Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With International Standards, 62962-63015 [2011-25035]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62962-63015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25035]



[[Page 62961]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 196

October 11, 2011

Part IV





Department of Homeland Security





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





Coast Guard





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





46 CFR Parts 108, 117, et al.





Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With 
International Standards; Interim Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 62962]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 108, 117, 133, 160, 164, 180, and 199

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0048]
RIN 1625-AB46


Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With 
International Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulations for certain 
lifesaving equipment, including launching appliances (winches and 
davits), release mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats, inflatable 
liferafts, and inflatable buoyant apparatuses), rescue boats, and 
automatic disengaging devices. The amended regulations harmonize the 
Coast Guard's design, construction, and performance standards for this 
lifesaving equipment with international standards. In addition, the 
regulations provide for the use of qualified independent laboratories, 
instead of Coast Guard inspectors, during the approval process and for 
production inspections of certain types of lifesaving equipment. 
Because the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recently 
changed its international standards for lifeboat release mechanisms, 
the Coast Guard is issuing these amended regulations as an interim rule 
and will finalize the regulations after proposing amendments as 
necessary to address the recent IMO changes regarding release 
mechanisms. Additionally, recent IMO action modified the international 
standards for liferafts, and the Coast Guard is proposing new changes 
to its regulations to implement the modified international standards. 
The Coast Guard is publishing the proposal regarding liferafts 
separately in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal 
Register.

DATES: This interim rule is effective November 10, 2011. The Director 
of the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in this rule as of November 10, 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-2010-0048 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 https://www.regulations.gov, 
inserting USCG-2010-0048 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking 
``Search.''
    Viewing incorporation by reference material. You may inspect the 
material incorporated by reference at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 
2100 Second Street, SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126 between 9 
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-372-1385. Copies of the material are available 
as indicated in the ``Incorporation by Reference'' section of this 
preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, e-
mail or call Mr. George Grills, P.E., Commercial Regulations and 
Standards Directorate, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, 
Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-5214), Coast Guard; telephone 
202-372-1385, e-mail George.G.Grills@uscg.mil. If you have questions on 
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, 
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
    A. International Standards
    B. Independent Laboratories
    C. Other Revisions
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
    A. Discussion of Changes from the NPRM
    B. Discussion of Comments on the NPRM
V. Incorporation by Reference
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. International Trade Impacts
    M. Technical Standards
    N. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
    O. Environment

I. Abbreviations

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COLREG International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FRP Fiber Reinforced Plastic
GSA General Services Administration
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LSA Life-saving Appliance
MRA Mutual Recognition Agreement
MSC Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime 
Organization
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f)
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 
272 note)
OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as 
amended
Sec.  Section symbol
UL Underwriters Laboratories
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
US/EC MRA Agreement between the United States and European Community 
on the mutual recognition of certification of conformity for marine 
equipment

II. Regulatory History

    On August 31, 2010, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and 
Harmonization with International Standards'' in the Federal Register. 
See 75 FR 53458. The comment period for the NPRM closed on November 29, 
2010, and we received three letters in the docket, containing 29 
comments, which are summarized and responded to below. No public 
meeting was requested for this rulemaking and we did not hold one.
    The Coast Guard is promulgating these amended regulations as an 
interim rule, rather than as a final rule, because we plan to propose 
additional amendments as necessary to address recent changes to 
international standards regarding performance requirements for release 
mechanisms of lifeboats. In May 2011, the International Maritime 
Organization's (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) amended its 
international standards regarding release mechanisms. These IMO 
amendments only affect release mechanisms with respect to their 
operating characteristics and a new requirement to use corrosion-
resistant materials for certain critical components. These IMO 
amendments are presented in IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) ``Adoption of 
amendments to the International Life-saving

[[Page 62963]]

Appliance (LSA) Code.'' A copy of the IMO amendments are available from 
IMO and also upon request sent to Mr. Grills, as listed in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard plans to publish in a 
future Federal Register document proposed changes to Coast Guard 
regulations to implement the IMO amendments the Coast Guard determines 
appropriate for purposes of harmonization and consistency with 
international standards. We will finalize this interim rule at the same 
time we issue any final rule for the forthcoming proposed changes to 
implement the IMO amendments.
    Additionally, IMO also recently adopted two new resolutions that 
affect the interim rule regarding inflatable liferafts and inflatable 
buoyant apparatuses. The two new resolutions, Adoption of Amendments to 
the International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code (MSC.293(87)) and 
Adoption of Amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of 
Life-Saving Appliances (MSC.295(87)), affect capacity requirements for 
such liferafts, and by extension inflatable buoyant apparatuses, but do 
not affect any other part of the interim rule. The Coast Guard proposes 
changes to the interim rule to address these two new resolutions, and 
that proposal is published separately in this issue of the Federal 
Register as a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM).

III. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that lifesaving equipment 
used on vessels subject to inspection by the United States meets 
specific design, construction, and performance standards. See 46 U.S.C. 
3306. The Coast Guard carries out this charge through the approval of 
lifesaving equipment per 46 CFR part 2, subpart 2.75. The approval 
process includes: Pre-approving lifesaving equipment designs, 
overseeing prototype construction, witnessing prototype testing, and 
monitoring production of the equipment for use on U.S. vessels. See 46 
CFR part 159. At each phase of the approval process, the Coast Guard 
sets specific standards to which lifesaving equipment must be built and 
tested. Third parties, referred to as independent laboratories, 
sometimes assist the Coast Guard in its approval process by performing 
or witnessing tests and inspections, as well as witnessing production, 
as authorized by the Coast Guard. See, e.g., 46 CFR 160.151-13(a) 
(manufacturers must arrange for an independent laboratory to inspect a 
prototype liferaft during fabrication). This rulemaking revises those 
specific standards for launching appliances, release mechanisms, 
survival craft, rescue boats, and automatic disengaging devices, and 
expands the use of independent laboratories in the Coast Guard's 
approval process.

