Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With International Standards, 70390-70400 [2012-28492]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
70390
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
when making a determination of
eligibility for financial assistance in the
purchase of an automobile or other
conveyance and adaptive equipment.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the
Secretary in 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and
3901(1)(A)(iv), VA proposes to amend
38 CFR 3.808 to define the term ‘‘severe
burn injury.’’ In the proposed
amendment to 38 CFR 3.808, we
redesignated current paragraph (b)(4) as
(b)(5) and added a new paragraph (b)(4)
to define ‘‘severe burn injury,’’ as one of
the conditions that determines
entitlement for a certificate of eligibility
for financial assistance in the purchase
of an automobile or other conveyance
and adaptive equipment. We found that
newly proposed paragraph (b)(4)
contained grammatical errors. This
document corrects those grammatical
errors.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR part 3
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Pensions, Radioactive
materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
Dated: November 19, 2012.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director, Office of Regulation Policy and
Management, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, VA proposes to correct 38
CFR part 3 as follows:
PART 3—ADJUDICATION
Subpart A—Pension, Compensation,
and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation
1. The authority citation for part 3,
subpart A continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless
otherwise noted.
2. Revise § 3.808, paragraph (b)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 3.808 Automobiles or other conveyances
and adaptive equipment; certification.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Severe burn injury: Deep partial
thickness or full thickness burns
resulting in scar formation that cause
contractures and limit motion of one or
more extremities or the trunk and
preclude effective operation of an
automobile.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–28437 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 160 and 164
[Docket No. USCG–2010–0048]
RIN 1625–AB46
Lifesaving Equipment: Production
Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
amend the interim rule addressing
lifesaving equipment to harmonize
Coast Guard regulations concerning
release mechanisms for lifeboats and
rescue boats with recently adopted
international standards affecting design,
performance, and testing for such
lifesaving equipment, and to clarify the
requirements concerning grooved drums
in launching appliance winches. The
Coast Guard seeks comments on this
proposal.
SUMMARY:
Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before January 25, 2013 or reach
the Docket Management Facility by that
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2010–0048 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: 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–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
Viewing incorporation by reference
material: You may inspect the material
proposed for incorporation by reference
at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100
Second Street SW., Washington, DC
20593–0001 between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 proposed
rule, call or email Mr. George Grills,
Commercial Regulations and Standards
Directorate, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and
Fire Safety Division (CG–ENG–4), Coast
Guard; telephone 202–372–1385, email
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 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Regulatory History
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608
(46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
N. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
The Coast Guard encourages you to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related
materials. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2010–0048),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
these means. The Coast Guard
recommends that you include your
name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body
of your document so that the Coast
Guard can contact you if it has
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and insert
‘‘USCG- 2010–0048’’ in the ‘‘Search’’
box. Click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit
a Comment’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.
If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2; by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period and may change
this proposed rule based on your
comments.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and insert
‘‘USCG–2010–0048’’ in the ‘‘Search’’
box. Click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open
Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
column. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting 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. The Coast Guard has an
agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
D. Public Meeting
The Coast Guard does not plan to
hold a public meeting. You may submit
a request for one to the docket using one
of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain
why you believe a public meeting
would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
determines that one would aid this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold
one at a time and place announced by
a later notice in the Federal Register.
II. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
LSA Life-saving Appliance
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement database
MSC Maritime Safety Committee of the
International Maritime Organization
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for Safety
of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended
§ Section symbol
USCG United States Coast Guard
III. Regulatory History
On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard
published an interim rule titled,
‘‘Lifesaving Equipment: Production
Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards’’ (interim rule)
in the Federal Register. See 76 FR
62962. As part of that interim rule,
which became effective on November
10, 2011, the Coast Guard issued new
subparts of 46 CFR part 160, including
subpart 160.115 addressing launching
appliance winches, and subpart 160.133
addressing release mechanisms for
lifeboats and rescue boats, which are
approved to the requirements of the
International Convention for Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS).
The Coast Guard issued an interim
rule because in May 2011, the
International Maritime Organization’s
(IMO) Maritime Safety Committee
(MSC) amended its international
standards regarding release
mechanisms. See 76 FR 62962.
Additionally in the interim rule, the
Coast Guard announced plans to
publish in a future Federal Register
document proposed changes to Coast
Guard regulations to implement the
IMO amendments regarding
performance requirements for lifeboat
and rescue boat release mechanisms that
the Coast Guard determines appropriate
for purposes of harmonization and
consistency with international
standards, and to finalize the interim
rule at the same time the Coast Guard
issues any final rule for those proposed
changes. 76 FR 62962.
The Coast Guard is issuing this
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) to address
amendments to international standards
affecting the design and performance of
release mechanisms that were adopted
by the IMO, and that will enter into
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70391
force on January 1, 2013. The IMO
amendments to the international
standards affect 46 CFR part 160,
subpart 160.133. The interim rule
removed longstanding separate subparts
for release mechanisms (46 CFR
160.033) and lifeboats (46 CFR 160.035)
approved strictly for domestic service.
76 FR 62975. Therefore, this SNPRM
potentially affects any U.S.-flagged
vessel required to carry a lifeboat after
the finalization of this proposed rule.
IV. Background
As discussed in the ‘‘Basis and
Purpose’’ section of the interim rule, 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, including those found in
SOLAS, Chapter III, ‘‘Life-saving
appliances and arrangements.’’ See 46
U.S.C. 3306; 76 FR 62963. 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 preapproving 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.
The Coast Guard’s specific standards
for release mechanisms are found in 46
CFR part 160, subpart 160.133 (Release
Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue
Boats (SOLAS)). Subpart 160.133
implements current SOLAS
requirements for lifeboat release
mechanisms by incorporating by
reference the IMO standards referenced
by Chapter III of SOLAS. The primary
IMO standards referenced by Chapter III
of SOLAS are the ‘‘International Lifesaving Appliance Code,’’ IMO
Resolution MSC.48(66), as amended
(hereinafter ‘‘IMO LSA Code’’), and the
‘‘Revised recommendation on testing of
life-saving appliances,’’ IMO Resolution
MSC.81(70), as amended (hereinafter
‘‘Revised recommendation on testing’’).
The IMO updates these standards by
adopting MSC Resolutions promulgating
amendments to these standards.
Subpart 160.133 incorporates by
reference the latest published version of
the IMO LSA Code and the Revised
recommendation on testing. Sections
160.133–5(c)(2) and (c)(3) incorporate
by reference the parts of IMO’s
publication ‘‘Life-saving Appliances,
2010 Edition’’ that include the IMO LSA
Code and the Revised recommendation
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70392
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
on testing. The ‘‘Life-saving Appliances,
2010 Edition’’ includes all amendments
to the IMO LSA Code and Revised
recommendation on testing adopted
through 2010. These amendments are
discussed in the NPRM published in the
Federal Register on August 31, 2010,
titled ‘‘Lifesaving Equipment:
Production Testing and Harmonization
with International Standards.’’ See 75
FR 53458.
On May 20, 2011, IMO adopted two
new MSC Resolutions further amending
the IMO LSA Code and the Revised
recommendation on testing: IMO
Resolution MSC.320(89), ‘‘Adoption of
amendments to the International Lifesaving Appliance (LSA) Code,’’ and
IMO Resolution MSC.321(89),
‘‘Adoption of amendments to the
Revised Recommendation on Testing of
Life-saving Appliances (Resolution
MSC.81(70)), as amended.’’
Resolution MSC.320(89) amends the
IMO LSA Code and enters into force on
January 1, 2013. This Resolution
amends the design and performance
requirements for release mechanisms by
requiring—
• The hook portion to be ‘‘stable’’
such that when the hook is in the closed
and reset position and under load from
the lifeboat, no forces are transmitted
back to the release handle;
• specific components within the
system to be made of corrosion-resistant
materials without the need for
galvanizing;
• that, for moveable hook designs that
are not of the ‘‘load over center’’ type
(i.e., that are designed to rotate when a
load is applied to the hook face), the
moveable hook component is kept fully
closed by the hook locking parts so that
it is capable of holding its safe working
load under any operational conditions
until the hook locking part is
deliberately caused to open by means of
the operating mechanism;
• that if a hydrostatic interlock or
similar device is provided to indicate
that the lifeboat or rescue boat is
waterborne, it automatically resets upon
lifting the boat from the water;
• multiple actions to perform on-load
release, including the deliberate
destruction of a ‘‘break glass’’ or similar
arrangement;
• operational capability of up to 100
percent of the release hook’s design load
under conditions of trim of up to 10
degrees and a list of up to 20 degrees
either way;
• release mechanisms of the hook tail
and cam type to remain closed and hold
their design load through rotation of the
cam of up to 45 degrees in either
direction, or 45 degrees in one direction
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
if restricted by design, from its locked
position; and
• operating links and cables to be
waterproof and not have exposed or
unprotected areas.
Resolution MSC.321(89) amends the
Revised recommendation on testing and
enters into force on January 1, 2013.
This Resolution specifies revisions to
the prototype testing of release
mechanisms supporting the
amendments to the IMO LSA Code. The
revisions to the testing include:
• a demonstration that the moveable
hook component, when disconnected
from the operating mechanism, remains
closed while under a load equivalent to
the B-weight of a lifeboat (see ‘‘Full
load’’ definition in 46 CFR part 160,
subpart 160.135–3) at a speed of 5 knots.
• a demonstration that a lifeboat
release mechanism loaded at 100
percent of the design load of the release
hook will successfully release under
load 50 consecutive times, as well as
simultaneously in the case of twin-fall
systems;
• a demonstration that the moveable
hook component, when disconnected
from the operating mechanism, remains
closed when tested 10 times with a
cyclical loading from no load to 110
percent of the design load, or 1 percent
to 110 percent of design load for load
over center designs, at 10 seconds per
cycle;
• a demonstration that the actuating
force under the design load of the
release mechanism is between 100 N
and 300 N (22.5 lbf and 67.5 lbf); and
• prototype testing of a second unit,
repeating the actuation force test before
undergoing a tensile test at six times the
design safe working load.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise
subpart 160.133 to incorporate by
reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89)
and MSC.321(89). Beyond the
obligations to adopt the changes to the
IMO LSA Code and Revised
recommendation on testing as a
signatory to the SOLAS convention, the
Coast Guard desires to incorporate by
reference the amendments in IMO
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and
MSC.321(89) because they provide a
higher standard of safety and
performance than that of the existing
requirements incorporated by reference
in § 160.133–5. Further, for
manufacturers, harmonization with
current international standards will
facilitate marketing of their products
internationally.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
best available standards for the design
and performance of release mechanisms
and to be appropriate for lifeboats and
rescue boats 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.-flagged ships with
the IMO standards as compliance with
Coast Guard domestic regulations.
The effect of this proposed change
would be that all davit-launched
lifeboats for Coast Guard approval under
subpart 160.135, and SOLAS rescue
boats and fast rescue boats for Coast
Guard approval under subpart 160.156
(other than those fitted with automatic
release hooks under approval series
160.170), would be required to have a
release mechanism approved under this
revised subpart 160.133. See § 160.135–
7(b)(17) (‘‘Each release mechanism must
be identified at the application for
approval of the prototype lifeboat and
must be approved under 46 CFR part
160, subpart 160.133’’) and 160.156–
7(b)(18) (‘‘Each release mechanism fitted
to a rescue boat, including a fast rescue
boat, must be identified at the
application for approval of the
prototype rescue boat and must be
approved under subparts 160.133 or
160.170 of this part.’’). Davit-launched
lifeboats and SOLAS rescue boats and
fast rescue boats already installed prior
to the implementation of this SNPRM
will not be affected.
Beyond the new IMO Resolutions
discussed above, the Coast Guard is also
proposing amendments to § 160.115 to
clarify the winch drum design
requirements, and editorial amendments
to correct non-substantive errors in 46
CFR part 160, subparts 160.133,
160.135, and 160.156.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Revision to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart
160.115
The Coast Guard proposes to replace
46 CFR 160.115–7(b)(5)(i) with text that
requires winch drums to either be
grooved or otherwise designed to wind
the falls evenly on and off each drum.
The Coast Guard is proposing to make
this change because winch drum
designs are increasingly being shown to
be effective at winding the falls on and
off the drum without grooves, (i.e.,
winch drums with a smooth drum
design instead of the traditional grooved
drum design). The proposed change in
§ 160.115–7(b)(5)(i) does not modify the
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
standard of design or performance for
winch drums. Rather, the proposed
change is intended to clarify the current
regulation text which requires drums to
be grooved ‘‘unless otherwise approved
by the Commandant.’’ The primary
standard by which the Coast Guard
evaluates the design and performance of
launching appliances, IMO LSA Code
Chapter VI, ‘‘Launching and
embarkation appliances’’ (referenced in
§ 160.115–7(a)(1)), does not require
drums to be grooved, but requires the
falls to wind evenly on and off the
drum(s).
