cargo or part of the vessel, depending on whether it is offloaded with its contents intact. Instead, we use more general and, in our view, clearer language in the “deck cargo” and “portable enclosed space” definitions, which we believe has the same effect as the language used in current policy.

13. Two commenters expressed the view that portable enclosed spaces should not be classified as superstructure spaces under the tonnage regulations, as the term “superstructure” has a different meaning in other maritime contexts (e.g., it can refer only to permanent structures, and/or only structures that extend from side-to-side).

Although we recognize the benefits of using consistent, universally understood terminology in the tonnage regulations, in this instance we are unaware of any term widely used in the maritime industry that effectively encompasses all manner of above-deck enclosed spaces that are not bounded by the hull. Further, since 1989, when the tonnage regulations were amended to adopt the term “superstructure” to describe such spaces, we are unaware of any instance where using this term resulted in a vessel designer or measurement organization incorrectly applying the tonnage rules. Accordingly, we made no changes to the regulatory text, as drafted, in this regard.

14. One commenter stated the new term “water ballast double bottom” appears unnatural, and suggested that the term “double bottom (water) ballast tank” be used instead.

We agree that the term in the proposed regulatory text, as drafted, could be improved upon for the reason stated. Because the term is applied only when measuring a vessel for which the vessel's double bottom is solely used for water ballast, we believe the suggested reference to ballast tanks is unnecessary, and could cause confusion. Accordingly, we have revised the regulatory text to replace the term “water ballast double bottom” with the term “double bottom for water ballast,” which we believe adds clarity while satisfactorily addressing the commenter's stated concern.

15. One commenter stated that the proposed regulatory text for the codified interpretation on passenger support spaces could not be found.

The draft text in question was inadvertently omitted from the NPRM during the regulatory development process. In view of the fact that these amendments were fully described in the NPRM, accounted for in its Regulatory Analyses section, and were not the subject of any other comment, we incorporated amendments to add the missing text in 69.117(c)(2) of the final rule. The added text is from the policy document, without change (see Section 69.117(c)(2) of Marine Safety Center Technical Note (MTN) 01-99 Change 7, “Tonnage Technical Policy”).

16. One commenter urged the Coast Guard to amend the size criteria for the treatment of ordinary frame openings being codified in this rulemaking. Specifically, the commenter requested an exception be made to the specified criteria under certain circumstances, to allow the fitting of larger frame openings without a corresponding increase in the vessel's tonnage. This change would allow for improved access of personnel through the frames for rescue operations, consistent with current classification society and international rules that apply in similar situations. Another commenter expressed support for the main points raised in this comment.

We disagree with the requested exception to the size criteria. The criteria are historically rooted, with their origins dating to the early 20th century, and are based, at least in part, on the concept of impeding movement of personnel and cargo through the frame. We also believe that the magnitude of the requested size increase (more than doubling the effective opening area) could have a significant effect on tonnage assignments of both present vessels and future vessels measured or remeasured under the Standard and Dual Regulatory Measurement Systems. Finally, while we acknowledge the safety benefits of larger openings for rescue operations, it is not clear that such a departure from long-standing practice and policy would have a net positive impact on aggregate safety of U.S flag vessels, as the relaxation of opening restrictions could facilitate the construction of larger vessels regulated to lower tonnage-based standards.

17. One commenter stated that by not revising the criteria for measurement treatment of openings consistent with current classification society and international rules, the Coast Guard is forcing an owner to choose between accepting a higher tonnage, or building a smaller, less capable, vessel with the same tonnage.

We disagree. Under the Standard and Dual Regulatory Measurement Systems, designers have wide latitude in incorporating a multitude of design features that serve to artificially reduce a vessel's tonnage. While the undesirability of some of these features from a cost and efficiency perspective has long been recognized, their use has generally been accepted by the U.S. maritime community, and is common practice. The tonnage regulations, as amended, will not preclude a designer from taking advantage of these features to reduce a vessel's tonnage to the desired tonnage objective, while simultaneously meeting tank access and other safety requirements. The use or non-use of numerous features that can effectively reduce a vessel's tonnage is the designer's, and ultimately the owner's, choice.

18. One commenter stated that the ordinary frame opening size criteria being codified are arbitrary. In seeking relaxed criteria, the commenter also stated that there is precedent for increasing the minimum opening size.