A. International Standards

    International safety standards for the lifesaving equipment 
addressed by this rulemaking are established by the Parties to SOLAS, 
including the United States, acting through the IMO. The international 
standards for lifesaving equipment (IMO standards) addressed by this 
rulemaking implement the requirements of Chapter III of SOLAS. The IMO 
standards specify design, construction, performance, and testing 
requirements for required lifesaving equipment, including launching 
appliances, release mechanisms, survival craft, rescue boats, and 
automatic disengaging devices. The primary IMO standards implementing 
Chapter III of SOLAS are--
     International Life-saving Appliance Code (``LSA Code'') 
(IMO Resolution MSC.48(66), as amended by IMO Resolutions MSC.207(81), 
MSC.218(82), MSC.272(85), and MSC.293(87)); see SOLAS Chapter III, 
Regulation 4; \1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As discussed above, IMO recently adopted IMO Resolution 
MSC.293(87). The only amendment to the LSA Code made by this 
resolution relevant to this rulemaking affects capacity requirements 
for inflatable life rafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses. This 
amendment is discussed in more detail in the SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving 
appliances (``Recommendation on Testing'') (IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), 
as amended by IMO Resolutions MSC.226(82), MSC.274(85), and 
MSC.295(87)); see SOLAS Chapter III, Regulation 4.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As discussed above, IMO recently adopted IMO Resolution 
MSC.295(87). The only amendment to the revised recommendation on 
testing made by this resolution relevant to this rulemaking affects 
tests, accounting for the change in capacity requirements, for 
inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses. This 
amendment is discussed in more detail in the SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States actively participated in the negotiations that 
led to the development of these IMO standards. The Coast Guard 
considers these IMO standards to represent the best available standards 
for lifesaving appliances and to be appropriate for lifesaving 
appliances for all vessels subject to inspection by the United States. 
In order to facilitate international commerce with other contracting 
governments to SOLAS that follow IMO standards, and to achieve the 
benefits of the increased safety of adhering to these IMO standards, 
the Coast Guard has, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 46 CFR 159.005-
7(c), deemed compliance by U.S. flag ships with the IMO standards as 
compliance with Coast Guard domestic regulations.
    In this interim rule, the Coast Guard harmonizes its regulations 
for certain lifesaving equipment with international standards by 
incorporating the IMO standards into regulations in 46 CFR part 160.

B. Independent Laboratories

    The Coast Guard has a long history of recognizing the 
qualifications of independent laboratories, working under the Coast 
Guard's oversight, to do work traditionally conducted by Coast Guard 
inspectors. In 1979, the Coast Guard promulgated 46 CFR part 159 
establishing procedures and standards for accepting independent 
laboratories for witnessing or performing certain tests and conducting 
inspections for certain equipment and materials requiring Coast Guard 
approval. See 44 FR 73038 (December 17, 1979). The Coast Guard 
promulgated 46 CFR part 159 under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 481 (1976) 
(Regulations for vessels subject to Coast Guard inspection).\3\ In 
1983, Congress revised and recodified the maritime laws of the United 
States moving the relevant authority for 46 CFR part 159 to new 46 
U.S.C. 3306.\4\ See Public Law 98-89 Partial

[[Page 62964]]

Revision of Title 46, U.S.C. ``Shipping''; House Report No. 98-338 
(August 1, 1983), 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 924, 954-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 1979, the authority for 46 CFR part 159 also included 46 
U.S.C. 391, which covered ``vessels carrying certain cargoes in 
bulk.'' The broader authority under 46 U.S.C. 481 covered vessels 
subject to inspection and certification by the United States Coast 
Guard and directed ``the Secretary of the Department in which the 
Coast Guard is operating * * * shall prescribe such rules and 
regulations as may be necessary for vessels subject to inspection 
and certification by the United States Coast Guard with respect to 
the following matters: (1) Lifesaving equipment, including but not 
limited to, the number, type, size, capacity, details of 
construction, methods of operation, stowage, maintenance, manning, 
use, testing, and inspection of such equipment, and drills and 
exercises necessary to assure proper functioning and use of such 
equipment * * *'' The Coast Guard determined that the use of 
independent laboratories for witnessing or performing certain tests 
and inspections was ``necessary'' to carry out its responsibilities 
under this statutory section. In the notice of proposed rulemaking 
proposing 46 CFR part 159, the Coast Guard explained that ``the 
Coast Guard's marine inspection responsibilities increased while the 
number of personnel available to perform these inspections has not 
increased at a comparable rate.'' 43 FR 49440 (October 23, 1978). 
The Coast Guard promulgated part 159 to ``free some of the Coast 
Guard's limited field personnel for other duties with no change in 
the quality of the approved equipment or material.'' Id.; see also 
44 FR 73038 (December 17, 1979) (Final Rule document promulgating 
part 159).
    \4\ Section 3306 directs ``the Secretary shall prescribe 
necessary regulations to ensure proper execution of, and to carry 
out, this part [addressing inspection and regulation of vessels] in 
the most effective manner for (1) The design, construction, 
alteration, repair, and operation of those vessels [subject to 
inspection] * * * ; (2) lifesaving equipment and its use; (3) 
firefighting equipment, its use, and precautionary measures to guard 
against fire; (4) inspections and tests related to paragraphs (1), 
(2), and (3) of this subsection; and (5) the use of vessel stores 
and other supplies of a dangerous nature * * *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authority for current 46 CFR part 159 is 46 U.S.C. 3306, which 
``contains broad authority to prescribe regulations for proper 
inspection and certification of vessels,'' House Report No. 98-338 
(August 1, 1983), 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 924, 954-53, including the specific 
requirement to prescribe regulations to carry out the statutory 
requirements ``in the most effective manner,'' 46 U.S.C. 3306(a). The 
Coast Guard still finds the use of independent laboratories in the 
Coast Guard's approval process to be ``the most effective manner'' of 
executing and carrying out its obligations under section 3306.
    Independent laboratories, accepted by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 
part 159, assist the Coast Guard in its approval process by performing 
or witnessing certain tests and conducting certain inspections required 
for Coast Guard approval of equipment and materials. When performing or 
witnessing tests, independent laboratories must follow Coast Guard 
standards and procedures, and may deviate from those standards and 
procedures only to require more stringent standards and procedures, and 
only with Coast Guard approval. See 46 CFR 159.007-3. Additionally, all 
accepted independent laboratories must be impartial and disinterested 
in the outcome of inspections and tests. See 46 CFR 159.010-3(a)(3)-(5) 
(requiring an independent laboratory not be owned or controlled by a 
manufacturer, vendor, or supplier of materials for the equipment or 
material to be inspected; not be dependent on acceptance as an 
independent laboratory to remain in business, and not advertise or 
promote equipment or materials that the independent laboratory inspects 
or tests).
    The Coast Guard reviews independent laboratory test and inspection 
reports when determining the approvability of equipment and materials. 
The Coast Guard currently allows accepted independent laboratories to 
witness tests of almost all types of shipboard equipment, including 
certain lifesaving equipment. See, e.g., 46 CFR 160.010-9(a) (approval 
and production tests in subpart 160.010, addressing buoyant 
apparatuses, must be conducted by an independent laboratory); 46 CFR 
160.151-13(a) (manufacturers must arrange for an independent laboratory 
to inspect a prototype liferaft during fabrication); and 46 CFR 
160.151-31(a) (production inspections and tests of inflatable liferafts 
must be carried out in accordance with the procedures for independent 
laboratory inspection).
    Current regulations in 46 CFR part 160, however, require Coast 
Guard inspectors to be involved in all phases of the approval process 
of winches, davits, release mechanisms, lifeboats, and rescue boats. 
See 46 CFR part 160, subparts 160.015 (winches), 160.032 (davits), 
160.033 (release mechanisms), 160.035 (lifeboats), and 160.056 (rescue 
boats).
    Requiring Coast Guard inspectors to directly perform all phases of 
the approval process, however, can cause scheduling delays and 
increased expenses for manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. For 
example, Coast Guard inspectors are not always able to meet 
manufacturers' schedules due to competing inspection demands and 
resource constraints. This can impede productivity and affect the 
availability of Coast Guard approved equipment for U.S. flag vessels. 
Third-party certification bodies may qualify as accepted independent 
laboratories and are often available locally with greater convenience 
to manufacturers.
    Additionally, many manufacturers produce lifesaving equipment for 
multiple flag nations' vessels, and must have their equipment approved 
by each nation. Manufacturers often use third-party certification 
bodies for testing and inspection to satisfy certification requirements 
from other nations. Unless these third parties are qualified to witness 
tests and perform inspections on behalf of more than one nation, 
manufacturers must have their equipment inspected and tested by more 
than one national representative, which carries potential complications 
and delays.
    The Coast Guard has found, through past experiences with U.S. flag 
vessel inspections and shipboard equipment approvals, that permitting 
independent laboratories to do work under appropriate Coast Guard 
oversight ultimately promotes safety, flexibility, and autonomy by 
permitting experts from industry to engage more directly in the 
inspection processes while preserving the Coast Guard's safety and 
stewardship role in the maritime community.
    In this interim rule, the Coast Guard extends the use of 
independent laboratories, under the oversight of Coast Guard 
inspectors, in the approval process for additional lifesaving 
equipment. The Coast Guard requires manufacturers to use an independent 
laboratory for prototype fabrication and production oversight, and 
provides the option in certain cases for manufacturers to use an 
independent laboratory, again overseen by the Coast Guard, for pre-
approval review and prototype testing oversight.