For many years, the Coast Guard has
approved winches with smooth drums
under approval series 160.115 as
providing equivalent performance to
grooved drums. However, there remains
some confusion on the interpretation of
existing § 160.115–7(b)(5)(i) with
respect to the approval of winches
without grooved drums. The Coast
Guard believes this proposed change
would reduce confusion about the Coast
Guard’s criteria for acceptance of nongrooved drums in launching appliance
winches by providing manufacturers
with clearer language regarding the
intended design performance.
The Coast Guard proposes to add a
new paragraph (4) to § 160.115–13(d),
which would support the proposed
revision to 46 CFR 160.115–7(b)(5)(i) by
ensuring that any non-grooved drum
design is still shown at the prototype
testing phase to be as effective at evenly
winding the falls on and off the drum
surface as a grooved drum.
Revisions to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart
160.133
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
the title of subpart 160.133 by removing
‘‘(SOLAS).’’ As stated in the interim rule
published on October 11, 2011, the
Coast Guard removed the standard for
domestic release mechanisms under 46
CFR 160.033 and created one standard
for release mechanisms under 160.133.
Therefore the use of ‘‘SOLAS’’ in the
title is unnecessary and may be
misleading when installing release
mechanisms approved under subpart
160.133 in lifeboats serving U.S. vessels
only on domestic routes. Changing the
title would make it consistent with
other subparts affected by the interim
rule. The Coast Guard also proposes
changing the title of subpart 160.135,
which will be discussed in the section
below titled, ‘‘Revisions to 46 CFR part
160, subpart 160.135, and subpart
160.156.’’
The Coast Guard proposes to correct
the misspelling of ‘‘life-saving’’ in the
title of the ‘‘Revised recommendation on
testing of life-saving appliances’’ in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
§ 160.133–5(c)(3) which was incorrectly
spelled as ‘‘live-saving’’.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise
§ 160.133–5(c) to incorporate by
reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89)
and MSC.321(89) in new paragraphs
(c)(6) and (c)(7), respectively. Because of
the incorporation by reference of these
Resolutions in § 160.133–5(c),
references to the IMO LSA Code in
§§ 160.133–3, 160.133–7(a)(1), 160.133–
7(b)(8), and 160.133–7(b)(9) would be
revised with ‘‘as amended by Resolution
MSC.320(89),’’ and references to the
Revised recommendation on testing in
§§ 160.133–7(a)(2) and 160.133–13(d)(2)
would be revised with ‘‘as amended by
IMO Resolution MSC.321(89).’’ Revising
these incorporations by reference would
affect the provisions in §§ 160.133–7
and 160.133–13, which refer to the
Revised recommendation on testing, as
discussed in part IV above.
Because IMO Resolution MSC.320(89)
requires ‘‘all components of the hook
unit, release handle unit, control cables
or mechanical operating links and the
fixed structural connections in a lifeboat
[to] be of material corrosion resistant in
the marine environment without the
need for coatings or galvanizing,’’ the
current ASTM standard for structural
carbon steel incorporated by reference
in § 160.133–5 is a conflicting standard.
This standard would no longer be
appropriate because these steels require
coatings or galvanizing to be corrosion
resistant. Therefore, the Coast Guard
proposes to remove § 160.133–5(b)(1),
incorporating by reference ASTM A 36/
A 36M–08, ‘‘Standard Specification for
Carbon Structural Steel,’’ and to remove
the accompanying standard for
galvanizing in § 160.133–5(b)(5),
incorporating by reference ASTM A
653/A 653M–08, ‘‘Standard
Specification for Steel Sheet, ZincCoated (Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron AlloyCoated (Galvannealed) by the Hot-Dip
Process.’’ Because § 160.133–5 already
contains three standards for stainless
steel that meet the non-galvanized,
corrosion-resistant material requirement
of IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), the
Coast Guard further proposes to retain
and renumber § 160.133–5(b)(2), (3), and
(4), incorporating by reference the three
ASTM stainless-steel standards. The
Coast Guard seeks public comment on
other corrosion-resistant material
standards for possible incorporation by
reference in § 160.133–5(b).
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
§ 160.133–7(b)(3) to remove reference to
ASTM A36 and ASTM A653, as these
standards would no longer apply as
described above. As proposed, the
references to the ASTM standards
would be replaced with language
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70393
requiring each major structural
component of each release mechanism
to be constructed of corrosion-resistant
steel that meets the standards for type
302 stainless steel in ASTM A 276,
ASTM A 313, or ASTM A 314
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 160.133–5 of this subpart). The
proposed language would also permit
other corrosion-resistant materials to be
used if accepted by the Commandant as
having equivalent or superior corrosionresistant characteristics without the
need for coatings or galvanizing.
The Coast Guard proposes to remove
§ 160.133–7(b)(15), which requires each
release mechanism to have mechanical
protection against accidental or
premature release that can only be
engaged when the release mechanism is
properly and completely reset. The
Coast Guard recognized that the
requirements in this paragraph were
already addressed in the existing IMO
LSA Code (incorporated by reference in
§ 160.133–5(c)(2)), paragraph 4.4.7.6.4,
related to lifeboat fittings, and are not
affected by IMO Resolution
MSC.320(89) that amends the IMO LSA
Code. Therefore, removing existing
§ 160.133–7(b)(15) would eliminate a
redundancy with the incorporation by
reference of the IMO LSA Code.
The Coast Guard proposes to remove
§ 160.133–13(d)(2)(iii), which contains a
stipulation regarding galvanizing,
because galvanizing is no longer an
acceptable form of metal treatment for
corrosion resistance under IMO
Resolution MSC.320(89) and its removal
is consistent with the proposed removal
of ASTM A 653 in §§ 160.133–5 and
160.133–7 discussed above. The Coast
Guard would re-number paragraphs
consistent with the removal of these
items. The Coast Guard proposes to
remove the last two sentences in
paragraph (e) of § 160.133–15,
consistent with the proposed removal of
ASTM A 653.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
§ 160.133–15(e) by removing the last
two sentences, which require each
approved release mechanism to be
constructed with non-corrosionresistant steel that meets the coating
mass and bend tests requirement
specified under ASTM A 653 after
galvanizing or other anti-corrosion
treatment has been applied. This
amendment is consistent with the
changes to § 160.133–5, § 160.133–7 and
§ 160.133–13 discussed above as related
to the use of galvanized steel.
Revisions to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart
160.135, and Subpart 160.156
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
the title of § 160.135 by removing
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70394
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
‘‘(SOLAS).’’ As stated in the interim rule
published on October 11, 2011, the
Coast Guard removed the standard for
lifeboats for merchant vessels under 46
CFR 160.035 and created one standard
for lifeboats under 160.135. Therefore
the use of ‘‘SOLAS’’ in the title is
unnecessary and may be misleading
when installing lifeboats approved
under § 160.135 on U.S. vessels only on
domestic routes. Regardless of domestic
or international service, U.S. vessels
must carry lifeboats approved under
approval series 160.135. See 46 CFR
199.201 and 199.261. Changing the title
to subpart 160.135 will make it
consistent with the title of other
subparts affected by the interim rule.
The Coast Guard does not propose to
remove ‘‘SOLAS’’ from the title of 46
CFR 160.156 for rescue boats and fast
rescue boats because the Coast Guard
retained the domestic, locally approved
rescue boat standard in 46 CFR 160.056.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
§ 160.135–15(e)(2) and § 160.156–
15(e)(2) to include the reference to the
Revised recommendation on testing part
2, paragraph 5.3 and to remove the
redundant statement, ‘‘At a minimum,
each [lifeboat/rescue boat] must be
operated for 2 hours during which all
[lifeboat/rescue boat] systems must be
exercised.’’ Under existing § 160.135–
15(e)(2) and § 160.156–15(e)(2), the
Coast Guard expected all of the
production tests of IMO Revised
recommendation on testing part 2,
paragraph 5.3, as applicable to the type
of boat, to be performed on all approved
lifeboats and rescue boats. By amending
§ 160.135–15(e)(2) and § 160.156–
15(e)(2), the Coast Guard will make this
requirement clear. The requirement to
operate each production lifeboat and
rescue boat for 2 hours is already
included in the IMO Revised
recommendation on testing part 2
(incorporated by reference in § 160.135–
5 and § 160.156–5), paragraph 5.3, and
thus the Coast Guard proposes removal
of this sentence from § 160.135–15(e)(2)
and § 160.156–15(e)(2). Because of the
existing incorporation by reference of
the Revised recommendation on testing
in § 160.135–15 and § 160.156–15, these
sections would be added as approved
incorporations by reference in
§ 160.135–5(d)(4) and § 160.156–5(d)(4),
respectively.
The Coast Guard also proposes to
amend § 160.135–15(d), which sets forth
independent laboratory responsibilities,
by amending the reference to paragraph
(e)(2) so that it references all of
paragraph (e). This amendment would
correct a typographical error; § 160.135–
15(d) was intended to have the same
language as 46 CFR part 160, subpart
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
160.156–15(d), which correctly
references paragraph (e) in its entirety.
Without this correction, it may be
misinterpreted that the independent
laboratory does not have responsibility
for witnessing the lifeboat in-process
tests and inspections outlined in
§ 160.135–15(e)(1).
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
§ 160.135–15(e)(1)(iv) to correct the
typographical error referencing
§ 160.135–13(c)(2)(i)(B), which does not
exist, and replace it with the correct
reference, which is § 160.135–
11(c)(2)(i)(B).
Additionally, the Coast Guard
proposes to correct typographical errors
in § 160.156–7(b)(13), § 156–9(b)(22)(iv),
and § 156–9(d)(2) by replacing the word
‘‘lifeboat’’ with the correct term, ‘‘rescue
boat,’’ because § 160.156 applies to
rescue boats only. The Coast Guard also
proposes to amend § 160.156–15(e)(1)
by removing the phrase ‘‘In accordance
with the interval prescribed in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.’’ Part of
the Coast Guard’s original intent when
drafting this rule was consistency of
language throughout the affected
subparts where possible. This phrase
does not appear in any other subpart
affected by the interim rule and
inadvertently remained in 160.156–
15(e)(1) when the interim rule was
published. Removal of this phrase will
also eliminate the typographical error in
§ 160.156–15(e)(1) by removing
reference to § 160.156–15(d)(1), which
does not exist.
Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to
remove the cite to 49 CFR 1.46 in the
authorities section of part 160 and part
164 because that authority applies to the
Department of Transportation, under
which the Coast Guard no longer
operates. The Coast Guard currently
operates under the authority of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Proposed Impacts to Certificates of
Approval
If these proposed changes to
incorporate by reference IMO
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and
MSC.321(89) are finalized, any
manufacturer of SOLAS release
mechanisms who wants to continue to
manufacture such release mechanisms
under a Certificate of Approval issued
under existing subpart 160.133 would
have to provide the Coast Guard with an
application for pre-approval review in
accordance with § 160.133–23
(Procedure for approval of design,
material, or construction change). The
application would have to indicate how
the existing release mechanism, or a
new or revised design, meets the
requirements of proposed § 160.133–7
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
incorporating by reference the
amendments to the IMO LSA Code from
IMO Resolution MSC.320(89). If the
information submitted in accordance
with § 160.133–23, for changes to
existing designs, or § 160.133–9, for new
designs, is satisfactory to the
Commandant, the manufacturer would
be permitted to proceed with fabrication
of the prototype release mechanism and
the approval inspections and tests
required under proposed § 160.133–13
incorporating by reference the
amendments to the Revised
recommendation on testing from IMO
Resolution MSC.321(89). The Coast
Guard would document compliance
with Resolutions MSC.320(89) and
MSC.321(89) by means of amended
Certificates of Approval under subpart
160.133.
Similarly, if these proposed changes
are finalized, any manufacturer of davitlaunched lifeboats and those
manufacturers of SOLAS rescue boats or
fast rescue boats with installed release
mechanisms approved under existing
subpart 160.133 who want to continue
manufacturing such boats under a
Certificate of Approval issued under
subpart 160.135 or 160.156,
respectively, would have to provide the
Coast Guard with an application for preapproval review in accordance with
§ 160.135–23 or § 160.156–23
(Procedure for approval of design,
material, or construction change). This
application would have to indicate the
proposed installation of a release
mechanism meeting the requirements of
the proposed § 160.133–7 incorporating
by reference the amendments to the
IMO LSA Code from IMO Resolution
MSC.320(89). If the information
submitted in accordance with
§ 160.135–23 or § 160.156–23 is
satisfactory to the Commandant, the
manufacturer would be permitted to
proceed with fabrication of the
prototype lifeboat or rescue boat, and
would be notified of the extent of any
prototype testing needed for reissuance
of the Certificate of Approval under
160.135 or 160.156. The Coast Guard
would document compliance with
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and
MSC.321(89) by means of amended
Certificates of Approval under subparts
160.135 and 160.156 indicating
installation of a release mechanism
demonstrated to meet Resolutions
MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89).
VI. Incorporation by Reference
Material proposed for incorporation
by reference appears in proposed 46
CFR 160.133–5(c)(6) and (c)(7). You may
inspect this material at U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters where indicated under
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are
available from the sources listed in
paragraph (A) of that section.