We disagree with the commenter's characterization of the size criteria as arbitrary, and we describe the basis of the size criteria in our response to Comment 16. However, from our review of this matter, we concluded that the criteria for the measurement treatment of oval openings, first established by the Coast Guard in 1988 but limited to fuel tanks, could be applied to such openings in other locations, subject to certain restrictions to maintain the principle of impeding personnel and cargo movement. We have amended the regulatory text accordingly. While this does not provide the same degree of relaxation sought by the commenter, it gives designers additional flexibility to fit somewhat larger oval openings in more locations, without tonnage penalty.

19. One commenter questioned the Coast Guard's legal authority to codify size criteria for the treatment of ordinary frame openings that differ from criteria in classification society rules and international standards that provide for larger “rescue openings” in vertical bulkheads. The commenter claimed that codifying these criteria will reduce safety.

The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may—and in some cases, must—issue rules and regulations to implement certain statutes. The vessel measurement statutes mandate that the “Secretary shall measure a vessel to which this chapter applies” as per 46 U.S.C. 14302 and 46 U.S.C. 14502. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Coast Guard.

This rule is not in conflict with the classification society rules or international standards. It does not prevent the placement of larger openings in bulkheads in the cargo area. However, if these larger openings are present, we recognize that a potential tonnage reduction benefit is lost. That is the present situation, and it is unaffected by this rule. The effect of fitting the larger openings could be to raise the vessel's Regulatory Measurement System tonnage, potentially making the vessel subject to more stringent safety measures that apply to larger vessels. That indirect safety consequence is, in fact, why many maritime rules and standards are tonnage-based.

Assigned tonnages are measures of a vessel's overall size and/or useful capacity. It is true that certain provisions of the U.S. Regulatory Measurement System can be used to an owner's benefit to reduce a vessel's tonnage, as the commenter suggested. However, design features from such provisions are generally not taken into account by classification society rules or international standards. Likewise, classification society rules and international standards are generally not taken into account by the tonnage regulations. To that extent, the commenter's suggestion that these regulations be amended to reflect classification society rules and international standards is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

These rules are not intended to change any of the present Coast Guard policies in effect, except those changes required by the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act. There is no suggestion in the comment that present policy is not being applied consistently by the Coast Guard. As this rule merely codifies that policy into regulation, this rule maintains the status quo. See the response to Comment 22, below, for further discussion of the cost implications of this rule.

20. Two commenters expressed the view that the tonnage measurement rules should not be at odds with safety-related standards or other requirements.

While acknowledging this view, we note that the tonnage parameters assigned under the measurement rules of the Convention and Regulatory Measurement Systems are size parameters, based on a vessel's geometry and the use of its spaces. There is currently no language in U.S. law that would allow tonnage measurement rules to be modified for consistency with other rules unrelated to tonnage measurement. We are not aware of any conflict between the safety standards and tonnage rules; however, as discussed in our response to the next comment, vessel design features required for compliance with safety standards are still subject to tonnage measurement rules.

21. One commenter requested a new section be added to the tonnage regulations, expressing the fundamental principle that safety-related improvements not be subject to tonnage penalty.

We disagree. Assigned tonnages are used by numerous public and private sector entities for a variety of purposes, including the application of tonnage-based safety, security and environmental protection regulations and standards; the crediting of seafarers for service on vessels depending on their tonnage; and the assessment of taxes and other fees. Consequently, a safety improvement that added considerable volume but was exempted from tonnage might allow the modified vessel to escape more stringent size-based standards that would otherwise apply, and could adversely impact seafarers earning credit for sea service and others who might otherwise benefit from a higher tonnage assignment. Absent any mandate under U.S. law, it would be inappropriate for the Coast Guard to amend the tonnage regulations in the manner requested.

22. Two commenters took issue with the NPRM's “no cost” characterization of the codified interpretation related to the treatment of portable enclosed spaces, expressing a general concern that there would be costs. Similarly, another commenter expressed disagreement with the “no cost” characterization of the codified interpretations related to ordinary frame opening size, citing significant cost impacts should the current criteria continue to be applied.

We acknowledge the concerns raised by the commenters, but believe that the NPRM correctly characterized the codification of these long-standing and frequently applied interpretations as “no cost.” These interpretations appear in publicly available policy documents, used by Coast Guard field personnel and organizations that perform tonnage measurement work on the Coast Guard's behalf. Codifying the interpretations should give vessel owners better access to important information upon which to base business decisions that are tonnage related, and could help avert costly impacts from tonnage assignments that do not meet owners' objectives.

We are not aware of any specific instance in which the interpretations are not being followed due to the lack of their codification in the regulations, and the commenters did not identify any specific instance. The Coast Guard makes its interpretations available to authorized measurement organizations and other stakeholders, and conducts a rigorous oversight program, including audits of tonnage certifications, to ensure these interpretations are correctly applied. Our discussion in this section explains why we believe there is no cost to codifying the interpretations in regulation.