C. Other Revisions

    In this interim rule, the Coast Guard also revises the structure of 
certain subparts affected by this rulemaking, and makes additional 
conforming, appliance-specific changes to these subparts not related to 
harmonization with international standards or use of independent 
laboratories.

IV. Discussion of the Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard's regulations addressing lifesaving equipment are 
found in 46 CFR part 160. Each subpart addresses a specific type of 
lifesaving equipment. The Coast Guard is amending these subparts to:
     Harmonize its regulations with IMO standards for launching 
appliances (winches and davits), release mechanisms, survival craft 
(lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and inflatable buoyant apparatuses), 
and rescue boats, and add new harmonized rules addressing automatic 
disengaging devices;
     Incorporate the use of independent laboratories, under 
Coast Guard oversight, for Coast Guard approval procedures for 
launching appliances, lifeboats, rescue boats, and release mechanisms, 
and add such use of independent laboratories to new rules addressing 
automatic disengaging devices; and
     Revise the structure of certain subparts affected by this 
rulemaking, and make additional appliance-specific changes to these 
subparts not related to harmonization with international standards or 
use of independent laboratories. This revision includes updating, 
adding, or removing certain standards incorporated by reference and 
creating a new subpart in 46 CFR part 164 addressing fire-retardant 
resins used in the construction of lifeboats and rescue boats.

A complete discussion of these changes is available in the NPRM, 
published August 30, 2010. See 75 FR 53458, 53460.

A. Discussion of Changes From the NPRM

    In the interim rule, the Coast Guard is making changes to the rule 
text as

[[Page 62965]]