Before publishing a final rule, the
Coast Guard will submit this material to
the Director of the Federal Register for
approval of the incorporation by
reference.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
The Coast Guard developed this
proposed rule after considering
numerous statutes and executive orders
related to rulemaking. Below the Coast
Guard summarizes its analyses based on
14 of these statutes or executive orders.
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 SNPRM has not been designated
a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the SNPRM has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget. A draft regulatory
assessment follows:
The proposed rule would amend the
existing regulations for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue
boats in order to harmonize Coast Guard
regulatory requirements with the
international standards established by
the IMO. The proposed rule specifically
requires U.S. standards regarding
design, construction, performance, and
testing of release mechanisms to be
harmonized to the IMO’s standards.
This harmonization is required—
• For the U.S. to comply with its
treaty obligations as a contracting
government to SOLAS by harmonizing
Coast Guard requirements for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue
boats with the international standards
established by the IMO LSA Code; and
• To clarify requirements and remove
inconsistencies between the
requirements for SOLAS compliance
and the sections of 46 CFR regulating
release mechanisms on lifeboats and
rescue boats.
In addition, the proposed rule would
add wording to 46 CFR 160.115–
7(b)(5)(i) that would clarify the Coast
Guard’s acceptance of non-grooved
winch drums as an alternative to
grooved drums on launching appliance
winches. Currently that section states,
‘‘A winch must have grooved drums
unless otherwise approved by the
Commandant.’’ The section would be
reworded to state, ‘‘Winch drums must
70395
either be grooved or otherwise designed
to wind the falls evenly on and off each
drum.’’ As such, this change clarifies
requirements by specifying criteria used
by the Coast Guard in historic approvals
directly in the regulations, thereby
reducing paperwork and regulatory
uncertainty. The proposed change in
§ 160.115–7(b)(5)(i) would not modify
the standard of design, performance, or
testing for winch drums. Approval
requests for non-grooved winch drums
are a component of the application
process for all winch drums (grooved
and non-grooved), along with many
other lifesaving appliances (i.e., davits,
lifeboats, etc.), that must be approved by
the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard
estimates that any time saved associated
with this clarification to the winch
drum approvals would be minimal. In
addition, there are already
manufacturers of non-grooved or
smooth winch drums. For these reasons,
there are no cost implications for
industry from the rewording of
§ 160.115–7(b)(5)(i). The purpose of the
modification of the wording in
§ 160.115–7(b)(5)(i) is to clarify the
Coast Guard’s criteria for acceptance of
non-grooved or smooth winch drums as
an alternative to grooved drums.
Table 1 provides a summary of the
proposed rule’s applicability, affected
population, costs, and benefits. Each of
these factors is discussed in greater
depth in the sections following the
table.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Category
Summary
Applicability ..................................
U.S. manufacturers of release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats, U.S. manufacturers of nongrooved or smooth winch drums, and U.S.-flagged vessels required by the Coast Guard to carry lifeboats
and rescue boats.
One U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms, five U.S. manufacturers of non-grooved or smooth winch
drums, 102 non-SOLAS-certified vessels, 289 SOLAS-certified vessels.
None.
None.
Benefits Associated with Harmonizing Standards:
• Fulfilling U.S. treaty obligations to the IMO;
• USCG and vessel owners and operators would face less uncertainty and more efficient USCG inspections;
• Manufacturers and users of non-grooved or smooth winch drums will face less uncertainty regarding the
Coast Guard criteria for approval of non-grooved or smooth winch drums.
Affected Population .....................
Costs ...........................................
Quantified Benefits ......................
Qualitative Benefits .....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Affected Population and Cost Impacts
The proposed rule would potentially
affect three groups. The first consists of
U.S. manufacturers of release
mechanisms, the second consists of
vessels that are required to be equipped
with lifeboats or rescue boats, and the
third consists of U.S. manufacturers of
non-grooved or smooth winch drums.
There is currently only one U.S.
manufacturer of release mechanisms for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
lifeboats and rescue boats.1 This
manufacturer is, however, in the process
of phasing out production of the release
mechanisms manufactured from
galvanized steel or its equivalent (as
1 Manufacturers of release mechanisms are
currently required to test their mechanisms and file
the results with the Coast Guard. Coast Guard
records indicate that there is only one U.S.-based
manufacturer of these mechanisms.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
required under current regulations) 2
2 The Coast Guard regulation currently in place
does not require the use of galvanized steel, per se,
but permits a regulatory equivalent to galvanized
steel that does not necessarily have to be
manufactured of galvanized steel. The current
§ 160.133–7(b)(3), the section of the regulation
dealing with the ‘‘design, construction, and
performance of release mechanisms’’ describes the
regulatory equivalent as follows: ‘‘Each major
structural component of each release mechanism
must be constructed of steel. Other materials may
be used if accepted by the Commandant as
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
Continued
26NOP1
70396
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
before January 1, 2013. This
manufacturer, which is also the only
known manufacturer of galvanized steel
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue
boats in the U.S., will be manufacturing
only stainless-steel release mechanisms,
manufactured from corrosion-resistant
materials and without the need for
galvanizing (or its equivalent), 3 and
complying with the latest IMO
requirements, before that date. The
manufacturer is planning this phase-out
because it expects the market for
galvanized steel mechanisms approved
to the current requirements to
disappear.4 Because the manufacturer’s
phase-out will occur independently of
whether the proposed rule is
implemented, the manufacturer would
experience no additional cost impact
due to this proposed rule. If the
proposed rule is implemented, the
manufacturer, by the time of the
proposed rule’s implementation, will
have already incurred the cost of the
switchover from the galvanized steel
mechanisms to those manufactured with
corrosion-resistant material without the
need for galvanizing. The decision will
have been made based on expected
changes in market conditions and will
equivalent or superior. Sheet steel and plate must
be low-carbon, commercial quality, either corrosion
resistant or galvanized as per ASTM A 653
(incorporated by reference, see § 160.133–5 of this
subpart), coating designation G115. Structural steel
plates and shapes must be carbon steel as per
ASTM A 36 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 160.133–5 of this subpart). All steel products,
except corrosion-resistant steel, must be galvanized
to provide high-quality zinc coatings suitable for
the intended service life in a marine environment.
Each fabricated part must be galvanized after
fabrication. Corrosion-resistant steel must be a type
302 stainless steel per ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313
or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 160.133–5 of this subpart) or another corrosionresistant stainless steel of equal or superior
corrosion-resistant characteristics’’. In this
regulatory analysis, the term ‘‘galvanized steel
release mechanisms’’ will also refer to those that
may not necessarily be manufactured of galvanized
steel but are the equivalent thereof as defined
above.
3 The proposed regulation does not require only
the use of stainless steel, per se, but also permits
a regulatory equivalent to such a stainless steel
mechanism that does not necessarily have to be
manufactured of stainless steel. § 167.133–7(b)(3),
the section of the regulation dealing with the
‘‘design, construction, and performance of release
mechanisms’’, states: ‘‘Each major structural
component of each release mechanism must be
constructed of steel. Corrosion-resistant steel must
be a type 302 stainless steel per ASTM A 276,
ASTM A 313 or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by
reference, see § 160.133–5 of this subpart). Other
corrosion-resistant materials may be used if
accepted by the Commandant as having equivalent
or superior corrosion-resistant characteristics.’’ In
this regulatory analysis, the term ‘‘stainless steel’’
release mechanisms will also refer to those that may
not necessarily be manufactured of stainless steel
but are the equivalent thereof as defined in the
proposed regulation.
4 Information provided to the Coast Guard by
telephone, June 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
also be in compliance with the new IMO
requirements.
There are a total of five potential
manufacturers of non-grooved or
smooth winch drums.5 As stated
previously, the proposed regulation
would not modify production, design,
or testing standards associated with
these winch drums, nor would it change
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements surrounding their sale or
use. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not
expect there would be any cost or
collection of information implications to
U.S. manufacturers.
Based on data from the Coast Guard’s
Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database, the
Coast Guard estimates the total number
of vessels affected by the proposed rule
to be 391, of which 289 6 are SOLAS
certified (hereinafter referred to as
SOLAS vessels), and 102 are nonSOLAS. 7 This proposed rule would
require these vessels to comply with
new IMO requirements and use release
mechanisms made from corrosionresistant materials without the need for
galvanizing (or regulatory equivalent),
instead of a galvanized steel release
mechanism (or regulatory equivalent)
for any future replacements of on-load
release mechanisms installed in existing
life or rescue boats. Release mechanisms
currently in place would not need to be
replaced except in two limited
circumstances. These are:
(1) Accidents that result in the
damage of the mechanisms themselves
or accidents that damage lifeboats and
rescue boats seriously enough to require
replacement.8 A search was conducted
of the MISLE database system for such
accidents from 2003 through 2011.
Based on accidents found during this
period, six release mechanisms were
estimated to need replacement on
SOLAS vessels and six on non-SOLAS
vessels. This yields an average of less
than one release mechanism needing
replacement per annum. In all of these
5 Estimated based on data provided by
manufacturers of winch drums to the U.S. Coast
Guard for the required approval of their winch
drums. This data was found in the U.S. Coast
Guard’s Maritime Information Exchange database
under the equipment approved for § 160.115 (winch
drums). In this database the Coast Guard does not
break out approvals given for winch drums by
grooved and non-grooved or smooth construction.
The data is for all winch drums. Hence, it is a
maximum potential number of manufacturers of all
winch drum (both grooved and non-grooved)
manufacturers.
6 Data source: Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement (MISLE) system.
7 Id.
8 New lifeboats and rescue boats are equipped
with new release mechanisms as standard
equipment. This was the consensus of the Coast
Guard and private sector subject matter experts.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
accidents, there was only one accident
that resulted in injuries, and these
injuries were slight.9
(2) Release mechanisms may need to
be replaced due to their deterioration
from normal wear and tear. However,
both private sector and Coast Guard
subject matter experts have stated that
the lifespans of both galvanized and
stainless-steel mechanisms generally
exceed the lifespan of the lifeboats and
rescue boats on which they are carried.
Therefore, the Coast Guard does not
expect any replacements resulting from
deterioration or normal wear and tear.10
Lifeboats and rescue boats installed
on or after the implementation of the
final rule by in-scope vessel owners and
operators would need to meet the
requirements in IMO resolutions
MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) in order
to obtain SOLAS certification.
Therefore, the proposed rule would not
have any additional cost impact to this
class of vessels. The non-SOLAS vessels
would have to upgrade to the nongalvanized, corrosion-resistant
mechanisms compliant with the new
requirements whenever they need to
replace any mechanisms in the future
for either of the reasons cited above, or
for newly constructed lifeboats and
rescue boats.
If release mechanisms meeting both
the current and the new requirements
were available, the Coast Guard assumes
vessel owners and operators would
purchase the less-expensive of the two,
those meeting the current requirements.
Release mechanisms approved to the
current requirements (such as those
made of galvanized steel) were found to
be $1,500 less-expensive, per unit, than
those meeting the new requirements
(corrosion-resistant mechanisms).11 As
stated above, however, the one supplier
of galvanized steel on-load release
mechanisms is expected to stop
manufacturing them before the
proposed rule would take effect on
January 1, 2013. Foreign entities that
have manufactured these mechanisms
have also, based on our research,
discontinued manufacturing them.12
Therefore, the galvanized steel
9 The four were sent to the hospital for
examinations but all four went back to work the
same day.
10 It should be noted that depreciation and normal
wear and tear do not include accidents.
11 This same cost differential was obtained from
two separate and independent industry sources.
One source, as of March 2012, is producing both the
stainless steel and galvanized steel mechanisms
while the second is not currently producing both
mechanisms, but cited a price difference that
existed when it produced both.
12 Based on telephone discussions with numerous
distributors and manufacturers of release
mechanisms in the U.S.
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mechanisms (or their equivalent) will
no longer be available for purchase.
Only the non-galvanized, corrosionresistant mechanisms that are in
compliance with the IMO requirements
will be available. The single U.S.
manufacturer is phasing out the
galvanized steel mechanisms
irrespective of whether the proposed
rule is enacted. The single U.S.
manufacturer is planning this phase-out
because it no longer sees a future market
for the galvanized steel mechanisms.13
As a result, consumers will be able to
purchase only the corrosion-resistant
mechanisms.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Benefits
The proposed rule would amend the
existing regulations for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue
boats in order to harmonize Coast Guard
regulatory requirements with the
international standards established by
the IMO. The harmonization specifically
requires U.S. standards regarding
design, construction, performance, and
testing of release mechanisms to be
harmonized to the IMO’s standards.
Benefits from the harmonization of
the Coast Guard regulatory requirements
to the IMO standards include the
following:
(1) Fulfilling U.S. treaty obligations to
the IMO;
(2) The Coast Guard and vessel
owners and operators would face less
uncertainty and more efficient Coast
Guard inspections during vessel
inspections because only one type of
release mechanism would have to be
inspected as opposed to two.