With respect to the ordinary frame opening size, the commenter acknowledges that the present interpretation “continues to be enforced” and is not new or sporadically applied. As we discussed in Comment 16 above, the size criteria are long-standing and rooted in the origins of tonnage measurement. This rule merely codifies the status quo. And, as we discussed in Comments 17 and 19 above, the commenter's position on vessel design options conflates the Regulatory and Convention Measurement Systems to give the appearance of conflict when there is none.

The commenter requests that the rescue opening requirements in international safety conventions such as SOLAS be applied in a manner that does not adversely affect tonnage assignments under our national tonnage rules. However, vessels of 79 feet or more in length that comply with SOLAS in order to engage in international voyages must also have a Convention tonnage measurement; under the International Tonnage Convention the spaces in question would be included in tonnage because the vessel's Convention tonnage is based on its total enclosed volume, not just the volume bounded by the framing. Therefore, a vessel owner may elect to take advantage of tonnage reduction options under the U.S. Regulatory Measurement System, understanding that the limited opening size that is part of this system may conflict with opening size requirements necessary to overseas trade. This design choice is not new, and the considerations weighed when making this choice are not changed by this rule. We acknowledge that vessels subject to various international requirements must have openings of a certain size, but as a matter of domestic law we neither require nor prevent installation of these openings: The vessel owner may choose.

With respect to portable spaces, existing statute and regulation provide for remeasurement if the vessel or the use of its space is changed. As we described in Comment 10, two current policy provisions help minimize the need for remeasurement. First, we apply a volumetric change threshold of 5 percent for remeasurement, which includes the addition and removal of portable spaces. Second, we authorize a maximum allowance for portable spaces in a vessel's tonnage assignment. This allows for the addition and removal of portable spaces without remeasurement as long as the specified maximum tonnage is not exceeded.

The Coast Guard's current interpretation, which provides for inclusion of portable spaces as we describe in Comments 6 through 13 above, is long-standing and is understood by all authorized measurement organizations. If owners are not contacting authorized measurement organizations prior to changes involving portable spaces, they may be violating 46 CFR 69.19(a). The other possible source of costs would be owners who do contact an authorized measurement organization as required, are informed that the vessel does need to be remeasured due to changes involving portable spaces, but then fail to have it remeasured. We reached out to authorized measurement organizations to inquire about this possibility, but did not learn of any such communications.

To summarize, this final rule codifies current, long-standing interpretations, including provisions for portable spaces and frame openings. Although we received comments related to compliance with these two interpretations, public comments did not indicate that the codification of tonnage interpretations would affect the current compliance level. As such, we conclude that while this rulemaking does not provide relief for current business concerns, it also does not impose additional regulatory costs.

23. One commenter expressed preference for the regulatory alternative discussed in the NPRM of codifying all published Coast Guard interpretations in the tonnage regulations, and not just the principal interpretations as we proposed in the NPRM. This commenter stated that interpretations characterized as “vague” and “flexible” have given rise to a consulting niche known as “tonnage experts” and that the Coast Guard refers requests for interpretations to authorized measurement organizations, rather than issuing uniform interpretations.

We acknowledge the commenter's stated preference and characterization of published interpretations, but do not find the commenter persuasive in arguing for codifying all interpretations. We exercise considerable care when developing such interpretations, which involves a comprehensive review of all related decisions, rulemakings, legislative history, international interpretations and similar documents. Consequently, once published, the interpretations are not substantively changed, although they may be updated or expanded upon to address new situations that arise. Further, although we routinely refer owners to the measurement organizations for detailed design reviews as part of the tonnage measurement process, the measurement organizations do not have the authority to interpret the tonnage regulations on the Coast Guard's behalf. Accordingly, we believe that the regulatory approach we are using best serves the public interest, by facilitating our timely publication of interpretations while avoiding compliance difficulties with an overly detailed regulation.

24. One commenter requested an additional public meeting specifically to address two changes in the NPRM — the proposed new tonnage applicability section, and the proposed new section on treatment of novel type vessels under the Simplified Measurement System. This commenter cited general concerns with the policy upon which the new tonnage applicability section is based, and the need to discuss the matter of novel type vessels, taking into consideration related IMO work. The commenter also requested a public meeting prior to any interim rulemaking.

We believe that we provided sufficient opportunity for public input on these sections. This includes our explanation of them and invitation for comments at the public meeting held on June 5, 2014. As reflected in the meeting synopsis available in the docket, no such concerns were raised. Further, we see no need for an interim rulemaking. Accordingly, and in view of the nature of the other comments we received, we believe that the requested additional public meetings were not warranted, and would have unnecessarily delayed issuance of this final rule.