proposed in the NPRM (75 FR 53458 (August 30, 2010)). Some of the 
changes clarify the meaning of the proposed rule text, make 
requirements less restrictive than proposed, and many of these changes 
are in response to comments, as noted and discussed in this section. 
Other changes correct minor, inadvertent inaccuracies in the proposed 
rule text. While several of the changes are not related to or in 
response to a comment, the Coast Guard considers these changes to be a 
``logical outgrowth'' of what was proposed in the NPRM, as discussed 
for each such change below, and that further notice and comment on them 
is not required.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Amer. v. Mine Safety 
and Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84, 95 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (``a final rule 
will be deemed to be the logical outgrowth of a proposed rule if a 
new round of notice and comment would not provide commenters with 
their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms which the 
agency might find convincing.'') (internal citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Officer-in-Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) Definition
    The Coast Guard is changing the definition of OCMI in 46 CFR 
160.115-3, 160.132-3, 160.133-3, 160.135-3, 160,151-3, 160.156-3, and 
160.170-3 in the interim rule to more accurately align with existing 
definitions and delineation of OCMI responsibilities in Coast Guard 
regulations. The definition of OCMI in the proposed rule only addressed 
OCMIs assigned to Coast Guard Districts and inadvertently did not cover 
OCMIs assigned to Activities Europe. The interim rule defines OCMI by 
referring to 46 CFR 1.01-15(b), which details the responsibilities and 
duties of all OCMIs. If the Coast Guard makes any change to the 
responsibilities and duties of its OCMIs generally, it will make the 
changes in 46 CFR 1.01-15(b). By referring to 46 CFR 1.01-15(b), the 
definition of OCMI in subparts 160.115, 160.132, 160.133, 160.135, 
160.151, 160.156, and 160.170 will always reflect the most current 
definition of an OCMI. The definition of OCMI in the proposed rule also 
defined the ``cognizant OCMI'' as ``the OCMI who has immediate 
jurisdiction over a vessel for the purpose of performing the duties 
previously described.'' The subparts affected by this rulemaking, 
however, address equipment, not vessels. As such, the Coast Guard is 
adding the phrase ``or geographic area'' to the sentence defining 
``cognizant OCMI'' to make the definition more accurate. These changes 
are a logical outgrowth of the definition of OCMI in the proposed rule 
because the purpose of the proposed definition was to specify the Coast 
Guard personnel with responsibility under the proposed rule, and these 
changes clarify but do not otherwise affect that. The NPRM clearly 
specified the cognizant OCMI would be the responsible Coast Guard 
personnel, and intended the description of an OCMI to be consistent 
with the main definition of ``OCMI'' found in 46 CFR 1.01-15(b). The 
interim rule still specifies that OCMIs have responsibility under the 
interim rule and the interim rule definition of OCMI only more 
accurately describes OCMIs by aligning the definition with the Coast 
Guard's main regulation defining the duties and responsibility of its 
OCMIs and clarifying the definition of ``cognizant OCMI.''
2. Welder Certification
    In response to a comment, the Coast Guard is expanding the 
certification requirement for welders in 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(4), 
160.132-7(b)(4), 160.133-7(b)(4), 160.135-7(b)(4), 160.156-7(b)(4), and 
160.170-7(b)(4). The comment asked whether the reference to the 
American Bureau of Shipping would remain in the proposed rule 
requirement that welding must be performed by ``welders certified by 
the Commandant, American Bureau of Shipping, U.S. Navy, or an 
independent laboratory accepted by the Commandant.''
    No. The Coast Guard has replaced, in the interim rule, the 
reference to American Bureau of Shipping with a phrase to encompass all 
Coast Guard-recognized classification societies, as well as revised the 
regulatory text to include other welder certifications to accommodate 
overseas manufacturing. The proposed rule would have required welders 
to be certified by the Commandant, American Bureau of Shipping, U.S. 
Navy, or an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard. The 
proposed rule specifically mentioned the American Bureau of Shipping 
because historically it was the only classification society recognized 
by the Commandant. The proposed rule used the phrase ``independent 
laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard'' to cover welder certifications 
by other certifying bodies similar to American Bureau of Shipping, 
including other Coast Guard-recognized classification societies. The 
Coast Guard currently recognizes several classification societies in 
addition to the American Bureau of Shipping under the requirements of 
46 CFR 8.220. Additionally, the Coast Guard is aware that, although 
American Bureau of Shipping-certified welders are readily available 
within the United States, this is not necessarily true overseas. The 
proposed rule's inclusion of ``independent laboratory accepted by the 
Coast Guard'' to cover welder certifications by other certifying bodies 
did not adequately cover welder certifications by other Coast Guard-
recognized classification societies or other certifying bodies similar 
to Coast Guard-recognized classification societies.
    The Coast Guard has revised the interim rule to appropriately 
reflect the Coast Guard's recognition of several classification 
societies and to cover welder certifications by other appropriate 
certifying bodies. Specifically, the revised regulatory text in the 
interim rule now states, ``welders certified by the Commandant, a 
classification society recognized by the Commandant in accordance with 
46 CFR 8.220, the U.S. Navy, or the national body where the [lifesaving 
equipment] is constructed or the national body's designated recognized 
organization.'' The Coast Guard notes that the phrase ``classification 
society recognized by the Commandant in accordance with 46 CFR 8.220'' 
covers the American Bureau of Shipping for as long as it remains 
recognized in accordance with 46 CFR 8.220. These changes are a logical 
outgrowth of the NPRM because, although the proposed rule text did not 
adequately cover overseas welder certifications, the NPRM made clear 
that the proposed rule was designed in many instances to recognize that 
much of the lifesaving equipment covered by this rulemaking is 
manufactured overseas and to accommodate overseas manufacturing. See, 
for example, the discussion in the NPRM preamble in section VI. B. 75 
FR 53463. It was inconsistent for the proposed rule to specifically 
expand the use of independent laboratories in the approval and 
inspection process to relieve manufacturers of certain burdens 
associated with this process, and then to also limit the use of welders 
for manufacturing to only those welders with U.S. certifications. 
Expanding the options for welder certifications to accommodate overseas 
manufacturing in the interim rule is a logical outgrowth of the NPRM's 
proposal to revise Coast Guard regulations to accommodate overseas 
manufacturing.
3. Launching Appliances for Fast Rescue Boats
    The Coast Guard is correcting the reference to the LSA Code in the 
interim rule, Sec.  160.115-7(a)(1), to ensure inclusion of the 
standards for launching appliances intended to be used with fast rescue 
boats. Proposed 160.115-7(a)(1) included LSA Code ``Chapter VI/6.1.1

[[Page 62966]]