(3) The inclusion of performance
criteria for approval of non-grooved or
smooth winch drums to the language
contained in § 160.115–7(b)(5)(i), and
the addition of proposed new
§ 160.155–13(d)(4), reduces any
uncertainty to U.S.-based manufacturers
and users of such winch drums. If the
proposed regulation is finalized, it will
be clear that such products, when
approved by the Coast Guard, will be
equivalent to grooved winch drums in
terms of performance.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Coast Guard has
considered whether this proposed rule
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’
comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields, and
13 Information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
supplied by U.S. manufacturer.
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of fewer than 50,000.
There are three industries that may
potentially face a direct cost resulting
from the proposed rule. The first
industry consists of the single U.S.
manufacturer of release mechanisms.
The second industry consists of the five
manufacturers of winch drums. The
third industry consists of owners and
operators of vessels equipped with inscope lifeboats and rescue boats. Based
on data from the Coast Guard’s Marine
Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database, the
Coast Guard estimates the total number
of vessels affected by the proposed rule
to be 391, of which 289 14 are SOLAS
certified and 102 are non-SOLAS. 15 The
Coast Guard has determined that a
significant number of small entities in
these three industries will not be
substantially impacted and the
explanation for this determination
appears in the paragraphs that follow.
With respect to the single U.S.
manufacturer of release mechanisms,
the Coast Guard does not expect that
there would be any cost impact because,
as stated previously, prior to January 1,
2013, the only U.S. manufacturer of the
galvanized steel mechanisms is
planning to discontinue manufacturing
them.16 Based on our research (as of
March 2012), there are no manufacturers
of galvanized steel release mechanisms
(or their equivalent) outside of the U.S.
Therefore, the galvanized steel
mechanisms (or their equivalent) will
no longer be available for purchase.
Only the non-galvanized, corrosionresistant mechanisms that are in
compliance with the IMO requirements
will be available. The single U.S.
manufacturer is phasing out the
galvanized steel mechanisms
irrespective of whether the proposed
rule is enacted. The single U.S.
manufacturer is planning this phase-out
because it no longer sees a future market
for the galvanized steel mechanisms.17
With respect to the five U.S.
manufacturers of winch drums, as stated
previously, the proposed regulation will
not modify the requirements regarding
production, design, or testing standards
for non-grooved and smooth winch
drums. The proposed regulation will
also not impose further reporting
burdens on manufacturers. This is
because there is no specific application,
per se, regarding non-grooved and
14 Data source: Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement (MISLE) system.
15 Id.
16 Based on telephone conversation with the
manufacturer held in June 2012.
17 Information supplied by U.S. manufacturer.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70397
smooth drums that must be sent to the
Coast Guard and processed by the Coast
Guard. Approval requests for nongrooved winch drums are a component
of the application process for all winch
drums (grooved and non-grooved), along
with many other lifesaving appliances
(i.e., davits, lifeboats, etc.), that must be
approved by the Coast Guard.
With respect to the in-scope owners
and operators of vessels, the marginal
additional cost stemming from the
requirements to fulfill the proposed rule
are expected to be minimal. This is
because, as stated previously, regardless
of whether or not the proposed rule is
implemented (i.e., independent thereof),
prior to the implementation of the
proposed rule the cheaper galvanized
steel release mechanisms will no longer
be available in the market place. The
single U.S. manufacturer will no longer
be manufacturing galvanized steel
release mechanisms. Thus vessel
owners will only be able to purchase
stainless steel release mechanisms.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule, if promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment to the Docket
Management Facility at the address
under ADDRESSES. In your comment,
explain why you think it qualifies and
how and to what degree this proposed
rule would economically affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
the Coast Guard wants to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed
rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the
rulemaking. If the proposed rule would
affect your small business, organization,
or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance,
please consult Mr. George Grills,
Commercial Regulations and Standards
Directorate, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and
Fire Safety Division (CG–ENG–4), Coast
Guard; telephone 202–372–13851385, or
email George.G.Grills@uscg.mil. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this proposed rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
70398
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520) nor would it adjust
an existing collection of information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 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 among the various levels of
government. The Coast Guard has
analyzed this proposed rule under that
order and has determined that it does
not have implications for federalism. A
summary of our analysis follows.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long
recognized the field preemptive impact
of the Federal regulatory regime for
inspected vessels. See, e.g., Kelly v.
Washington ex rel Foss, 302 U.S. 1
(1937) and the consolidated cases of
United States v. Locke and Intertanko v.
Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 113–116 (2000).
Therefore, the Coast Guard’s view is that
regulations issued under the authority
of 46 U.S.C. 3306 in the areas of design,
construction, alteration, repair,
operation, superstructures, hulls,
fittings, equipment, appliances,
propulsion machinery, auxiliary
machinery, boilers, unfired pressure
vessels, piping, electric installations,
accommodations for passengers and
crew, sailing school instructors, sailing
school students, lifesaving equipment
and its use, firefighting equipment, its
use and precautionary measures to
guard against fire, inspections and tests
related to these areas, and the use of
vessel stores and other supplies of a
dangerous nature have preemptive effect
over State regulation in these fields,
regardless of whether the Coast Guard
has issued regulations on the subject,
and regardless of the existence of
conflict between the state and Coast
Guard regulation.
While it is well settled that states may
not regulate in categories in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be
the sole source of a vessel’s obligations,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
as these categories are within a field
foreclosed from regulation by the states
(see U.S. v. Locke, above), the Coast
Guard recognizes the key role State and
local governments may have in making
regulatory determinations. Additionally,
Sections 4 and 6 of Executive Order
13132 require that for any rules with
preemptive effect, the Coast Guard will
provide elected officials of affected state
and local governments and their
representative national organizations
the notice and opportunity for
appropriate participation in any
rulemaking proceedings, and to consult
with such officials early in the
rulemaking process. Therefore, the
Coast Guard invites affected 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
docket using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. In
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
the Coast Guard will provide a
federalism impact statement to
document (1) the extent of the Coast
Guard’s consultation with State and
local officials that submit comments to
this proposed rule, (2) a summary of the
nature of any concerns raised by State
or local governments and the Coast
Guard’s position thereon, and (3) a
statement of the extent to which the
concerns of State and local officials
have been 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 1 year. Although this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, the Coast Guard does
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in the preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
I. Protection of Children
The Coast Guard has analyzed this
proposed rule under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an
economically significant rule and would
not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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
The Coast Guard has analyzed this
proposed rule under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Coast Guard
has determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under that
order because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
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 the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule uses technical
standards other than voluntary
consensus standards:
• International Life-Saving Appliance
Code, (IMO Resolution MSC.48(66)), as
amended by IMO Resolution
MSC.320(89);
• IMO Resolution MSC.81(70),
Revised recommendation on testing of
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
life-saving appliances, as amended by
IMO Resolution MSC.321(89).
The proposed sections that reference
these standards and the locations where
these standards are available are listed
in 46 CFR 160.133–5. They are used
because we did not find voluntary
consensus standards that are applicable
to this rule. If you are aware of
voluntary consensus standards that
might apply, please identify them by
sending a comment to the docket using
one of the methods under ADDRESSES. In
your comment, please explain why you
think the standards might apply.
If you disagree with our analysis of
the voluntary consensus standards
listed above or are aware of voluntary
consensus standards that might apply
but are not listed, please send a
comment to the docket using one of the
methods under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, please explain why you
disagree with the Coast Guard’s analysis
and/or identify voluntary consensus
standards not listed that might apply.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec.
608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
Section 608 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–
281) adds new section 2118 to 46 U.S.C.
Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen),
Chapter 21 (General). New section
2118(a) sets forth requirements for
standards established for approved
equipment required on vessels subject
to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and
Seamen), Part B (Inspection and
Regulation of Vessels). Those standards
must be ‘‘(1) based on performance
using the best available technology that
is economically achievable; and (2)
operationally practical.’’ See 46 U.S.C.
2118(a). This proposed rule addresses
lifesaving equipment for Coast Guard
approval that is required on vessels
subject to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Part B,
and the Coast Guard has ensured that
this proposed rule would satisfy the
requirements of 46 U.S.C. 2118(a), as
necessary.
N. Environment
The Coast Guard has analyzed this
proposed 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 preliminary 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 preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
available in the docket where indicated
under the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’’ section of this
preamble. This proposed rule involves
regulations that are editorial, regulations
concerning equipping of vessels, and
regulations concerning vessel operation
safety standards. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded under Section
2.B.2, Figure 2–1, paragraphs (34)(a) and
(d) of the Instruction and under
paragraph 6(a) of the ‘‘Appendix to
National Environmental Policy Act:
Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical
Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency
Policy’’ (67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002).
The Coast Guard seeks any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 160
Marine safety, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 164
Fire prevention, Marine safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 46 CFR parts 160 and 164 as
follows:
PART 160—LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 160
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703 and
4302; E.O. 12234; 45 FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Subpart 160.115—Launching
Appliances—Winches
2. In § 160.115–7, revise paragraph
(b)(5)(i) to read as follows:
§ 160.115–7 Design, construction, and
performance of winches.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Winch drums must either be
grooved or otherwise designed to wind
the falls evenly on and off each drum.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 160.115–13, add new
paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
§ 160.115–13 Approval instructions and
tests for prototype winches.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(4) Winch drum. Each winch designed
without grooved drums must
demonstrate during prototype testing
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70399
that the falls wind evenly on and off
each drum.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart 160.133 [Amended]
4. Amend the title to Subpart 160.133
by removing the word ‘‘(SOLAS)’’.
Subpart 160.133—Release
Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue
Boats
§ 160.133–3
[Amended]
5. In § 160.133–3, in the introductory
text, after the words ‘‘IMO LSA Code’’,
add the words ‘‘, as amended by
Resolution MSC.320(89)’’.
6. Amend § 160.133–5 as follows:
a. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(5);
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2),
(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6) as paragraphs
(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4),
respectively;
c. In paragraph (c)(3), after the words
‘‘Revised recommendation on testing
of’’, remove the words ‘‘live-saving’’ and
add, in their place, the words ‘‘lifesaving’’; and
d. Add paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) to
read as follows:
§ 160.133–5
Incorporation by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(6) Annex 4 to MSC 89/25, Report of
the Maritime Safety Committee on its
Eighty-Ninth Session, ‘‘Resolution
MSC.320(89), Adoption of Amendments
to the International Life-Saving
Appliance (LSA) Code,’’ (adopted May
20, 2011), IBR approved for §§ 160.133–
3, 160.133–5(c)(6), 160.133–7(d)(1),
160.133–7(b)(8), and 160.133–7(b)(9)
(Resolution MSC.320(89)).
(7) Annex 5 to MSC 89/25, Report of
the Maritime Safety Committee on its
Eighty-Ninth Session, ‘‘Resolution
MSC.321(89), Adoption of Amendments
to the Revised Recommendation on
Testing of Life-Saving Appliances
(Resolution MSC.81(70)),’’ (adopted
May 20, 2011), IBR approved for
§§ 160.133–5(c)(7), 160.133–7(a)(2), and
160.133–13(d)(2) (Resolution
MSC.321(89)).
7. Amend § 160.133–7 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1), after the words
‘‘IMO LSA Code,’’ add the words ‘‘as
amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),’’;
b. In paragraph (a)(2), after the words
‘‘IMO Revised recommendation on
testing,’’ add the words ‘‘as amended by
Resolution MSC.321(89),’’;
c. Revise paragraph (b)(3) as set out
below;
d. In paragraph (b)(8), after the words
‘‘required by’’, add the word ‘‘IMO’’,
and after the words ‘‘LSA Code’’, add
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
70400
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the words ‘‘, as amended by Resolution
MSC.320(89),’’;
e. In paragraph (b)(9), after the words
‘‘required by’’, add the word ‘‘IMO’’,
and after the words ‘‘LSA Code’’, add
the words ‘‘, as amended by Resolution
MSC.320(89),’’; and
f. Remove paragraph (b)(15).
§ 160.133–7 Design, construction, and
performance of release mechanisms.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Steel. Each major structural
component of each release mechanism
must be constructed of corrosionresistant steel. Corrosion-resistant steel
must be a type 302 stainless steel per
ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313 or ASTM A
314 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 160.133–5 of this subpart). Other
corrosion-resistant materials may be
used if accepted by the Commandant as
having equivalent or superior corrosionresistant characteristics;
*
*
*
*
*
§ 160.133–13
[Amended]
8. Amend § 160.133–13 as follows:
a. In paragraph (d)(2), after the words
‘‘tests described in IMO Revised
recommendation on testing,’’ add the
words ‘‘as amended by Resolution
MSC.321(89),’’ and after the words
‘‘with these paragraphs of IMO Revised
recommendation on testing,’’ add the
words ‘‘as amended by Resolution
MSC.321(89),’’;
b. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(iii); and
c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2)(iv),
(d)(2)(v), and (d)(2)(vi) as paragraphs
(d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), and (d)(2)(v),
respectively.
§ 160.133–15
[Amended]
9. In § 160.133–15, amend paragraph
(e) by removing the words, ‘‘Each
approved release mechanism
constructed with non-corrosionresistant steel must be confirmed to
have met the coating mass and bend
tests requirement specified under ASTM
A 653 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 160.133–5 of this subpart) after
galvanizing or other anti-corrosion
treatment has been applied. This
compliance can be ascertained through
a supplier’s certification papers or
through conducting actual tests.’’