B. Additional Changes

In the paragraphs below, we discuss additional changes to the NPRM's proposed regulatory text, which we identified when developing this final rule, along with the reasons for implementing these changes. These changes do not result in any new requirements substantively different from those in the NPRM.

We organized the discussion according to the section number in which each change will appear in the finalized regulatory text. Changes of a strictly clerical nature are not discussed.

§ 69.9 Definitions

To facilitate understanding of the tonnage regulations, we revised the regulatory text to include the new term “Formal Measurement System,” which is used in the tonnage measurement law to describe Standard and Dual measurement. We included Convention measurement in this definition, to allow for differentiation between those measurement systems that employ a detailed computational method using measurements of the entire vessel (i.e., the Convention, Standard, and Dual Measurement Systems) and the Simplified measurement, which employs a simple computational method using hull dimensions as the principal inputs. For clarity and completeness, we also revised the NPRM's proposed new definition for the term “remeasurement” to reflect that remeasurement includes assigning tonnages or registered dimensions under a different measurement system. This is consistent with the use of this term in the tonnage measurement law and Coast Guard policy.

§ 69.11 Determining the measurement system or systems for a particular vessel

To facilitate understanding of the tonnage regulations, we revised the regulatory text to include the new term “Formal Measurement System” when referring to the Convention, Standard, and Dual Measurement Systems. We also added the parenthetical phrase “(except a vessel that engages on a foreign voyage)” in the paragraph addressing applicability of the Convention Measurement System to older U.S. flag vessels. This phrase was inadvertently omitted during the regulatory development process, and is necessary to ensure the regulatory text has the same effect as provided for by the tonnage measurement law, and the existing tonnage regulations. Additionally, for clarity we removed the regulatory text regarding voyage types for Simplified measurement of non-self-propelled and pleasure vessels. The tonnage measurement law provides for such measurement without regard to voyage type.

§ 69.17 Application for measurement services

For clarity and completeness, we revised the regulatory text to distinguish between Formal measurement services, which are provided by authorized measurement organizations, and Simplified measurement services, which are provided by the Coast Guard. The revised text identifies where Simplified measurement applications may be obtained, and refers to the appropriate section of the tonnage regulations for requirements on their disposition.

§ 69.19 Remeasurement

For consistency with the changes to § 69.11 described above, we revised the regulatory text to distinguish between reporting requirements for vessels requiring Formal, as opposed to Simplified, measurement services.

C. Change Summary

Table 1 summarizes the changes to the NPRM's proposed regulatory text made in this final rule, along with the additional changes we made when finalizing the rule excepting those of a strictly clerical nature. The table indicates the type of, and reason for, each change. Except as noted in Table 1, we adopted as final all changes proposed in the NPRM.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

The Coast Guard developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

A final regulatory assessment follows. This assessment replicates the regulatory assessment of the NPRM except for changes to reflect amendments to the NPRM's regulatory text made by this final rule, as summarized in Table 1.

We received comments on economic impacts only for the provisions relating to portable enclosed spaces and openings in ordinary frames. In previous discussions of Comment 22 in section V.A., we respond to these comments and explain our rationale for maintaining the “no cost” characterization for these two provisions. We have no information from either comments or other sources to lead us to change our “no cost” assessment for the other codification provisions. We retain our “no cost” determination from the NPRM.

The primary objective of the final rule is to implement amendments to the tonnage measurement law made by the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act. One amendment precludes the owner of a foreign flag vessel of 79 feet or more in length that engages solely on U.S. domestic voyages from obtaining a future measurement under the Regulatory Measurement System, with an exception allowed for a Canadian flag vessel operating solely on the Great Lakes. The remaining amendments eliminate inconsistencies and incorporate clarifications or updates that are either consistent with long-standing Coast Guard policy or reflective of current Coast Guard practice.

In addition, the Coast Guard seeks to facilitate understanding of, and compliance with, existing tonnage regulations by codifying principal technical interpretations that have been issued by the Coast Guard to keep pace with developments in vessel designs. These interpretations are included in Coast Guard policy documents made available to the public via Coast Guard Web sites, and are used by authorized measurement organizations that perform tonnage work on the Coast Guard's behalf.

Table 2 provides a summary of the rule's costs and benefits.

Affected Population

The tonnage regulations, as amended by this rule, apply to all U.S. and foreign flag vessels to which the application of a law of the United States depends on the vessel's tonnage. Once assigned initially, tonnages remain valid until a vessel changes flag, or undergoes a change that substantially affects its tonnage.