and 6.1.2,'' for incorporation by reference. This citation to the LSA 
Code was too specific and erroneously omitted standards for launching 
appliances intended to be used with fast rescue boats included in 
provisions of LSA Code Chapter VI/6.1, which is the citation included 
in the interim rule. This change is a logical outgrowth because the 
proposed rule included the tests applicable to these launching 
appliances in Sec.  160.115-7(b)(2) and highlighted the omission in 
proposed paragraph (a)(1) of the standards to which to test these 
launching appliances under proposed paragraph (b)(2).
4. Steel Grade Specification
    In the interim rule, the Coast Guard is incorporating by reference 
three additional American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) 
standards to correct a reference in the proposed rule to a stainless 
steel grade without the necessary standard reference. Proposed 46 CFR 
160.133-7(b)(3), 160.135-7(b)(3), 160.156-7(b)(3), and 160.170-7(b)(3) 
stated ``Corrosion resistant steel must be a standard 302 stainless 
steel or have equal or superior corrosion resistant characteristics.'' 
While those familiar with 302 stainless steel would recognize it as an 
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) or ASTM designation, the 
proposed rule did not specify the designation. The Coast Guard is 
incorporating by reference ASTM A276-08a ``Standard Specification for 
Stainless Steel Bars and Shapes'', ASTM A313/A313M-08 ``Standard 
Specification for Stainless Steel Spring Wire'', and ASTM A314-08 
``Standard Specification for Stainless Steel Billets and Bars for 
Forging'' in each of the affected subparts, and each of the affected 
sections references these standards. The language in the interim rule 
reads: ``type 302 stainless steel per ASTM A276, A313 or A314.'' The 
interim rule retains the option for using another corrosion resistant 
steel of equal or superior corrosion resistant characteristics. This 
change is a logical outgrowth from the proposed rule because the 
omission of the specific standards organization designation in the 
proposed rule was clear from the text of the proposed rule. It would 
have been difficult to comply with the stainless steel requirement in 
the proposed rule without any reference to the specific designation, 
and the proposed rule provision providing the option to use other equal 
or superior steel was meaningless without appropriate designation of 
type 302 steel.
5. Clarifying Action of Independent Laboratories
    In response to a comment, the Coast Guard is making a clarifying 
editorial change throughout the interim rule to reflect the fact that 
independent laboratories sometimes perform required tests and other 
times only witness the performance of required tests, depending on the 
circumstances. The comment suggested that the repeated NPRM preamble 
statement, ``The independent laboratory must perform or witness the 
inspections and tests under this section * * *'' is misleading because 
laboratories are otherwise only required by the proposed rule to 
witness tests, and not to perform them. The commenter suggested that 
the wording in the preamble should be changed to, ``The independent 
laboratory must witness the inspections and tests under this section * 
* *''
    The Coast Guard clarifies that under the proposed and interim 
rules, independent laboratories both perform and witness required tests 
depending upon the circumstances. In order to ensure the interim rule 
accurately reflects these different, required actions of independent 
laboratories, and to ensure consistency of terminology between the 
affected subparts, the interim rule replaces instances of ``conduct or 
witness,'' ``conduct,'' and ``perform or witness'' with the phrase 
``perform or witness, as appropriate,'' in 46 CFR 160.115-15, 160.132-
15, 160.133-15, 160.135-11, 160.135-15, 160.156-11, 160.156-15 and 
160.170-15, as necessary.
6. Adding an Additional, Optional Artificial Weathering Method for 
Resins
    In response to a comment, the Coast Guard is adding an additional, 
optional method for artificially weathering resins in 46 CFR part 160, 
Table 164.120-7. In the proposed rule, this table was numbered as Table 
164.017-7; see Section 7, Editorial Changes, below for more details on 
the renumbering. As proposed, Table 164.120-7(d)(5) (Table 164.017-7 in 
the NPRM) provided the option of weathering specimens by either 1 year 
per MIL-R-7575C, or 500-hour exposure per ASTM G154 Table X2.1 Cycle 3. 
The comment suggested adding as an alternative or changing to Cycle 1 
in Table X2.1 of ASTM G154--UVA-340 exposure at Table 164.120-7 (UV 
test according to ASTM G154), stating that UVA exposure is seen as a 
more realistic comparison to natural weathering. The Coast Guard agrees 
that Cycle 1 is also an appropriate artificial weathering method, and 
has revised the regulatory text accordingly. In the interim rule, resin 
artificial weathering testing may be performed using Cycle 1 or Cycle 3 
of ASTM G154.
7. Limiting Clear Resin Requirements for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats
    In response to a comment, the Coast Guard is clarifying the meaning 
of proposed Sec. Sec.  160.135-11(c)(2)(i)(A) and 160.156-
11(c)(2)(i)(A). The commenter pointed out that in the proposed rule, 
Sec. Sec.  160.135-11(c)(2)(i)(A) and 160. 156-11(c)(2)(i)(A) may be 
read to imply that every Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) component of a 
prototype needs to be of clear resin, including the gel coat. The 
commenter suggested that this requirement be limited to the outer hull 
and FRP inner hull components which are bonded or bolted to the outer 
hull. The Coast Guard agrees the language of the proposed rule was 
unclear, and agrees with the commenter's suggestion, which was the 
intended meaning of the proposed rule's text. The Coast Guard has 
revised Sec. Sec.  160.135-11(c)(2)(i)(A) and 160.156-11(c)(2)(i)(A) to 
clarify that only the outer hull and FRP inner hull components bonded 
or bolted to the outer hull must be constructed of clear resin.
8. Editorial Changes
    The Coast Guard is making two clarifying editorial changes 
requested by commenters: (1) In Sec.  160.115-7(b)(6)(vi)(B), the 
reference in the proposed rule to ``12 inches'' now reads in the 
interim rule as ``0.3m (12 in)'' for consistency throughout the rules 
in citing the metric measurement and noting the U.S. customary 
measurement in parentheses; and (2) in Sec.  160.135-7(b)(12) the Coast 
Guard adds the word ``hull'' before ``drain plug'' in the paragraph 
heading to avoid confusion with engine oil pan drain plugs, or with 
other drain plugs.
    Additionally, as suggested by a commenter, the Coast Guard is 
renumbering proposed 46 CFR part 164, subpart 164.017 as 46 CFR part 
164, subpart 164.120. The commenter suggested that the choice of 
``164.017'' for a new subpart number addressing fire retardant resins 
for lifeboats and rescue boats is possibly confusing because this 
designation might not be consistent with the currently applied 
numbering convention in 46 CFR. The current numbering convention used 
in 46 CFR correlates domestic-applicable--subparts 160.0XX--with SOLAS-
applicable--subparts 160.1XX. This same numbering convention also 
applies to approval series. Under this convention, the correlating 
SOLAS-applicable approval series to proposed subpart 164.017 would be 
current

[[Page 62967]]

approval series 164.117, which is assigned to SOLAS Floor Coverings. 
The commenter recommended number ``164.050'' or higher as a suitable 
alternative. The Coast Guard has renumbered proposed 46 CFR part 164, 
subpart 164.017 to subpart 164.120 to resolve the conflict with the 
approval series assigned to floor coverings and to acknowledge that the 
proposed subpart is consistent with SOLAS requirements.
    Finally, the Coast Guard is making additional non-substantive 
changes to the references to documents incorporated by reference and to 
correct a typo. The Coast Guard updated the citations to IMO documents 
incorporated by reference to make them easier to identify and to obtain 
copies. The Coast Guard has updated citations of other standards 
incorporated by reference by providing cites to edition and date, as 
applicable, to ensure proper identification of the standard and to 
conform to Federal Register requirements for incorporations by 
reference. None of the standards with updated citations have changed 
from the NPRM to the interim rule. The Coast Guard also removed two 
standards (ISO 2039-1:2001 and MIL P 17549D(SH)) that were erroneously 
proposed for incorporation by reference in part 164.120 because they 
were not proposed for use in part 164.120 in the NPRM and are not used 
in the interim rule. The NPRM proposed incorporation by reference of 
ISO 2039-1:2001 and ISO 2039-2:1987 in Sec.  165.120-7, but that 
section only referenced ``ISO 2039'' as an equivalent, alternative to 
ASTM D 2583. Those familiar with these standards would recognize that 
ISO 2039-2:1987 is the equivalent, alternative to ASTM D 2583 for 
determining indentation hardness. The interim rule does not contain the 
unnecessary ISO standard and corrects the reference in Sec.  165.120-7 
to read ``ISO 2039-2.'' The NPRM proposed incorporate by reference of 
MIL P 17549D(SH) but the proposed rule and interim rule do not 
reference to this standard in part 164.120. The Coast Guard is also 
correcting a typo that appeared in the proposed definition of 
``Independent Laboratory'' in proposed Sec.  160.132-3. The proposed 
definition incorrectly referenced 46 CFR 169.001-3 instead of 46 CFR 
159.001-3, which was correctly referenced in all other definitions of 
``Independent Laboratory'' in the proposed rule.