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Subpart 160.135 [Amended]
10. Amend the title to Subpart
160.135 by removing the word
‘‘(SOLAS)’’.
[Amended]
11. In § 160.135–5, amend paragraph
(d)(4) by removing the word ‘‘and’’ and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Nov 23, 2012
§ 160.135–15 Production inspections,
tests, quality control, and conformance of
lifeboats.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) Post assembly tests and
inspections. The finished lifeboat must
be visually inspected inside and out.
The manufacturer must develop and
maintain a visual inspection checklist
designed to ensure that all applicable
requirements have been met and the
lifeboat is equipped in accordance with
approved plans. Each production
lifeboat of each design must pass each
of the tests described in the IMO
Revised recommendation on testing,
part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated by
reference, see § 160.135–5 of this
subpart).
§ 160.156–5
[Amended]
13. In § 160.156–5, amend paragraph
(d)(4) by removing the word ‘‘and’’ and
adding, in its place, the punctuation ‘‘,’’,
and, after the numbers ‘‘160.156–13’’,
adding the words ‘‘, and 160.156–15’’.
§ 160.156–7
[Amended]
14. In § 160.156–7, amend paragraph
(b)(13) by removing the word ‘‘lifeboat’’
and adding, in its place, the words
‘‘rescue boat’’.
§ 160.156–9
[Amended]
15. Amend § 160.156–9 as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(22)(iv), remove the
word ‘‘lifeboat’’ and add, in its place,
the words ‘‘rescue boat’’; and
b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the
word ‘‘lifeboat’’ and add, in its place,
the words ‘‘rescue boat’’.
16. Amend § 160.156–15 as follows:
a. In paragraph (e)(1), remove the
words ‘‘In accordance with the interval
prescribed in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, each’’ and add, in their place,
the word ‘‘Each’’; and
b. Revise paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 160.156–15 Production inspections,
tests, quality control, and conformance of
rescue boats and fast rescue boats.
Subpart 160.135—Lifeboats
§ 160.135–5
adding, in its place, the punctuation ‘‘,’’,
and, after the numbers ‘‘160.135–13’’,
adding the words ‘‘, and 160.135–15’’.
12. Amend § 160.135–15 as follows:
a. In paragraph (d), remove the word
‘‘(e)(2)’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘(e)’’;
b. In paragraph (e)(1)(iv), remove the
reference ‘‘§ 160.135–13(c)(2)(i)(B)’’ and
add, in its place, the reference
‘‘§ 160.135–11(c)(2)(i)(B)’’; and
c. Revise paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
Jkt 229001
*
*
*
(e) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00020
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
(2) Post assembly tests and
inspections. The finished rescue boat
must be visually inspected inside and
out. The manufacturer must develop
and maintain a visual inspection
checklist designed to ensure that all
applicable requirements have been met
and the rescue boat is equipped in
accordance with approved plans. Each
production rescue boat of each design
must pass each of the tests described in
the IMO Revised recommendation on
testing, part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated
by reference, see § 160.156–5 of this
subpart).
PART 164—MATERIALS
17. The authority citation for part 164
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302; E.O.
12234;; 45 FR 58801;; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
Dated: November 15, 2012.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012–28492 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 63
[IB Docket No. 12–299; FCC 12–125]
Reform of Rules and Policies on
Foreign Carrier Entry Into the U.S.
Telecommunications Market
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission is proposing to make
changes to the criteria under which it
considers applications and notifications
from foreign carriers or affiliates of
foreign carriers for entry into the U.S.
market for international
telecommunications services and
facilities under section 214 of
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the ‘‘Act’’) and section 2 of
the Cable Landing License Act. By this
document, the Commission seeks to
eliminate outdated or unnecessary rules,
simplify rules that it may retain, reduce
regulatory costs and burdens imposed
on applicants, and improve
transparency with respect to filing
requirements of the ECO Test. It also
seeks to promote competition to achieve
greater decisional flexibility in
evaluating applications and
notifications, and continue to protect
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM
26NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70390-70400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28492]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 160 and 164
[Docket No. USCG-2010-0048]
RIN 1625-AB46
Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the interim rule addressing
lifesaving equipment to harmonize Coast Guard regulations concerning
release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats with recently adopted
international standards affecting design, performance, and testing for
such lifesaving equipment, and to clarify the requirements concerning
grooved drums in launching appliance winches. The Coast Guard seeks
comments on this proposal.
DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via https://www.regulations.gov on or before January 25,
2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0048 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
Viewing incorporation by reference material: You may inspect the
material proposed for incorporation by reference at U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 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 proposed
rule, call or email Mr. George Grills, Commercial Regulations and
Standards Directorate, Office of Design and Engineering Standards,
Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone
202-372-1385, email 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 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Regulatory History
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
N. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have provided.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0048), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
[[Page 70391]]
these means. The Coast Guard recommends that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that the Coast Guard can contact you if it has
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG- 2010-0048'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search.''
Click on ``Submit a Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\; by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on
your comments.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2010-0048'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search.''
Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting 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. The Coast Guard has an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
D. Public Meeting
The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. You may
submit a request for one to the docket using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard determines that
one would aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
II. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
LSA Life-saving Appliance
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement database
MSC Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime
Organization
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended
Sec. Section symbol
USCG United States Coast Guard
III. Regulatory History
On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim rule
titled, ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization
With International Standards'' (interim rule) in the Federal Register.
See 76 FR 62962. As part of that interim rule, which became effective
on November 10, 2011, the Coast Guard issued new subparts of 46 CFR
part 160, including subpart 160.115 addressing launching appliance
winches, and subpart 160.133 addressing release mechanisms for
lifeboats and rescue boats, which are approved to the requirements of
the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended (SOLAS).
The Coast Guard issued an interim rule because in May 2011, the
International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee
(MSC) amended its international standards regarding release mechanisms.
See 76 FR 62962.
Additionally in the interim rule, the Coast Guard announced plans
to publish in a future Federal Register document proposed changes to
Coast Guard regulations to implement the IMO amendments regarding
performance requirements for lifeboat and rescue boat release
mechanisms that the Coast Guard determines appropriate for purposes of
harmonization and consistency with international standards, and to
finalize the interim rule at the same time the Coast Guard issues any
final rule for those proposed changes. 76 FR 62962.
The Coast Guard is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) to address amendments to international standards
affecting the design and performance of release mechanisms that were
adopted by the IMO, and that will enter into force on January 1, 2013.
The IMO amendments to the international standards affect 46 CFR part
160, subpart 160.133. The interim rule removed longstanding separate
subparts for release mechanisms (46 CFR 160.033) and lifeboats (46 CFR
160.035) approved strictly for domestic service. 76 FR 62975.
Therefore, this SNPRM potentially affects any U.S.-flagged vessel
required to carry a lifeboat after the finalization of this proposed
rule.
IV. Background
As discussed in the ``Basis and Purpose'' section of the interim
rule, 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,
including those found in SOLAS, Chapter III, ``Life-saving appliances
and arrangements.'' See 46 U.S.C. 3306; 76 FR 62963. 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.
The Coast Guard's specific standards for release mechanisms are
found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133 (Release Mechanisms for
Lifeboats and Rescue Boats (SOLAS)). Subpart 160.133 implements current
SOLAS requirements for lifeboat release mechanisms by incorporating by
reference the IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS. The
primary IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS are the
``International Life-saving Appliance Code,'' IMO Resolution
MSC.48(66), as amended (hereinafter ``IMO LSA Code''), and the
``Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances,'' IMO
Resolution MSC.81(70), as amended (hereinafter ``Revised recommendation
on testing''). The IMO updates these standards by adopting MSC
Resolutions promulgating amendments to these standards.
Subpart 160.133 incorporates by reference the latest published
version of the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing.
Sections 160.133-5(c)(2) and (c)(3) incorporate by reference the parts
of IMO's publication ``Life-saving Appliances, 2010 Edition'' that
include the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation
[[Page 70392]]
on testing. The ``Life-saving Appliances, 2010 Edition'' includes all
amendments to the IMO LSA Code and Revised recommendation on testing
adopted through 2010. These amendments are discussed in the NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2010, titled
``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization with
International Standards.'' See 75 FR 53458.
On May 20, 2011, IMO adopted two new MSC Resolutions further
amending the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing:
IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), ``Adoption of amendments to the
International Life-saving Appliance (LSA) Code,'' and IMO Resolution
MSC.321(89), ``Adoption of amendments to the Revised Recommendation on
Testing of Life-saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)), as
amended.''
Resolution MSC.320(89) amends the IMO LSA Code and enters into
force on January 1, 2013. This Resolution amends the design and
performance requirements for release mechanisms by requiring--
The hook portion to be ``stable'' such that when the hook
is in the closed and reset position and under load from the lifeboat,
no forces are transmitted back to the release handle;
specific components within the system to be made of
corrosion-resistant materials without the need for galvanizing;
that, for moveable hook designs that are not of the ``load
over center'' type (i.e., that are designed to rotate when a load is
applied to the hook face), the moveable hook component is kept fully
closed by the hook locking parts so that it is capable of holding its
safe working load under any operational conditions until the hook
locking part is deliberately caused to open by means of the operating
mechanism;
that if a hydrostatic interlock or similar device is
provided to indicate that the lifeboat or rescue boat is waterborne, it
automatically resets upon lifting the boat from the water;
multiple actions to perform on-load release, including the
deliberate destruction of a ``break glass'' or similar arrangement;
operational capability of up to 100 percent of the release
hook's design load under conditions of trim of up to 10 degrees and a
list of up to 20 degrees either way;
release mechanisms of the hook tail and cam type to remain
closed and hold their design load through rotation of the cam of up to
45 degrees in either direction, or 45 degrees in one direction if
restricted by design, from its locked position; and
operating links and cables to be waterproof and not have
exposed or unprotected areas.
Resolution MSC.321(89) amends the Revised recommendation on testing
and enters into force on January 1, 2013. This Resolution specifies
revisions to the prototype testing of release mechanisms supporting the
amendments to the IMO LSA Code. The revisions to the testing include:
a demonstration that the moveable hook component, when
disconnected from the operating mechanism, remains closed while under a
load equivalent to the B-weight of a lifeboat (see ``Full load''
definition in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.135-3) at a speed of 5
knots.
a demonstration that a lifeboat release mechanism loaded
at 100 percent of the design load of the release hook will successfully
release under load 50 consecutive times, as well as simultaneously in
the case of twin-fall systems;
a demonstration that the moveable hook component, when
disconnected from the operating mechanism, remains closed when tested
10 times with a cyclical loading from no load to 110 percent of the
design load, or 1 percent to 110 percent of design load for load over
center designs, at 10 seconds per cycle;
a demonstration that the actuating force under the design
load of the release mechanism is between 100 N and 300 N (22.5 lbf and
67.5 lbf); and
prototype testing of a second unit, repeating the
actuation force test before undergoing a tensile test at six times the
design safe working load.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise subpart 160.133 to incorporate
by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89). Beyond the
obligations to adopt the changes to the IMO LSA Code and Revised
recommendation on testing as a signatory to the SOLAS convention, the
Coast Guard desires to incorporate by reference the amendments in IMO
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) because they provide a higher
standard of safety and performance than that of the existing
requirements incorporated by reference in Sec. 160.133-5. Further, for
manufacturers, harmonization with current international standards will
facilitate marketing of their products internationally.
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 the design and performance of release mechanisms and to be
appropriate for lifeboats and rescue boats 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.-flagged ships with the IMO
standards as compliance with Coast Guard domestic regulations.
The effect of this proposed change would be that all davit-launched
lifeboats for Coast Guard approval under subpart 160.135, and SOLAS
rescue boats and fast rescue boats for Coast Guard approval under
subpart 160.156 (other than those fitted with automatic release hooks
under approval series 160.170), would be required to have a release
mechanism approved under this revised subpart 160.133. See Sec.
160.135-7(b)(17) (``Each release mechanism must be identified at the
application for approval of the prototype lifeboat and must be approved
under 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133'') and 160.156-7(b)(18) (``Each
release mechanism fitted to a rescue boat, including a fast rescue
boat, must be identified at the application for approval of the
prototype rescue boat and must be approved under subparts 160.133 or
160.170 of this part.''). Davit-launched lifeboats and SOLAS rescue
boats and fast rescue boats already installed prior to the
implementation of this SNPRM will not be affected.