Because none of the changes are retroactive, the population potentially affected by this rulemaking is limited to vessels that will be measured in the future, including those remeasured following alterations, modifications, or other changes substantially affecting their tonnage. The Coast Guard estimates this population to be approximately 10,000 vessels each year, based on the 8,615 simplified measurement applications and 386 formal measurement applications submitted annually, and our estimate of approximately 1,000 additional vessels that are measured annually without the submission of a measurement application.

Cost Impacts

Table 3 details 117 changes to the tonnage regulations in the rule, with an assessment of the cost impacts of each change. A summary follows:

• The single change to implement the statutory amendment that precludes certain foreign flag vessels of 79 feet or more in length from being measured under the Regulatory Measurement System could potentially prevent operation of a future vessel in a similar manner to that of currently operating vessels. No such vessels have been brought into service within the last 10 years. Further, other options to operate similar vessels (e.g., under U.S. flag) are available. Thus, no cost impact from this change is expected.
• The six remaining changes needed for statutory alignment are consistent with current Coast Guard interpretations or industry practice, and will not result in any additional cost as described in the following table.
• The 26 changes related to codification of principal Coast Guard technical interpretations will result in no additional cost, because the interpretations have been used for tonnage work for multiple years.
• The 84 changes labeled “Administrative” are of a non-substantive nature and merely provide clarity and will not result in any additional cost.
• As noted in the resolution to Comment 22 in section V.A., we concluded that this final rule is cost neutral. Accordingly, we retain our “no cost” determination from the NPRM for this final rule.

Benefits

Part 69, subpart A (Sections 69.1-69.29):

The revisions to 46 CFR part 69, subpart A, will clarify and update general tonnage measurement requirements, consistent with the changes mandated by the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act, and codify certain interpretations affecting vessels measured under the four U.S. measurement systems. These changes are expected to benefit the public through increased regulatory clarity and by adding flexibility to use foreign flag tonnages.

Part 69, subparts B, C, and D (Sections 69.51-69.183):

The revisions to 46 CFR part 69, subparts B, C, and D, clarify and update tonnage measurement requirements, and codify principal interpretations of the tonnage technical rules. These changes benefit the public through increased regulatory clarity and by facilitating understanding of the tonnage regulations, which could help avert costs and delays associated with bringing vessels into regulatory compliance.

Part 69, subpart E (Sections 69.201-69.209):

The revisions to 46 CFR part 69, subpart E, clarify and update tonnage measurement requirements, and are expected to benefit the public through increased regulatory clarity.

Table 4 summarizes the benefits of the final rule.

Alternatives

The Coast Guard concluded that some changes to the existing tonnage regulations are required to implement changes to the tonnage measurement law made by the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act. Based on the preceding discussion, we further concluded that the additional changes to the tonnage regulations described above could provide a net benefit to the public, and should also be made.

In arriving at these conclusions, the Coast Guard considered two alternatives to the final rule's selected approach in order to maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).

Alternative 1—Codify All Interpretations

Alternative 1 would revise the tonnage regulations to incorporate not only the changes and principal interpretations of the selected alternative, but to also include all published Coast Guard interpretations. This would consolidate all tonnage interpretative information into one source. Unlike the selected alternative, Alternative 1 would induce an additional cost and burden to both industry and government due to a lack of flexibility in applying regulations.

Initially, we believed this alternative, when compared to the current situation of a regulation not reflective of published interpretations, would produce some additional benefit due to the increased visibility of both the principal and secondary interpretations. We concluded that, over time, new technologies and vessel construction practices would lead to difficulties in complying with an overly detailed regulation. This would likely lead to additional requests for clarifications and interpretations and additional rulemakings, potentially causing tonnage certification delays and negatively impact design innovations. Based on these considerations, we did not accept Alternative 1.

Alternative 2—Incorporate Only Mandatory Changes

Alternative 2 would amend the tonnage regulations to only incorporate changes that reflect the tonnage technical amendments of the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act, while continuing the Coast Guard's practice of communicating tonnage regulation interpretations to industry via policy documents. This would sustain the Coast Guard's current flexibility in applying tonnage measurement interpretations and preclude additional costs to industry. However, it would not clarify tonnage measurement requirements or increase the understanding of the tonnage measurement regulations. Based on this consideration, we did not accept Alternative 2.

B. Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) and Executive Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act we have considered whether this rule would 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.

For all vessels our economic analysis concludes that this final rule will have no cost impact and will not affect the small entities described above that own and operate these vessels.