B. Discussion of Comments on the NPRM

    The Coast Guard received 29 comments in response to the NPRM 
published on August 31, 2010. See 75 FR 53458. Several comments 
proposed changes or made comments prompting changes in the interim 
rule, as discussed above in Section A, Discussion of Changes from the 
NPRM. The following paragraphs contain an analysis of the remaining 
comments received.
    One commenter noted the two new resolutions recently adopted by IMO 
and asked whether the Coast Guard will require compliance with the 
amendments to the LSA Code and Recommendation on Testing that affect 
liferaft capacity requirements.
    As discussed above in II, Regulatory History, the Coast Guard is 
publishing an SNPRM to propose changes to the interim rule to address 
these two new resolutions. The SNPRM is published separately in this 
issue of the Federal Register and the Coast Guard seeks comment on the 
proposed changes in the SNPRM.
    One commenter noted that, under the Agreement between the United 
States and European Community on the mutual recognition of 
certification of conformity for marine equipment (US/EC MRA) and the 
agreement between the United States and the European Economic Area and 
European Free Trade Association countries on the Mutual Recognition for 
Conformity of Marine Equipment (US/EEA/EFTA MRA), a Notified Body \6\ 
issues Coast Guard approval certificates, and asked whether the Coast 
Guard intends to modify this, based on the NPRM preamble statement: 
``The Coast Guard would remain the sole issuer of certificates of 
approval for Coast Guard-approved lifesaving equipment.'' The commenter 
also stated that an independent laboratory publishes its approval 
certificates, and asked whether such publication would violate the 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Notified Body is generally a testing or certification 
organization recognized by the European Union to evaluate certain 
equipment, similar to an independent laboratory accepted by the 
Commandant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard clarifies that Notified Bodies, recognized under 
the US/EC MRA and the US/EEA/EFTA MRA, do not issue Coast Guard 
Certificates of Approval, but are permitted to issue a Coast Guard 
approval number for certain types of equipment and assign it to the 
Notified Body's certificate in accordance with the US/EC MRA and the 
US/EEA/EFTA MRA. For more information on the US/EC MRA and the US/EEA/
EFTA MRA, please see Navigation and Inspection Circular 08-04 change 1 
(available at: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2004/08-04change1.pdf).
    The Coast Guard notes that the only equipment affected by this 
rulemaking currently covered by the US/EC MRA and the US/EEA/EFTA MRA 
is liferaft automatic disengaging devices, which are addressed in 46 
CFR part 160, subpart 160.170. Liferaft automatic release mechanisms 
may have a Certificate of Approval issued by the Coast Guard or a Coast 
Guard approval number issued by the appropriate Notified Body. The 
Coast Guard recognizes that an independent laboratory may also be a 
Notified Body, and clarifies that an independent laboratory publishing 
its approval certificates for equipment covered by the US/EC MRA and 
the US/EEA/EFTA MRA does not violate this rule, and in fact is required 
for Coast Guard approvals issued under the MRAs. The Coast Guard notes 
that, unless issued in accordance with one of the MRAs, an independent 
laboratory's approval certificate does not constitute Coast Guard 
approval. The Coast Guard further clarifies that for all other 
equipment it will remain the sole issuer of Certificates of Approval 
for Coast Guard-approved lifesaving equipment.
    One commenter pointed out the discussion in the NPRM preamble 
regarding the Coast Guard's intention to relieve manufacturers of the 
burden of multiple design reviews, or prototype tests, by multiple 
nations with the expanded use of independent laboratories, and asked 
whether there will be Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with the 
other nations, or whether the Coast Guard will accept approvals done by 
an independent laboratory on behalf of other nations.
    The Coast Guard is not currently pursuing MRAs with other nations, 
but will accept test reports from Coast Guard-accepted independent 
laboratories in support of approvals for other nations, provided the 
testing is conducted in accordance with this interim rule. While a 
foreign entity may qualify as an independent laboratory accepted under 
46 CFR part 159, subpart 159.010, the entity will perform duties under 
the interim rule on behalf of the Coast Guard, and will apply and 
comply with Coast Guard requirements, not with the entities' own rules 
or guidelines.
    One commenter noted the NPRM preamble statement, ``Manufacturers of 
liferafts would have to demonstrate that designs previously approved 
under the current regulations comply with the revised regulations prior 
to the expiration of their current approvals,'' and asked whether the 
rule will delegate the design review to a recognized laboratory.

[[Page 62968]]