Beyond the new IMO Resolutions discussed above, the Coast Guard is
also proposing amendments to Sec. 160.115 to clarify the winch drum
design requirements, and editorial amendments to correct non-
substantive errors in 46 CFR part 160, subparts 160.133, 160.135, and
160.156.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Revision to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart 160.115
The Coast Guard proposes to replace 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with
text that requires winch drums to either be grooved or otherwise
designed to wind the falls evenly on and off each drum. The Coast Guard
is proposing to make this change because winch drum designs are
increasingly being shown to be effective at winding the falls on and
off the drum without grooves, (i.e., winch drums with a smooth drum
design instead of the traditional grooved drum design). The proposed
change in Sec. 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) does not modify the
[[Page 70393]]
standard of design or performance for winch drums. Rather, the proposed
change is intended to clarify the current regulation text which
requires drums to be grooved ``unless otherwise approved by the
Commandant.'' The primary standard by which the Coast Guard evaluates
the design and performance of launching appliances, IMO LSA Code
Chapter VI, ``Launching and embarkation appliances'' (referenced in
Sec. 160.115-7(a)(1)), does not require drums to be grooved, but
requires the falls to wind evenly on and off the drum(s).
For many years, the Coast Guard has approved winches with smooth
drums under approval series 160.115 as providing equivalent performance
to grooved drums. However, there remains some confusion on the
interpretation of existing Sec. 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with respect to the
approval of winches without grooved drums. The Coast Guard believes
this proposed change would reduce confusion about the Coast Guard's
criteria for acceptance of non-grooved drums in launching appliance
winches by providing manufacturers with clearer language regarding the
intended design performance.
The Coast Guard proposes to add a new paragraph (4) to Sec.
160.115-13(d), which would support the proposed revision to 46 CFR
160.115-7(b)(5)(i) by ensuring that any non-grooved drum design is
still shown at the prototype testing phase to be as effective at evenly
winding the falls on and off the drum surface as a grooved drum.
Revisions to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart 160.133
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the title of subpart 160.133 by
removing ``(SOLAS).'' As stated in the interim rule published on
October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard removed the standard for domestic
release mechanisms under 46 CFR 160.033 and created one standard for
release mechanisms under 160.133. Therefore the use of ``SOLAS'' in the
title is unnecessary and may be misleading when installing release
mechanisms approved under subpart 160.133 in lifeboats serving U.S.
vessels only on domestic routes. Changing the title would make it
consistent with other subparts affected by the interim rule. The Coast
Guard also proposes changing the title of subpart 160.135, which will
be discussed in the section below titled, ``Revisions to 46 CFR part
160, subpart 160.135, and subpart 160.156.''
The Coast Guard proposes to correct the misspelling of ``life-
saving'' in the title of the ``Revised recommendation on testing of
life-saving appliances'' in Sec. 160.133-5(c)(3) which was incorrectly
spelled as ``live-saving''.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise Sec. 160.133-5(c) to
incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) in
new paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7), respectively. Because of the
incorporation by reference of these Resolutions in Sec. 160.133-5(c),
references to the IMO LSA Code in Sec. Sec. 160.133-3, 160.133-
7(a)(1), 160.133-7(b)(8), and 160.133-7(b)(9) would be revised with
``as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'' and references to the Revised
recommendation on testing in Sec. Sec. 160.133-7(a)(2) and 160.133-
13(d)(2) would be revised with ``as amended by IMO Resolution
MSC.321(89).'' Revising these incorporations by reference would affect
the provisions in Sec. Sec. 160.133-7 and 160.133-13, which refer to
the Revised recommendation on testing, as discussed in part IV above.
Because IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) requires ``all components of the
hook unit, release handle unit, control cables or mechanical operating
links and the fixed structural connections in a lifeboat [to] be of
material corrosion resistant in the marine environment without the need
for coatings or galvanizing,'' the current ASTM standard for structural
carbon steel incorporated by reference in Sec. 160.133-5 is a
conflicting standard. This standard would no longer be appropriate
because these steels require coatings or galvanizing to be corrosion
resistant. Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to remove Sec. 160.133-
5(b)(1), incorporating by reference ASTM A 36/A 36M-08, ``Standard
Specification for Carbon Structural Steel,'' and to remove the
accompanying standard for galvanizing in Sec. 160.133-5(b)(5),
incorporating by reference ASTM A 653/A 653M-08, ``Standard
Specification for Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron
Alloy-Coated (Galvannealed) by the Hot-Dip Process.'' Because Sec.
160.133-5 already contains three standards for stainless steel that
meet the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant material requirement of
IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), the Coast Guard further proposes to retain
and renumber Sec. 160.133-5(b)(2), (3), and (4), incorporating by
reference the three ASTM stainless-steel standards. The Coast Guard
seeks public comment on other corrosion-resistant material standards
for possible incorporation by reference in Sec. 160.133-5(b).
The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec. 160.133-7(b)(3) to remove
reference to ASTM A36 and ASTM A653, as these standards would no longer
apply as described above. As proposed, the references to the ASTM
standards would be replaced with language requiring each major
structural component of each release mechanism to be constructed of
corrosion-resistant steel that meets the standards for type 302
stainless steel in ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313, or ASTM A 314 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 160.133-5 of this subpart). The proposed
language would also permit other corrosion-resistant materials to be
used if accepted by the Commandant as having equivalent or superior
corrosion-resistant characteristics without the need for coatings or
galvanizing.
The Coast Guard proposes to remove Sec. 160.133-7(b)(15), which
requires each release mechanism to have mechanical protection against
accidental or premature release that can only be engaged when the
release mechanism is properly and completely reset. The Coast Guard
recognized that the requirements in this paragraph were already
addressed in the existing IMO LSA Code (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 160.133-5(c)(2)), paragraph 4.4.7.6.4, related to lifeboat
fittings, and are not affected by IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) that
amends the IMO LSA Code. Therefore, removing existing Sec. 160.133-
7(b)(15) would eliminate a redundancy with the incorporation by
reference of the IMO LSA Code.
The Coast Guard proposes to remove Sec. 160.133-13(d)(2)(iii),
which contains a stipulation regarding galvanizing, because galvanizing
is no longer an acceptable form of metal treatment for corrosion
resistance under IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) and its removal is
consistent with the proposed removal of ASTM A 653 in Sec. Sec.
160.133-5 and 160.133-7 discussed above. The Coast Guard would re-
number paragraphs consistent with the removal of these items. The Coast
Guard proposes to remove the last two sentences in paragraph (e) of
Sec. 160.133-15, consistent with the proposed removal of ASTM A 653.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec. 160.133-15(e) by removing
the last two sentences, which require each approved release mechanism
to be constructed with non-corrosion-resistant steel that meets the
coating mass and bend tests requirement specified under ASTM A 653
after galvanizing or other anti-corrosion treatment has been applied.
This amendment is consistent with the changes to Sec. 160.133-5, Sec.
160.133-7 and Sec. 160.133-13 discussed above as related to the use of
galvanized steel.
Revisions to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart 160.135, and Subpart 160.156
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the title of Sec. 160.135 by
removing
[[Page 70394]]
``(SOLAS).'' As stated in the interim rule published on October 11,
2011, the Coast Guard removed the standard for lifeboats for merchant
vessels under 46 CFR 160.035 and created one standard for lifeboats
under 160.135. Therefore the use of ``SOLAS'' in the title is
unnecessary and may be misleading when installing lifeboats approved
under Sec. 160.135 on U.S. vessels only on domestic routes. Regardless
of domestic or international service, U.S. vessels must carry lifeboats
approved under approval series 160.135. See 46 CFR 199.201 and 199.261.
Changing the title to subpart 160.135 will make it consistent with the
title of other subparts affected by the interim rule. The Coast Guard
does not propose to remove ``SOLAS'' from the title of 46 CFR 160.156
for rescue boats and fast rescue boats because the Coast Guard retained
the domestic, locally approved rescue boat standard in 46 CFR 160.056.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec. 160.135-15(e)(2) and Sec.
160.156-15(e)(2) to include the reference to the Revised recommendation
on testing part 2, paragraph 5.3 and to remove the redundant statement,
``At a minimum, each [lifeboat/rescue boat] must be operated for 2
hours during which all [lifeboat/rescue boat] systems must be
exercised.'' Under existing Sec. 160.135-15(e)(2) and Sec. 160.156-
15(e)(2), the Coast Guard expected all of the production tests of IMO
Revised recommendation on testing part 2, paragraph 5.3, as applicable
to the type of boat, to be performed on all approved lifeboats and
rescue boats. By amending Sec. 160.135-15(e)(2) and Sec. 160.156-
15(e)(2), the Coast Guard will make this requirement clear. The
requirement to operate each production lifeboat and rescue boat for 2
hours is already included in the IMO Revised recommendation on testing
part 2 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 160.135-5 and Sec. 160.156-
5), paragraph 5.3, and thus the Coast Guard proposes removal of this
sentence from Sec. 160.135-15(e)(2) and Sec. 160.156-15(e)(2).
Because of the existing incorporation by reference of the Revised
recommendation on testing in Sec. 160.135-15 and Sec. 160.156-15,
these sections would be added as approved incorporations by reference
in Sec. 160.135-5(d)(4) and Sec. 160.156-5(d)(4), respectively.
The Coast Guard also proposes to amend Sec. 160.135-15(d), which
sets forth independent laboratory responsibilities, by amending the
reference to paragraph (e)(2) so that it references all of paragraph
(e). This amendment would correct a typographical error; Sec. 160.135-
15(d) was intended to have the same language as 46 CFR part 160,
subpart 160.156-15(d), which correctly references paragraph (e) in its
entirety. Without this correction, it may be misinterpreted that the
independent laboratory does not have responsibility for witnessing the
lifeboat in-process tests and inspections outlined in Sec. 160.135-
15(e)(1).
The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec. 160.135-15(e)(1)(iv) to
correct the typographical error referencing Sec. 160.135-
13(c)(2)(i)(B), which does not exist, and replace it with the correct
reference, which is Sec. 160.135-11(c)(2)(i)(B).
Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to correct typographical
errors in Sec. 160.156-7(b)(13), Sec. 156-9(b)(22)(iv), and Sec.
156-9(d)(2) by replacing the word ``lifeboat'' with the correct term,
``rescue boat,'' because Sec. 160.156 applies to rescue boats only.
The Coast Guard also proposes to amend Sec. 160.156-15(e)(1) by
removing the phrase ``In accordance with the interval prescribed in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.'' Part of the Coast Guard's original
intent when drafting this rule was consistency of language throughout
the affected subparts where possible. This phrase does not appear in
any other subpart affected by the interim rule and inadvertently
remained in 160.156-15(e)(1) when the interim rule was published.
Removal of this phrase will also eliminate the typographical error in
Sec. 160.156-15(e)(1) by removing reference to Sec. 160.156-15(d)(1),
which does not exist.
Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the cite to 49 CFR 1.46
in the authorities section of part 160 and part 164 because that
authority applies to the Department of Transportation, under which the
Coast Guard no longer operates. The Coast Guard currently operates
under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security.
Proposed Impacts to Certificates of Approval
If these proposed changes to incorporate by reference IMO
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) are finalized, any manufacturer
of SOLAS release mechanisms who wants to continue to manufacture such
release mechanisms under a Certificate of Approval issued under
existing subpart 160.133 would have to provide the Coast Guard with an
application for pre-approval review in accordance with Sec. 160.133-23
(Procedure for approval of design, material, or construction change).
The application would have to indicate how the existing release
mechanism, or a new or revised design, meets the requirements of
proposed Sec. 160.133-7 incorporating by reference the amendments to
the IMO LSA Code from IMO Resolution MSC.320(89). If the information
submitted in accordance with Sec. 160.133-23, for changes to existing
designs, or Sec. 160.133-9, for new designs, is satisfactory to the
Commandant, the manufacturer would be permitted to proceed with
fabrication of the prototype release mechanism and the approval
inspections and tests required under proposed Sec. 160.133-13
incorporating by reference the amendments to the Revised recommendation
on testing from IMO Resolution MSC.321(89). The Coast Guard would
document compliance with Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) by
means of amended Certificates of Approval under subpart 160.133.
Similarly, if these proposed changes are finalized, any
manufacturer of davit-launched lifeboats and those manufacturers of
SOLAS rescue boats or fast rescue boats with installed release
mechanisms approved under existing subpart 160.133 who want to continue
manufacturing such boats under a Certificate of Approval issued under
subpart 160.135 or 160.156, respectively, would have to provide the
Coast Guard with an application for pre-approval review in accordance
with Sec. 160.135-23 or Sec. 160.156-23 (Procedure for approval of
design, material, or construction change). This application would have
to indicate the proposed installation of a release mechanism meeting
the requirements of the proposed Sec. 160.133-7 incorporating by
reference the amendments to the IMO LSA Code from IMO Resolution
MSC.320(89). If the information submitted in accordance with Sec.
160.135-23 or Sec. 160.156-23 is satisfactory to the Commandant, the
manufacturer would be permitted to proceed with fabrication of the
prototype lifeboat or rescue boat, and would be notified of the extent
of any prototype testing needed for reissuance of the Certificate of
Approval under 160.135 or 160.156. The Coast Guard would document
compliance with Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) by means of
amended Certificates of Approval under subparts 160.135 and 160.156
indicating installation of a release mechanism demonstrated to meet
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89).
VI. Incorporation by Reference
Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in
proposed 46 CFR 160.133-5(c)(6) and (c)(7). You may inspect this
material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under
[[Page 70395]]
ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed
in paragraph (A) of that section.