During the NPRM stage, we certified that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. All interested parties were invited to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact that would result from adoption of the proposals in the NPRM. We received comments on two provisions in our cost analysis, but after review of the issues raised, we retained our no cost determination. We received no comment relative to the certification. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.

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).

D. Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The current OMB approval number for this part, 1625-0022, remains unchanged and effective.

E. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that E.O. and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below.

It is well settled that States may not regulate in fields reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. Under 46 U.S.C., Subtitle II, Part J, “Measurement of Vessels,” Congress specifically mandated that certain vessels be measured in accordance with Chapters 141 and 143, as applicable. Congress provided this exclusive measurement authority to the Secretary. The authority to carry out these functions was specifically delegated to the Coast Guard by the Secretary. As this rulemaking implements amendments to the tonnage measurement law, as well as incorporates technical interpretations and administrative clarifications of existing tonnage regulations, it falls within the scope of authority Congress granted exclusively to the Secretary and States may not regulate within this field. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132.

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, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and preemptive effect, E.O. 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process.

The Coast Guard invited State and local governments and their representative national organizations to indicate their desire for participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by submitting comments to the NPRM. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, the Coast Guard provides this federalism impact statement:

(1) There were no comments submitted by State or local governments to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19420).

(2) There were no concerns expressed by State or local governments.

(3) As no concerns were expressed or comments received from State or local government, there is no statement required to document the extent to which any concerns were met.

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 final rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this final rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

This final rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.

K. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 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 E.O. because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 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 E.O. 13211.

L. Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards will 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 does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

We have analyzed this final 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a final determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A final environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in docket number USCG-2011-0522 at the Federal eRulemaking Portal online at http://www.regulations.gov.

This action falls under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (d) of the Instruction and involves regulations, which are editorial or procedural and regulations concerning admeasurement of vessels.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 69

• Measurement standards
• Penalties
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Vessels

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR part 69 as follows:

PART 69—MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS

1. The authority citation for part 69 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2301, 14103, 14104; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Subpart A—General

2. Revise § 69.1 to read as follows:

3. Revise § 69.3 to read as follows:

4. Remove and reserve § 69.5.

5. Revise § 69.7 to read as follows:

6. Revise § 69.9 to read as follows:

7. Revise § 69.11 to read as follows:

8. Revise § 69.13 to read as follows:

9. Amend § 69.15 as follows:

a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e); and

b. In paragraph (d), remove the words “to determine its tonnage” and add, in their place, the words “under this part”.

The revisions read as follows:

10. Amend § 69.17 as follows:

a. Revise paragraph (a); and

b. In paragraph (c):

i. Following the words “the application”, remove the word “must” and add, in its place, the word “should”; and

ii. Following the words “of encumbrances,”, remove the words “engine and boilers” and add, in their place, the word “engines”.

The revision reads as follows:

11. Revise § 69.19 to read as follows:

12. Add § 69.20 to read as follows:

13. Amend § 69.25 as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), remove the words “The owner”, add, in their place, the words “The vessel owner”; and

b. In paragraphs (a) and (b), remove the figure “$20,000”, and add, in its place, the figure “$30,000”.

14. Amend § 69.27 as follows:

a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(4) and (5); and

b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the text “Convention, Standard, and Dual Measurement Systems” and add, in its place, the text “Convention Measurement System and Standard and Dual Regulatory Measurement Systems”; and

c. In paragraph (c)(4), remove the text “Convention, Standard, or Dual Measurement Systems” and add, in its place, the text “Convention Measurement System or Standard or Dual Regulatory Measurement Systems”.

The revisions read as follows:

15. Add § 69.28 to read as follows:

Subpart B—Convention Measurement System

16. Amend § 69.53 by removing the definitions of “Gross tonnage” and “Net tonnage” and adding the definition of “Boundary bulkhead” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

17. Amend § 69.55(d) by:

a. Removing the words “and year”; and

b. After the word “built”, adding the words “and delivery date (or scheduled delivery date)”.

18. Amend § 69.57 as follows:

a. In the section heading, add the text “ITC” after the text “Gross tonnage”;

b. After the text “Gross tonnage” and “(GT”, add the text “ITC”; and

c. Following the text “following formula GT”, add the text “ITC”.

19. Amend § 69.59 by adding a sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:

20. Amend § 69.61 as follows:

a. Revise paragraph (a); and

b. In paragraph (g), remove the words “paragraphs (b) through (f)” and add, in their place, the words “paragraphs (a) through (f)”.