    No, the Coast Guard retains the responsibility for design review 
for liferafts under provisions in current 46 CFR part 160, subpart 
160.151, and those provisions are not affected by this rulemaking.
    One commenter noted that various steps of the approval process are 
split between the Coast Guard and an independent laboratory for some 
equipment. The commenter suggested it should be ensured that the same 
party is involved with all parts of the approval process.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. As noted in the NPRM preamble, the Coast 
Guard retains authority for the phases of the approval process that 
involve decisions about the acceptability and approvability of 
lifesaving equipment design and performance, preapproval plan review 
and prototype testing. Additionally, the Coast Guard remains the sole 
issuer of Certificates of Approval (except where approval numbers are 
issued in accordance with the US/EC MRA or the US/EEA-EFTA MRA, as 
discussed above).
    One commenter suggested that the use of independent laboratories 
for plan review and prototype inspection and tests be limited to 
manufacturers that already hold Coast Guard Certificates of Approval 
for the type of equipment under consideration, and independent 
laboratories already involved in inspection of the type of equipment 
involved.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the suggested blanket limitation 
because, as stated in the NPRM, the authority for independent 
laboratories to perform these functions will be defined in the course 
of acceptance of the independent laboratory in accordance with 46 CFR 
part 159, subpart 159.010. The commenter's suggestion may be 
considered, as appropriate, in the course of accepting specific 
independent laboratories for approval of specific types of equipment. 
The Coast Guard notes that an entity must already be involved in 
inspection of the type of equipment for which they apply in order to be 
an accepted independent laboratory under 46 CFR part 159, subpart 
159.010.
    One commenter asked whether the proposed rulemaking satisfies the 
court order of May 31, 1983, effectuating the decision in U.S. 
Lifesaving Equipment Manufacturers Association v. Dole, 567 F.Supp. 
696, (May 4, 1983). Specifically, the court order prohibited the Coast 
Guard from requiring or authorizing ``any manufacturer or manufacturers 
of liferafts, lifeboats, or lifeboat equipment to have such equipment 
inspected or tested by an independent laboratory unless USCG shall have 
first (a) Published an appropriate notice of proposed rulemaking in the 
Federal Register advising interested persons of the scope and effect of 
and reasons for the proposed new requirement, (b) provided an 
opportunity for public comment thereon, (c) fully considered all such 
comments, and (d) included in the final regulation an adequate 
statement of the basis and purpose of the new requirements.''
    Yes, the Coast Guard satisfies that court order with (a) 
Publication of the NPRM on August 30, 2010, (b) the public comment 
period that closed on November 29, 2010, (c) this discussion of 
comments evidencing Coast Guard's consideration of all comments, and 
(d) the discussion above under III, Basis and Purpose.
    One commenter stated that they think the word ``advertise'' in 
Sec.  159.010-3(a)(3)-(5) (requiring an independent laboratory not be 
owned or controlled by a manufacturer, vendor, or supplier of materials 
for the equipment or material to be inspected; not be dependent on 
acceptance as an independent laboratory to remain in business, and not 
advertise or promote equipment or materials that the independent 
laboratory inspects or tests), can be taken to mean that an independent 
laboratory cannot list the products it has approved or allow the use of 
its logos on such products.
    The Coast Guard agrees that under longstanding Coast Guard policy, 
independent laboratories may, and commonly do, mark and list equipment 
they have tested. The Coast Guard emphasizes, however, that under the 
subparts affected by this rulemaking, independent laboratories do not 
approve equipment on behalf of the Coast Guard.
    One commenter suggested that the proposed rule provisions for 
permitting the use of equivalent materials should require the 
independent laboratory to prepare the justification of equivalency for 
acceptance by the Commandant. The commenter suggested that Coast Guard 
staff should not have to do the research required to accept such 
equivalencies.
    The Coast Guard concurs with the spirit of the comment to relieve 
Coast Guard staff of researching equivalencies. Under longstanding 
Coast Guard policy, it is the burden of the manufacturer to demonstrate 
equivalency when requesting such a determination. No regulatory text 
changes are necessary.
    One commenter asked if the Coast Guard intends that a laboratory 
would be required to verify the quality assurance and quality control 
process in a given factory and monitor batch testing of resins, per the 
following NPRM preamble statement: ``The scope of proposed subpart 
164.017 would state that the subpart contains performance requirements, 
acceptance tests, and production testing and inspection requirements 
for fire retardant resins used in the construction of lifeboats and 
rescue boats approved under proposed 46 CFR part 160, subparts 160.135 
and 160.156. See proposed Sec.  164.017-1.''
    No, the intent of this rulemaking is not to require independent 
laboratories to verify the quality assurance and quality control 
process at a resin manufacturer. The Coast Guard notes that new 46 CFR 
part 164, subpart 164.120 (proposed in the NPRM as subpart 164.017) 
does not contain such a requirement. The Coast Guard accepts 
independent laboratories for the testing and inspections of specific 
equipment or materials. An independent laboratory accepted for resin 
may not be the same independent laboratory accepted for lifeboats or 
rescue boats.
    One commenter suggested that Table 1, ``IMO Standards and Coast 
Guard Proposed Interpretations,'' in the NPRM preamble should be 
included in the final rule because of its usefulness in showing 
differences between IMO standards and Coast Guard interpretations of 
those standards.
    While the Coast Guard included Table 1 in the NPRM preamble to aid 
readers in understanding the regulatory text, the regulatory text is 
the official legal language. Table 1, however, will remain available 
for reference as published in the NPRM.
    One commenter expressed support for Sec.  160.135-7(b)(2), 
describing operator visibility requirements which exceed the 
requirements of the IMO LSA Code.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the support.
    One commenter asked whether, per the preamble statement indicating 
that the Coast Guard will require the installation of navigation lights 
on lifeboats and rescue boats, consistent with the International 
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) requirements, 
the Coast Guard will present such a proposal to IMO for consideration.
    No, the Coast Guard does not consider such a proposal necessary 
since neither SOLAS nor the LSA Code exempt lifeboats or rescue boats 
from navigational lights as required by the COLREGS for a vessel of the 
relevant size and speed.
    One commenter asked that the Coast Guard make available the data 
used in the analysis of the proposed rule's effect on small entities.

[[Page 62969]]