Before publishing a final rule, the Coast Guard will submit this
material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the
incorporation by reference.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering
numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below the
Coast Guard summarizes its analyses based on 14 of these statutes or
executive orders.
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 SNPRM has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the
SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A
draft regulatory assessment follows:
The proposed rule would amend the existing regulations for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats in order to harmonize Coast
Guard regulatory requirements with the international standards
established by the IMO. The proposed rule specifically requires U.S.
standards regarding design, construction, performance, and testing of
release mechanisms to be harmonized to the IMO's standards. This
harmonization is required--
For the U.S. to comply with its treaty obligations as a
contracting government to SOLAS by harmonizing Coast Guard requirements
for release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats with the
international standards established by the IMO LSA Code; and
To clarify requirements and remove inconsistencies between
the requirements for SOLAS compliance and the sections of 46 CFR
regulating release mechanisms on lifeboats and rescue boats.
In addition, the proposed rule would add wording to 46 CFR 160.115-
7(b)(5)(i) that would clarify the Coast Guard's acceptance of non-
grooved winch drums as an alternative to grooved drums on launching
appliance winches. Currently that section states, ``A winch must have
grooved drums unless otherwise approved by the Commandant.'' The
section would be reworded to state, ``Winch drums must either be
grooved or otherwise designed to wind the falls evenly on and off each
drum.'' As such, this change clarifies requirements by specifying
criteria used by the Coast Guard in historic approvals directly in the
regulations, thereby reducing paperwork and regulatory uncertainty. The
proposed change in Sec. 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) would not modify the
standard of design, performance, or testing for winch drums. Approval
requests for non-grooved winch drums are a component of the application
process for all winch drums (grooved and non-grooved), along with many
other lifesaving appliances (i.e., davits, lifeboats, etc.), that must
be approved by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard estimates that any time
saved associated with this clarification to the winch drum approvals
would be minimal. In addition, there are already manufacturers of non-
grooved or smooth winch drums. For these reasons, there are no cost
implications for industry from the rewording of Sec. 160.115-
7(b)(5)(i). The purpose of the modification of the wording in Sec.
160.115-7(b)(5)(i) is to clarify the Coast Guard's criteria for
acceptance of non-grooved or smooth winch drums as an alternative to
grooved drums.
Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed rule's applicability,
affected population, costs, and benefits. Each of these factors is
discussed in greater depth in the sections following the table.
Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability................ U.S. manufacturers of release mechanisms
for lifeboats and rescue boats, U.S.
manufacturers of non-grooved or smooth
winch drums, and U.S.-flagged vessels
required by the Coast Guard to carry
lifeboats and rescue boats.
Affected Population.......... One U.S. manufacturer of release
mechanisms, five U.S. manufacturers of
non-grooved or smooth winch drums, 102
non-SOLAS-certified vessels, 289 SOLAS-
certified vessels.
Costs........................ None.
Quantified Benefits.......... None.
Qualitative Benefits......... Benefits Associated with Harmonizing
Standards:
Fulfilling U.S. treaty
obligations to the IMO;
USCG and vessel owners and
operators would face less uncertainty
and more efficient USCG inspections;
Manufacturers and users of non-
grooved or smooth winch drums will face
less uncertainty regarding the Coast
Guard criteria for approval of non-
grooved or smooth winch drums.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population and Cost Impacts
The proposed rule would potentially affect three groups. The first
consists of U.S. manufacturers of release mechanisms, the second
consists of vessels that are required to be equipped with lifeboats or
rescue boats, and the third consists of U.S. manufacturers of non-
grooved or smooth winch drums.
There is currently only one U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms
for lifeboats and rescue boats.\1\ This manufacturer is, however, in
the process of phasing out production of the release mechanisms
manufactured from galvanized steel or its equivalent (as required under
current regulations) \2\
[[Page 70396]]
before January 1, 2013. This manufacturer, which is also the only known
manufacturer of galvanized steel mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue
boats in the U.S., will be manufacturing only stainless-steel release
mechanisms, manufactured from corrosion-resistant materials and without
the need for galvanizing (or its equivalent), \3\ and complying with
the latest IMO requirements, before that date. The manufacturer is
planning this phase-out because it expects the market for galvanized
steel mechanisms approved to the current requirements to disappear.\4\
Because the manufacturer's phase-out will occur independently of
whether the proposed rule is implemented, the manufacturer would
experience no additional cost impact due to this proposed rule. If the
proposed rule is implemented, the manufacturer, by the time of the
proposed rule's implementation, will have already incurred the cost of
the switchover from the galvanized steel mechanisms to those
manufactured with corrosion-resistant material without the need for
galvanizing. The decision will have been made based on expected changes
in market conditions and will also be in compliance with the new IMO
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Manufacturers of release mechanisms are currently required
to test their mechanisms and file the results with the Coast Guard.
Coast Guard records indicate that there is only one U.S.-based
manufacturer of these mechanisms.
\2\ The Coast Guard regulation currently in place does not
require the use of galvanized steel, per se, but permits a
regulatory equivalent to galvanized steel that does not necessarily
have to be manufactured of galvanized steel. The current Sec.
160.133-7(b)(3), the section of the regulation dealing with the
``design, construction, and performance of release mechanisms''
describes the regulatory equivalent as follows: ``Each major
structural component of each release mechanism must be constructed
of steel. Other materials may be used if accepted by the Commandant
as equivalent or superior. Sheet steel and plate must be low-carbon,
commercial quality, either corrosion resistant or galvanized as per
ASTM A 653 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 160.133-5 of this
subpart), coating designation G115. Structural steel plates and
shapes must be carbon steel as per ASTM A 36 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 160.133-5 of this subpart). All steel products,
except corrosion-resistant steel, must be galvanized to provide
high-quality zinc coatings suitable for the intended service life in
a marine environment. Each fabricated part must be galvanized after
fabrication. Corrosion-resistant steel must be a type 302 stainless
steel per ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313 or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 160.133-5 of this subpart) or another
corrosion-resistant stainless steel of equal or superior corrosion-
resistant characteristics''. In this regulatory analysis, the term
``galvanized steel release mechanisms'' will also refer to those
that may not necessarily be manufactured of galvanized steel but are
the equivalent thereof as defined above.
\3\ The proposed regulation does not require only the use of
stainless steel, per se, but also permits a regulatory equivalent to
such a stainless steel mechanism that does not necessarily have to
be manufactured of stainless steel. Sec. 167.133-7(b)(3), the
section of the regulation dealing with the ``design, construction,
and performance of release mechanisms'', states: ``Each major
structural component of each release mechanism must be constructed
of steel. Corrosion-resistant steel must be a type 302 stainless
steel per ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313 or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 160.133-5 of this subpart). Other corrosion-
resistant materials may be used if accepted by the Commandant as
having equivalent or superior corrosion-resistant characteristics.''
In this regulatory analysis, the term ``stainless steel'' release
mechanisms will also refer to those that may not necessarily be
manufactured of stainless steel but are the equivalent thereof as
defined in the proposed regulation.
\4\ Information provided to the Coast Guard by telephone, June
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a total of five potential manufacturers of non-grooved or
smooth winch drums.\5\ As stated previously, the proposed regulation
would not modify production, design, or testing standards associated
with these winch drums, nor would it change reporting and recordkeeping
requirements surrounding their sale or use. Therefore, the Coast Guard
does not expect there would be any cost or collection of information
implications to U.S. manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Estimated based on data provided by manufacturers of winch
drums to the U.S. Coast Guard for the required approval of their
winch drums. This data was found in the U.S. Coast Guard's Maritime
Information Exchange database under the equipment approved for Sec.
160.115 (winch drums). In this database the Coast Guard does not
break out approvals given for winch drums by grooved and non-grooved
or smooth construction. The data is for all winch drums. Hence, it
is a maximum potential number of manufacturers of all winch drum
(both grooved and non-grooved) manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on data from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety
and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, the Coast Guard estimates the
total number of vessels affected by the proposed rule to be 391, of
which 289 \6\ are SOLAS certified (hereinafter referred to as SOLAS
vessels), and 102 are non-SOLAS. \7\ This proposed rule would require
these vessels to comply with new IMO requirements and use release
mechanisms made from corrosion-resistant materials without the need for
galvanizing (or regulatory equivalent), instead of a galvanized steel
release mechanism (or regulatory equivalent) for any future
replacements of on-load release mechanisms installed in existing life
or rescue boats. Release mechanisms currently in place would not need
to be replaced except in two limited circumstances. These are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Data source: Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) system.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Accidents that result in the damage of the mechanisms
themselves or accidents that damage lifeboats and rescue boats
seriously enough to require replacement.\8\ A search was conducted of
the MISLE database system for such accidents from 2003 through 2011.
Based on accidents found during this period, six release mechanisms
were estimated to need replacement on SOLAS vessels and six on non-
SOLAS vessels. This yields an average of less than one release
mechanism needing replacement per annum. In all of these accidents,
there was only one accident that resulted in injuries, and these
injuries were slight.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ New lifeboats and rescue boats are equipped with new release
mechanisms as standard equipment. This was the consensus of the
Coast Guard and private sector subject matter experts.
\9\ The four were sent to the hospital for examinations but all
four went back to work the same day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Release mechanisms may need to be replaced due to their
deterioration from normal wear and tear. However, both private sector
and Coast Guard subject matter experts have stated that the lifespans
of both galvanized and stainless-steel mechanisms generally exceed the
lifespan of the lifeboats and rescue boats on which they are carried.
Therefore, the Coast Guard does not expect any replacements resulting
from deterioration or normal wear and tear.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ It should be noted that depreciation and normal wear and
tear do not include accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifeboats and rescue boats installed on or after the implementation
of the final rule by in-scope vessel owners and operators would need to
meet the requirements in IMO resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) in
order to obtain SOLAS certification. Therefore, the proposed rule would
not have any additional cost impact to this class of vessels. The non-
SOLAS vessels would have to upgrade to the non-galvanized, corrosion-
resistant mechanisms compliant with the new requirements whenever they
need to replace any mechanisms in the future for either of the reasons
cited above, or for newly constructed lifeboats and rescue boats.
If release mechanisms meeting both the current and the new
requirements were available, the Coast Guard assumes vessel owners and
operators would purchase the less-expensive of the two, those meeting
the current requirements. Release mechanisms approved to the current
requirements (such as those made of galvanized steel) were found to be
$1,500 less-expensive, per unit, than those meeting the new
requirements (corrosion-resistant mechanisms).\11\ As stated above,
however, the one supplier of galvanized steel on-load release
mechanisms is expected to stop manufacturing them before the proposed
rule would take effect on January 1, 2013. Foreign entities that have
manufactured these mechanisms have also, based on our research,
discontinued manufacturing them.\12\ Therefore, the galvanized steel
[[Page 70397]]
mechanisms (or their equivalent) will no longer be available for
purchase. Only the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant mechanisms that
are in compliance with the IMO requirements will be available. The
single U.S. manufacturer is phasing out the galvanized steel mechanisms
irrespective of whether the proposed rule is enacted. The single U.S.
manufacturer is planning this phase-out because it no longer sees a
future market for the galvanized steel mechanisms.\13\ As a result,
consumers will be able to purchase only the corrosion-resistant
mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This same cost differential was obtained from two separate
and independent industry sources. One source, as of March 2012, is
producing both the stainless steel and galvanized steel mechanisms
while the second is not currently producing both mechanisms, but
cited a price difference that existed when it produced both.
\12\ Based on telephone discussions with numerous distributors
and manufacturers of release mechanisms in the U.S.
\13\ Information supplied by U.S. manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
The proposed rule would amend the existing regulations for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats in order to harmonize Coast
Guard regulatory requirements with the international standards
established by the IMO. The harmonization specifically requires U.S.
standards regarding design, construction, performance, and testing of
release mechanisms to be harmonized to the IMO's standards.
Benefits from the harmonization of the Coast Guard regulatory
requirements to the IMO standards include the following:
(1) Fulfilling U.S. treaty obligations to the IMO;
(2) The Coast Guard and vessel owners and operators would face less
uncertainty and more efficient Coast Guard inspections during vessel
inspections because only one type of release mechanism would have to be
inspected as opposed to two.
(3) The inclusion of performance criteria for approval of non-
grooved or smooth winch drums to the language contained in Sec.
160.115-7(b)(5)(i), and the addition of proposed new Sec. 160.155-
13(d)(4), reduces any uncertainty to U.S.-based manufacturers and users
of such winch drums. If the proposed regulation is finalized, it will
be clear that such products, when approved by the Coast Guard, will be
equivalent to grooved winch drums in terms of performance.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast
Guard has considered whether this proposed 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 fewer than 50,000.