The revision reads as follows:

21. Revise § 69.63 to read as follows:

22. Revise § 69.65 to read as follows:

23. Revise § 69.69 to read as follows:

24. In § 69.71(c)(2), remove the words “Coast Guard” and, in their place, add the word “Commandant”.

25. In § 69.73, revise the section heading and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

26. Revise § 69.75 to read as follows:

27. Revise the heading for subpart C to read as follows:

Subpart C—Standard Regulatory Measurement System

28. In § 69.101, after the word “Standard”, add the word “Regulatory”.

29. Amend § 69.103 as follows:

a. In the definition of “Gross tonnage”, after the word “Gross”, add the word “register”;

b. Add, in alphabetical order, the definitions of “Double bottom for water ballast”, “Line of the normal frames”, “Line of the ordinary frames”, “Normal frame”, “Ordinary frame”, “Tonnage interval”, “Tonnage station”, and “Zone of influence method”;

c. In the definition of “Net tonnage”, after the word “Net”, add the word “register”; and

d. Revise the definitions of “Superstructure” and “Uppermost complete deck”.

The additions and revisions read as follows:

30. Amend § 69.105(d) by:

a. Removing the words “and year”; and

b. After the word “built”, adding the words “and delivery date (or scheduled delivery date)”.

31. Amend § 69.107 as follows:

a. Revise the section heading and paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b); and

b. Add paragraph (c).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

32. Add § 69.108 to read as follows:

33. Amend § 69.109 as follows:

a. In paragraph (c), after the words “two or less”, “more than two”, and “is the second”, add the word “enumerated”;

b. Revise paragraphs (d), (e)(2), (f)(2), (n), and (o)(1);

c. Add paragraphs (f)(4) and (p);

d. In paragraph (f)(1), after the words “inboard face of the”, add the word “ordinary”;

e. In paragraph (g)(2), after the words “division of the tonnage length” add the words “, whose location is referred to as a tonnage station, and assigned sequential tonnage station numbers, beginning at the stem”;

f. In paragraph (h)(1):

i. Remove the word “cellular”; and

ii. Add, after the words “double bottom”, the words “for water ballast”;

g. In paragraphs (h)(2) and (3), after the words “double bottom”, add the words “for water ballast”;

h. In paragraph (i)(3), after the words “double bottom”, add the words “for water ballast”; and

i. In the heading of paragraph (m) and paragraph (m)(1), after the words “double bottom”, add the words “for water ballast”.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

34. Amend § 69.111 as follows:

a. Revise paragraph (b)(2);

b. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the words “inboard face of the normal side frames” and add, in their place, the words “normal frames”; and

c. In paragraph (c)(3):

i. Remove the words “between the faces of the normal side frames”; and

ii. After the words “of the space”, add the words “to the line of the normal frames”.

The revision reads as follows:

35. Amend § 69.113 as follows:

a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b)(1);

b. In paragraph (b)(3), after the words “inside breadth”, add the words “to the line of the normal frames”; and

c. In paragraph (f), add a sentence at the end of the paragraph.

The revisions and addition read as follows:

36. Revise § 69.115(c) to read as follows:

37. Amend § 69.117 as follows:

a. Revise the section heading and paragraphs (c)(2) and (3), (d)(1), (d)(2) introductory text, and (d)(2)(i);

b. In paragraph (a), remove the word “gross”;

c. Remove paragraphs (c)(4) and (f)(4)(iii);

d. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(4)(iv) through (ix) as paragraphs (f)(4)(iii) through (viii), respectively;

e. In paragraph (d)(3):

i. Remove the text “through (d)(2)(iii)” and add, in its place, the text “and (iii)”; and

ii. Add a sentence at the end of the paragraph;

f. Add paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) and (d)(8);

g. In paragraphs (d)(5)(ii) and (d)(6)(iii), after the words “tightly against the”, add the words “weather side of the”;

h. In paragraph (d)(7), remove the initial word “A” and add, in its place, the words “Notwithstanding the opening size requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section, a”;

i. In the heading of paragraph (e), remove the words “next lower deck” and add, in their place, the words “uppermost complete deck”;

j. In paragraph (e)(1):

i. Remove the words “next lower deck” and add, in their place, the words “uppermost complete deck”; and

ii. After the words “exempt from”, remove the word “gross”;

k. In paragraph (e)(2)(v), add a sentence at the end of the paragraph;

l. In paragraph (f) introductory text, following the words “be exempt from”, remove the word “gross”;

m. In paragraph (f)(4):

i. After the words “to be exempted from”, remove the word “gross”; and

ii. After the words “percent of the vessel's gross”, add the word “register”;

n. In paragraph (f)(5), add a sentence at the end of the paragraph; and

o. In paragraph (g)(3), after the words “under-deck was divided”, add the words “, and the zone of influence method must be applied if the ordinary frames upon which the under-deck breadth measurements are based do not have the same depth of frame”.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

38. Amend § 69.119 as follows:

a. Revise the section heading and paragraph (a); and

b. In paragraphs (d) and (m), after the word “gross”, wherever it appears, add the word “register”.