    The Coast Guard notes that the data has been available since 
publication of the NPRM. The data is disclosed in the NPRM's Regulatory 
Analysis, which continues to be available on the docket where indicated 
under ADDRESSES.
    One commenter suggested adding MIL-R-21607E(SH), Resins, Polyester, 
Low Pressure Laminating, Fire-Retardant to the list of standards in 
Sec.  160.135-5(f) without providing a reason.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. This standard is incorporated by 
reference appropriately in 46 CFR part 164, proposed subpart 164.120 
(proposed in the NPRM as subpart 164.017), which is the subpart 
addressing resins and required standards, and is only referred to, but 
not required, in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.135.
    One commenter noted that proposed Sec.  160.156-15(b)(3) refers to 
a guideline for rescue boat ``Running Lot Inspections,'' but that there 
are no other references to running lot inspections to be found. The 
commenter asked whether running lot inspections will be considered in 
the rulemaking.
    The Coast Guard notes that the NPRM did not reference guidelines 
for rescue boat ``'Running Lot Inspections,'' nor does this rulemaking 
address running lot inspections. Although past practice provided the 
option for the use of running lot inspections, the Coast Guard did not 
propose the use of running lot inspections in the NPRM because the 
Coast Guard determined it would be impractical for this type of 
equipment, which is produced and inspected on an individual, versus 
lot, basis. As such, under the interim rule, each production rescue 
boat must be tested in accordance with Sec.  160.156-15.
    One commenter asked if the Coast Guard was considering allowing 
extended service intervals for inflatable liferafts in light of 
movement toward extended service, applying vacuum packing and other 
methods.
    The NPRM did not address extended service intervals for liferafts, 
and the Coast Guard is not addressing extended service intervals in 
this interim rule.
    Two commenters suggested that the ``Incorporation by reference'' 
and ``Definitions'' sections and preemption language for each equipment 
type subpart should be combined into sections to apply to all of 46 CFR 
part 160 or all of 46 CFR subchapter Q. The commenters suggested this 
will eliminate the need to have these sections in each subpart.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the potential gained efficiency in 
having combined sections; however, the standards incorporated by 
reference and the definitions contained in the subparts affected by 
this rulemaking do not apply to all of part 160. The Coast Guard also 
appreciates the suggestion regarding subchapter Q; however, it is 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which does not amend part 159 or 
affect all the subparts contained in subchapter Q. The incorporations 
by reference, definitions, and preemption language are appropriately 
placed for the purposes of this rulemaking. The Coast Guard, however, 
may consider the suggestion in a future rulemaking.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard remove from the CFR 
all existing language applicable to rigid buoyant apparatuses and life 
floats and add language indicating that all approvals of such equipment 
will be withdrawn under 46 CFR 2.75-50(a) on January 1, 2015, per 
Section 609 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-
281).
    The Coast Guard plans to address Section 609 requirements in a 
future regulatory action, and not as part of this rulemaking.
    One commenter asked whether the proposed rulemaking extends to 
those companies that service fire fighting and lifesaving equipment.
    No, this is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter noted that, although this rulemaking does not address 
installation testing, the Coast Guard's guidance on installation 
testing contained in the online version of the Marine Safety Manual 
(MSM), Volume II, section B.1.P.2 is incomplete and recommends that the 
missing sections be added to the Web site.
    Although this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, the 
Coast Guard appreciates the information and will take appropriate 
action to address it.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 
46 CFR 160.010-1, 160.051-5, 160.115-5, 160.132-5, 160.133-5, 160.135-
5, 160.151-5, 160.156-5, 160.170-5, and 164.120-5 for incorporation by 
reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect this 
material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under 
ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed 
in paragraph (b) in each of those sections.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on 15 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) 
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review as 
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
that Order. OMB has not reviewed it under that Order.
    Comments on the proposed rule are summarized in the ``Discussion of 
Comments and Changes'' section of this preamble. The Coast Guard 
received no comments that altered our assessment of impacts in the 
NPRM. We have found no additional data or information that changed our 
findings in the NPRM. We have adopted the assessment in the NPRM for 
this rule as final.
    A ``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis'' is available in the docket where indicated under 
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this 
preamble. A summary of the analysis follows:
    As previously discussed, the Coast Guard will amend 46 CFR part 160 
to harmonize its regulations with IMO standards governing certain types 
of lifesaving equipment. The Coast Guard also will incorporate the use 
of independent laboratories for Coast Guard approval procedures for 
certain types of lifesaving equipment, including requiring the use of 
independent laboratories at certain stages of the approval procedures 
in lieu of Coast Guard personnel who currently perform these 
inspections and witness these tests.
    We expect the changes to harmonize existing regulations with 
international standards to have no additional costs for manufacturers 
of lifesaving equipment. In order for their lifesaving equipment to be 
used on vessels for international voyages from any nation that is a 
SOLAS signatory, equipment manufacturers must currently comply with the 
international standards for lifesaving equipment established by SOLAS. 
We expect the rule reflects existing industry practices adopted in 
response to these international standards governing the performance of 
certain types of lifesaving equipment.
    We expect the changes to require the use of independent 
laboratories instead of Coast Guard personnel will result in additional 
costs for manufacturers of certain types of lifesaving equipment.
    Currently, the Coast Guard does not charge for its inspections 
(although

[[Page 62970]]

overseas manufacturing facilities reimburse the Coast Guard for travel 
and subsistence costs of Coast Guard inspectors). The use of 
independent laboratories required by this rule will create a new cost 
for manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. However, the costs of 
inspections by independent laboratories will be partially offset by an 
overall reduction in the number of inspections, made possible through 
the coordination of independent laboratories. Manufacturers will be 
able to schedule inspections and testing for independent laboratories 
acting on behalf of multiple nations, including the U.S., rather than 
requiring separate Coast Guard inspections and testing by Coast Guard 
inspectors. This coordinated use of independent laboratories will avoid 
multiple inspections and testing of the same equipment (see the 
``Independent Laboratories'' section for more details).
    Data obtained from the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange 
(CGMIX) indicates that the population affected by this rule includes 
eight U.S. manufacturers and 76 foreign manufacturers of lifesaving 
equipment. We estimate the annual costs to manufacturers for using 
independent laboratories are approximately $130,000 for U.S. firms and 
approximately $683,000 for foreign firms (undiscounted). Over a 10-year 
period of analysis, we estimate the total present value costs of the 
rulemaking are approximately $913,000 for U.S. firms and approximately 
$4.8 million for foreign firms, discounted at seven percent. We 
estimate the total present value cost of the rulemaking to be about 
$5.7 million over a 10-year period of analysis.
    The other changes, not resulting from harmonization with internal 
standards or use of independent laboratories, update Coast Guard 
regulations to reflect current practice or newer versions of existing 
standards and have minimal costs. These include an amendment specifying 
the attachment point for sea anchors to liferafts, and the addition of 
a new subpart in 46 CFR part 164 addressing resins used in the 
construction of lifeboats and rescue boats and incorporating the use of 
equivalent international standards as an alternative to national 
consensus standards.
    The benefits of the rule include compliance with U.S. obligations 
as a SOLAS signatory and the removal of inconsistencies between 
international standards and the Coast Guard's current regulations. The 
rule also provides possible savings for manufacturers from coordination 
efficiencies for inspections and increased efficiency for the Coast 
Guard from greater flexibility in assigning its human resources, 
particularly those stationed at overseas Coast Guard offices.
    The ``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis'' available on the docket provides additional 
detail on the costs and benefits of this rulemaking.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast 
Guard has 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 combined ``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis'' discussing the impact of this rule on small 
entities is available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public 
Participation and Request fo