There are three industries that may potentially face a direct cost
resulting from the proposed rule. The first industry consists of the
single U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms. The second industry
consists of the five manufacturers of winch drums. The third industry
consists of owners and operators of vessels equipped with in-scope
lifeboats and rescue boats. Based on data from the Coast Guard's Marine
Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, the Coast
Guard estimates the total number of vessels affected by the proposed
rule to be 391, of which 289 \14\ are SOLAS certified and 102 are non-
SOLAS. \15\ The Coast Guard has determined that a significant number of
small entities in these three industries will not be substantially
impacted and the explanation for this determination appears in the
paragraphs that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Data source: Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) system.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the single U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms,
the Coast Guard does not expect that there would be any cost impact
because, as stated previously, prior to January 1, 2013, the only U.S.
manufacturer of the galvanized steel mechanisms is planning to
discontinue manufacturing them.\16\ Based on our research (as of March
2012), there are no manufacturers of galvanized steel release
mechanisms (or their equivalent) outside of the U.S. Therefore, the
galvanized steel mechanisms (or their equivalent) will no longer be
available for purchase. Only the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant
mechanisms that are in compliance with the IMO requirements will be
available. The single U.S. manufacturer is phasing out the galvanized
steel mechanisms irrespective of whether the proposed rule is enacted.
The single U.S. manufacturer is planning this phase-out because it no
longer sees a future market for the galvanized steel mechanisms.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Based on telephone conversation with the manufacturer held
in June 2012.
\17\ Information supplied by U.S. manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the five U.S. manufacturers of winch drums, as
stated previously, the proposed regulation will not modify the
requirements regarding production, design, or testing standards for
non-grooved and smooth winch drums. The proposed regulation will also
not impose further reporting burdens on manufacturers. This is because
there is no specific application, per se, regarding non-grooved and
smooth drums that must be sent to the Coast Guard and processed by the
Coast Guard. Approval requests for non-grooved winch drums are a
component of the application process for all winch drums (grooved and
non-grooved), along with many other lifesaving appliances (i.e.,
davits, lifeboats, etc.), that must be approved by the Coast Guard.
With respect to the in-scope owners and operators of vessels, the
marginal additional cost stemming from the requirements to fulfill the
proposed rule are expected to be minimal. This is because, as stated
previously, regardless of whether or not the proposed rule is
implemented (i.e., independent thereof), prior to the implementation of
the proposed rule the cheaper galvanized steel release mechanisms will
no longer be available in the market place. The single U.S.
manufacturer will no longer be manufacturing galvanized steel release
mechanisms. Thus vessel owners will only be able to purchase stainless
steel release mechanisms.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think
that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree
this proposed rule would economically affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist
small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. George Grills,
Commercial Regulations and Standards Directorate, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4),
Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-13851385, or email
George.G.Grills@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or
any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees
[[Page 70398]]
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 proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) nor
would it adjust an existing collection of information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 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 among the various levels of government. The Coast
Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under that order and has
determined that it does not have implications for federalism. A summary
of our analysis follows.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the field preemptive
impact of the Federal regulatory regime for inspected vessels. See,
e.g., Kelly v. Washington ex rel Foss, 302 U.S. 1 (1937) and the
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 113-116 (2000). Therefore, the Coast Guard's view is that
regulations issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306 in the areas
of design, construction, alteration, repair, operation,
superstructures, hulls, fittings, equipment, appliances, propulsion
machinery, auxiliary machinery, boilers, unfired pressure vessels,
piping, electric installations, accommodations for passengers and crew,
sailing school instructors, sailing school students, lifesaving
equipment and its use, firefighting equipment, its use and
precautionary measures to guard against fire, inspections and tests
related to these areas, and the use of vessel stores and other supplies
of a dangerous nature have preemptive effect over State regulation in
these fields, regardless of whether the Coast Guard has issued
regulations on the subject, and regardless of the existence of conflict
between the state and Coast Guard regulation.
While it is well settled that states may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, as these categories are within a field foreclosed
from regulation by the states (see U.S. v. Locke, above), the Coast
Guard recognizes the key role State and local governments may have in
making regulatory determinations. Additionally, Sections 4 and 6 of
Executive Order 13132 require that for any rules with preemptive
effect, the Coast Guard will provide elected officials of affected
state and local governments and their representative national
organizations the notice and opportunity for appropriate participation
in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult with such officials early
in the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Coast Guard invites affected
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
docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. In
accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Coast Guard will provide a
federalism impact statement to document (1) the extent of the Coast
Guard's consultation with State and local officials that submit
comments to this proposed rule, (2) a summary of the nature of any
concerns raised by State or local governments and the Coast Guard's
position thereon, and (3) a statement of the extent to which the
concerns of State and local officials have been 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 1 year. Although this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, the Coast Guard does discuss the effects
of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant
rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Coast Guard has determined
that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that order because
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
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 the
Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule uses technical standards other than voluntary
consensus standards:
International Life-Saving Appliance Code, (IMO Resolution
MSC.48(66)), as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.320(89);
IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), Revised recommendation on
testing of
[[Page 70399]]
life-saving appliances, as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.321(89).
The proposed sections that reference these standards and the
locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR
160.133-5. They are used because we did not find voluntary consensus
standards that are applicable to this rule. If you are aware of
voluntary consensus standards that might apply, please identify them by
sending a comment to the docket using one of the methods under
ADDRESSES. In your comment, please explain why you think the standards
might apply.
If you disagree with our analysis of the voluntary consensus
standards listed above or are aware of voluntary consensus standards
that might apply but are not listed, please send a comment to the
docket using one of the methods under ADDRESSES. In your comment,
please explain why you disagree with the Coast Guard's analysis and/or
identify voluntary consensus standards not listed that might apply.
M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
Section 608 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-281) adds new section 2118 to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and
Seamen), Chapter 21 (General). New section 2118(a) sets forth
requirements for standards established for approved equipment required
on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Part
B (Inspection and Regulation of Vessels). Those standards must be ``(1)
based on performance using the best available technology that is
economically achievable; and (2) operationally practical.'' See 46
U.S.C. 2118(a). This proposed rule addresses lifesaving equipment for
Coast Guard approval that is required on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C.
Subtitle II, Part B, and the Coast Guard has ensured that this proposed
rule would satisfy the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 2118(a), as necessary.
N. Environment
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed 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 preliminary 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 preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments''' section of this preamble.
This proposed rule involves regulations that are editorial, regulations
concerning equipping of vessels, and regulations concerning vessel
operation safety standards. This proposed rule is categorically
excluded under Section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (d) of
the Instruction and under paragraph 6(a) of the ``Appendix to National
Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical
Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR 48243, July 23,
2002). The Coast Guard seeks any comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 160
Marine safety, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 164
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 160 and 164 as follows:
PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 160 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703 and 4302; E.O. 12234; 45
FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Subpart 160.115--Launching Appliances--Winches
2. In Sec. 160.115-7, revise paragraph (b)(5)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 160.115-7 Design, construction, and performance of winches.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Winch drums must either be grooved or otherwise designed to
wind the falls evenly on and off each drum.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 160.115-13, add new paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 160.115-13 Approval instructions and tests for prototype
winches.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Winch drum. Each winch designed without grooved drums must
demonstrate during prototype testing that the falls wind evenly on and
off each drum.
* * * * *
Subpart 160.133 [Amended]
4. Amend the title to Subpart 160.133 by removing the word
``(SOLAS)''.
Subpart 160.133--Release Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats
Sec. 160.133-3 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 160.133-3, in the introductory text, after the words
``IMO LSA Code'', add the words ``, as amended by Resolution
MSC.320(89)''.
6. Amend Sec. 160.133-5 as follows:
a. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5);
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6) as
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), respectively;
c. In paragraph (c)(3), after the words ``Revised recommendation on
testing of'', remove the words ``live-saving'' and add, in their place,
the words ``life-saving''; and
d. Add paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 160.133-5 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) Annex 4 to MSC 89/25, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee
on its Eighty-Ninth Session, ``Resolution MSC.320(89), Adoption of
Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code,''
(adopted May 20, 2011), IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 160.133-3, 160.133-
5(c)(6), 160.133-7(d)(1), 160.133-7(b)(8), and 160.133-7(b)(9)
(Resolution MSC.320(89)).
(7) Annex 5 to MSC 89/25, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee
on its Eighty-Ninth Session, ``Resolution MSC.321(89), Adoption of
Amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving
Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)),'' (adopted May 20, 2011), IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 160.133-5(c)(7), 160.133-7(a)(2), and 160.133-
13(d)(2) (Resolution MSC.321(89)).
7. Amend Sec. 160.133-7 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1), after the words ``IMO LSA Code,'' add the
words ``as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
b. In paragraph (a)(2), after the words ``IMO Revised
recommendation on testing,'' add the words ``as amended by Resolution
MSC.321(89),'';
c. Revise paragraph (b)(3) as set out below;
d. In paragraph (b)(8), after the words ``required by'', add the
word ``IMO'', and after the words ``LSA Code'', add
[[Page 70400]]
the words ``, as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
e. In paragraph (b)(9), after the words ``required by'', add the
word ``IMO'', and after the words ``LSA Code'', add the words ``, as
amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),''; and
f. Remove paragraph (b)(15).
Sec. 160.133-7 Design, construction, and performance of release
mechanisms.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Steel. Each major structural component of each release
mechanism must be constructed of corrosion-resistant steel. Corrosion-
resistant steel must be a type 302 stainless steel per ASTM A 276, ASTM
A 313 or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 160.133-5 of
this subpart). Other corrosion-resistant materials may be used if
accepted by the Commandant as having equivalent or superior corrosion-
resistant characteristics;
* * * * *
Sec. 160.133-13 [Amended]
8. Amend Sec. 160.133-13 as follows:
a. In paragraph (d)(2), after the words ``tests described in IMO
Revised recommendation on testing,'' add the words ``as amended by
Resolution MSC.321(89),'' and after the words ``with these paragraphs
of IMO Revised recommendation on testing,'' add the words ``as amended
by Resolution MSC.321(89),'';
b. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(iii); and
c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v), and (d)(2)(vi) as
paragraphs (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), and (d)(2)(v), respectively.
Sec. 160.133-15 [Amended]
9. In Sec. 160.133-15, amend paragraph (e) by removing the words,
``Each approved release mechanism constructed with non-corrosion-
resistant steel must be confirmed to have met the coating mass and bend
tests requirement specified under ASTM A 653 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 160.133-5 of this subpart) after galvanizing or
other anti-corrosion treatment has been applied. This compliance can be
ascertained through a supplier's certification papers or through
conducting actual tests.''
Subpart 160.135 [Amended]
10. Amend the title to Subpart 160.135 by removing the word
``(SOLAS)''.
Subpart 160.135--Lifeboats
Sec. 160.135-5 [Amended]
11. In Sec. 160.135-5, amend paragraph (d)(4) by removing the word
``and'' and adding, in its place, the punctuation ``,'', and, after the
numbers ``160.135-13'', adding the words ``, and 160.135-15''.
12. Amend Sec. 160.135-15 as follows:
a. In paragraph (d), remove the word ``(e)(2)'' and add, in its
place, the word ``(e)'';
b. In paragraph (e)(1)(iv), remove the reference ``Sec. 160.135-
13(c)(2)(i)(B)'' and add, in its place, the reference ``Sec. 160.135-
11(c)(2)(i)(B)''; and
c. Revise paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 160.135-15 Production inspections, tests, quality control, and
conformance of lifeboats.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Post assembly tests and inspections. The finished lifeboat must
be visually inspected inside and out. The manufacturer must develop and
maintain a visual inspection checklist designed to ensure that all
applicable requirements have been met and the lifeboat is equipped in
accordance with approved plans. Each production lifeboat of each design
must pass each of the tests described in the IMO Revised recommendation
on testing, part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
160.135-5 of this subpart).
Sec. 160.156-5 [Amended]
13. In Sec. 160.156-5, amend paragraph (d)(4) by removing the word
``and'' and adding, in its place, the punctuation ``,'', and, after the
numbers ``160.156-13'', adding the words ``, and 160.156-15''.
Sec. 160.156-7 [Amended]
14. In Sec. 160.156-7, amend paragraph (b)(13) by removing the
word ``lifeboat'' and adding, in its place, the words ``rescue boat''.
Sec. 160.156-9 [Amended]
15. Amend Sec. 160.156-9 as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(22)(iv), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add,
in its place, the words ``rescue boat''; and
b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add, in
its place, the words ``rescue boat''.
16. Amend Sec. 160.156-15 as follows:
a. In paragraph (e)(1), remove the words ``In accordance with the
interval prescribed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, each'' and
add, in their place, the word ``Each''; and
b. Revise paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 160.156-15 Production inspections, tests, quality control, and
conformance of rescue boats and fast rescue boats.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Post assembly tests and inspections. The finished rescue boat
must be visually inspected inside and out. The manufacturer must
develop and maintain a visual inspection checklist designed to ensure
that all applicable requirements have been met and the rescue boat is
equipped in accordance with approved plans. Each production rescue boat
of each design must pass each of the tests described in the IMO Revised
recommendation on testing, part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 160.156-5 of this subpart).
PART 164--MATERIALS
17. The authority citation for part 164 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302; E.O. 12234;; 45 FR
58801;; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Dated: November 15, 2012.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-28492 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