The revisions read as follows:

39. Amend § 69.121 as follows:

a. In paragraphs (a), (b)(2)(vii), (d)(3), (e)(1), (e)(2)(i) through (iii), and (e)(3)(i) through (iii), after the word “gross”, wherever it appears, add the word “register”; and

b. In paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) and (e)(3)(iii), remove the words “vessel's owner” and add, in their place, the words “vessel owner”;

c. In paragraph (b)(1), following the words “spaces exempt from”, remove the word “gross”; and

d. Revise paragraph (d)(1).

The revision reads as follows:

40. In § 69.123, revise Figures 1 through 12 to read as follows:

41. Revise the heading for subpart D to read as follows:

Subpart D—Dual Regulatory Measurement System

42. In § 69.151:

a. After the words “one net” and “two net”, add the word “register”; and

b. Remove the words “the Dual Measurement System” and add, in their place, the words “this subpart”.

43. In § 69.153(a), after the words “two gross” and “higher gross”, add the word “register”.

44. In § 69.155:

a. After the word “Standard”, add the word “Regulatory”; and

b. Remove the words “the Dual Measurement System” and add, in their place, the words “this subpart”.

45. In § 69.157, in the definitions of “Gross tonnage” and “Net tonnage”, before the word “tonnage”, add the word “register”.

46. In § 69.159, remove the words “for the Standard Measurement System”.

47. Amend § 69.161 as follows:

a. Revise the section heading;

b. In paragraph (a) introductory text, after the word “Gross”, add the word “register”;

c. In paragraphs (a)(5) and (b), after the word “gross”, add the word “register”;

d. In paragraph (b), after the word “Net” add the word “register”; and

e. Add paragraph (c).

The revision and addition read as follows:

48. In § 69.163, remove the words “the Dual Measurement System” and add, in their place, the words “this subpart”.

49. In § 69.165, remove the words “the Dual Measurement System” and add, in their place, the words “this subpart”.

50. In § 69.167, remove the words “the Dual Measurement System” and add, in their place, the words “this subpart”.

51. In § 69.169, in the section heading and the introductory text, remove the word “gross”.

52. In § 69.173, before the word “tonnage”, wherever it appears, add the word “register”.

53. Amend § 69.175 as follows:

a. In paragraph (a):

i. After the words “two net”, add the word “register”; and

ii. Remove the words “one net tonnage”, and add, in their place, the words “one net register tonnage corresponding to the lower gross and net register tonnages”;

b. In paragraph (b), after the words “two net”, add the word “register”; and

c. In paragraph (c):

i. After the words “low net”, add the word “register”; and

ii. After the words “On these vessels,” add the words “a load line must be assigned at a level below the line of the second deck, and”.

54. Amend § 69.177 as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words “the Dual Measurement System” and add, in their place, the words “this subpart”;

b. In paragraph (a)(6)(i), after the words “one net”, add the word “register”;

c. In paragraph (c), after the word “two net”, add the word “register”; and

d. In paragraph (d), after the words “side of the vessel” add the words “, except in the case of a freeboard deck line mark placed at the location of the second deck if the second deck is the actual freeboard deck for purposes of a vessel's load line assignment”.

55. In § 69.181, revise Examples (1) and (2) to read as follows:

56. In § 69.183, in paragaphs (a), (b), and (c), revise the images to read as follows:

57. Revise the heading to subpart E to read as follows:

Subpart E—Simplified Regulatory Measurement System

58. In § 69.201, after the word “Simplified”, add the word “Regulatory”.

59. Revise § 69.205 to read as follows:

60. In § 69.207(a):

a. Remove the word “half”; and

b. Remove the text “.05” and add, in its place, the word “tenth”.

61. Amend § 69.209 as follows:

a. Revise the section heading;

b. In heading of paragraph (a), after the word “Gross”, add the word “register”;

c. In paragraph (a), after the word “gross”, wherever it appears, add the word “register”;

d. In the heading of paragraph (b), after the words “Net”, add the word “register”;

e. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), after the words “net” and “gross”, wherever they appear, add the word “register”;

f. Add paragraph (c).

The revision reads as follows:

62. Add § 69.211 to read as follows: