Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With International Standards, 44129-44140 [2014-17653]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
that would be subject to the APA notice
and comment or delayed effective date
requirements. This correcting
amendment corrects a technical error in
the regulation text, but does not make
substantive changes to the policy
regarding the CoPs relating to the
administration of pneumococcal
vaccines that was adopted in the final
rule. As a result, this correcting
amendment is intended to ensure that
the regulations text at § 482.23(c)
accurately reflects the policy adopted in
that final rule.
In addition, even if this were a rule to
which the notice and comment
procedures and delayed effective date
requirements applied, we find that there
is good cause to waive such
requirements. Undertaking further
notice and comment procedures to
incorporate the corrections in this
document into the final rule or delaying
the effective date would be contrary to
the public interest because it is in the
public’s interest for providers to have
access to the appropriate regulations
text in as timely a manner as possible,
and to ensure that the FY 2014 IPPS/
LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects
our CoPs relating to the administration
of pneumococcal vaccines policy.
Furthermore, such procedures would be
unnecessary, as we are not altering our
policy, but rather we are simply
providing the corrected regulations text
that we previously proposed, received
comment on, and subsequently
finalized. This correcting amendment is
intended solely to ensure that the FY
2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule
accurately reflects this policy.
Therefore, we believe we have good
cause to waive the notice and comment
and effective date requirements.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 482
Grant programs, Health, Hospitals,
Medicaid, Medicare, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter IV is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments to part 482:
(3) With the exception of influenza
and pneumococcal vaccines, which may
be administered per physician-approved
hospital policy after an assessment of
contraindications, orders for drugs and
biologicals must be documented and
signed by a practitioner who is
authorized to write orders in accordance
with State law and hospital policy, and
who is responsible for the care of the
patient as specified under § 482.12(c).
(i) If verbal orders are used, they are
to be used infrequently.
(ii) When verbal orders are used, they
must only be accepted by persons who
are authorized to do so by hospital
policy and procedures consistent with
Federal and State law.
(iii) Orders for drugs and biologicals
may be documented and signed by other
practitioners not specified under
§ 482.12(c) only if such practitioners are
acting in accordance with State law,
including scope-of-practice laws,
hospital policies, and medical staff
bylaws, rules, and regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance
Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital
Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,
Medicare—Supplementary Medical
Insurance Program)
Dated: July 24, 2014.
C’Reda Weeden,
Executive Secretary to the Department,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Table of Contents for Preamble
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Discussion of Rule
A. Background
B. Discussion of Comments
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608
(46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
N. Environment
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Docket No. USCG–2010–0048]
RIN 1625–AB46
Lifesaving Equipment: Production
Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
1. The authority citation for part 482
continues to reads as follows:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
ACTION:
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1871, and 1881 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302,
1395hh, and 1395rr), unless otherwise noted.
SUMMARY:
2. In § 482.23, revise paragraph (c)(3)
to read as follows:
■
§ 482.23 Condition of participation:
Nursing services.
*
*
*
(c) * * *
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
amended by a second interim rule.
Additionally, it finalizes the
amendments to the requirements for
Coast Guard-approved release
mechanisms proposed in a
supplementary notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM). This final rule
harmonizes the Coast Guard’s design,
construction, and performance
standards for this lifesaving equipment
with international standards, while
providing for the use of qualified
independent laboratories, instead of
Coast Guard inspectors, during the
approval process and for production
inspections of certain types of lifesaving
equipment.
DATES: This final rule is effective August
29, 2014. The incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on August 29, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this 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, or email
TypeApproval@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2014–17937 Filed 7–29–14; 8:45 am]
46 CFR Parts 108, 117, 133, 160, 164,
180, and 199
PART 482—CONDITIONS OF
PARTICIPATION FOR HOSPITALS
44129
This rule finalizes the
amendments to Coast Guard regulations
for certain lifesaving equipment,
including launching appliances
(winches and davits), release
mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats,
inflatable liferafts, and inflatable
buoyant apparatus), rescue boats, and
automatic disengaging devices, which
were published as an interim rule and
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
IMO LSA Code ‘‘International Life-saving
Appliance Code,’’ IMO Resolution
MSC.48(66)
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
44130
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
Revised recommendation on testing
‘‘Revised recommendation on testing of
life-saving appliances,’’ IMO Resolution
MSC.81(70)
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for Safety
of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
2010 NPRM ‘‘Lifesaving Equipment:
Production Testing and Harmonization
With International Standards,’’ August 31,
2010, (75 FR 53458).
2011 IR ‘‘Lifesaving Equipment: Production
Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards; Interim Rule,’’
October 10, 2011, (76 FR 62962).
2011 SNPRM ‘‘Lifesaving Equipment:
Production Testing and Harmonization
with International Standards’’
Supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking, October 10, 2011, (76 FR
62714).
2012 IR ‘‘Lifesaving Equipment: Production
Testing and Harmonization with
International Standards’’ Interim Rule,
February 21, 2012, (77 FR 9859).
2012 SNPRM ‘‘Lifesaving Equipment:
Production Testing and Harmonization
with International Standards’’
Supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking, November 26, 2012, (77 FR
70390).
II. Regulatory History
The complete regulatory history of the
Lifesaving Equipment rulemaking is
summarized in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—RULEMAKING HISTORY
Federal
Register
cite
Document type
Date
published
Notice of proposed rulemaking (2010 NPRM).
75 FR 53458
8/31/2010
Interim Rule (2011 IR) .......
76 FR 62962
10/11/2011
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking
(2011 SNPRM).
Interim Rule Correction .....
Interim Rule (2012 IR) .......
76 FR 62714
10/11/2011
76 FR 70062
77 FR 9859
11/10/2011
2/21/2012
77 FR 70390
11/26/2012
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking
(2012 SNPRM).
On August 31, 2010, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘‘Lifesaving
Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization With International
Standards’’ (2010 NPRM) to harmonize
the Coast Guard’s requirements for
certain lifesaving equipment, including
launching appliances (winches and
davits), release mechanisms, survival
craft (lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and
inflatable buoyant apparatuses), rescue
boats, and automatic disengaging
devices with international design,
construction, and performance
standards, and to expand the use of
qualified independent laboratories,
instead of Coast Guard inspectors, in the
approval process and for production
inspections. A complete discussion of
these changes is available in the NPRM,
published August 30, 2010. See 75 FR
53458, 53460.
On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard
published an interim rule titled
‘‘Lifesaving Equipment: Production
Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards; Interim Rule’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
Summary
Proposed amendments to regulations for certain lifesaving equipment. Harmonized the design, construction, and performance standards for this lifesaving equipment with international standards and provided for the use of
qualified independent laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, during
the approval process and for production inspections.
Established the requirements set forth in the 2010 NPRM, and indicated this
would be an interim rule because of anticipated forthcoming changes to international standards for release mechanisms.
Proposed amending the 2011 IR published on the same date to harmonize
Coast Guard regulations for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant
apparatuses with recently adopted international standards.
Made four editorial corrections to the 2011 IR.
Implemented the requirements set forth in the 2011 SNPRM, recognizing that
before the 2011 IR would become a final rule, an additional SNPRM would be
issued to address release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats.
Proposed amendments to the 2011 IR to harmonize lifeboats and rescue boat
release mechanism regulations 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.
(2011 IR) making effective the changes
proposed in the NPRM. See 76 FR
62962. The Coast Guard issued that
interim rule in anticipation of future
amendments to international standards
from the International Maritime
Organization’s (IMO) Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) regarding release
mechanisms. A complete discussion of
the 2011 IR, published October 11,
2011, is also available. See 76 FR 62962.
Concurrently on October 11, 2011, the
Coast Guard published a supplementary
notice of proposed rulemaking (2011
SNPRM) proposing amendments to the
portion of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) modified by the 2011
IR regarding inflatable liferafts and
inflatable buoyant apparatuses. See 76
FR 62714. The 2011 SNPRM proposed
manufacturers conduct tests on
prototype and production liferafts for
Coast Guard approval under subpart
160.151 (SOLAS liferafts) using the new
assumed average mass of liferaft
occupants (82.5 kg), instead of the
previous assumed average mass (75 kg),
without imposing this requirement on
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
liferafts currently in service. On
February 21, 2012, the Coast Guard
published a second interim rule (2012
IR) which made amendments to the
2011 IR by making the changes
proposed in the 2011 SNPRM regarding
inflatable liferafts and inflatable
buoyant apparatuses effective. See 77
FR 9859. A complete discussion of these
changes is available in the 2011
SNPRM. See 76 FR 62714. A complete
discussion of the 2012 IR, published
February 21, 2012, is also available. See
77 FR 9859.
On November 26, 2012, the Coast
Guard published a second SNPRM
(2012 SNPRM) proposing amendments
to the portion of the CFR modified by
the 2011 IR regarding release
mechanisms. See 77 FR 70390. We
received two public comments to the
2012 SNPRM, which we address below.
No public meeting was requested and
none was held.
The Coast Guard is making final the
2011 interim rule with some changes.
The only changes are those made by the
2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and
164. The rest of the 2011 IR remains the
same.
III. Basis and Purpose
The Coast Guard is charged with
ensuring that lifesaving equipment used
on vessels subject to inspection by the
United States meets specific design,
construction, and performance
standards. See 46 U.S.C. 3306. The
Coast Guard carries out this charge
through the approval of lifesaving
equipment per 46 CFR part 2, subpart
2.75. The approval process includes preapproval review of 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. Please see the 2010 NPRM for
further information on the Coast Guard’s
International Convention for Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974, as amended, (SOLAS)
obligations.
IV. Discussion of Rule
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Background
In the 2012 SNPRM, amendments
were proposed to the Coast Guard’s
standards for release mechanisms found
in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133 to
implement current SOLAS requirements
for lifeboat release mechanisms. The
Coast Guard also proposed amendments
to subpart 160.115 to clarify the winch
drum design requirements, and also
proposed technical amendments to
correct non-substantive errors in 46 CFR
part 160, subparts 160.133, 160.135, and
160.156, and in 46 CFR part 164.
Current requirements for lifeboat
release mechanisms are the IMO
standards referenced by Chapter III of
SOLAS. Those IMO standards are the
‘‘International Life-saving Appliance
Code,’’ IMO Resolution MSC.48(66), as
amended (IMO LSA Code), and the
‘‘Revised recommendation on testing of
life-saving appliances,’’ IMO Resolution
MSC.81(70), as amended (Revised
recommendation on testing). The IMO
updates these standards by adopting
MSC Resolutions which promulgate
amendments to these standards. The
2011 IR incorporated by reference all
MSC Resolutions affecting release
mechanisms adopted at the time the
2010 NPRM was published.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
design and performance requirements
for release mechanisms in the IMO LSA
Code, which entered into force on
January 1, 2013. The amendments
include specific requirements for
increased hook stability, corrosionresistance, and additional safety
features. Resolution MSC.321(89)
specifies revisions to the prototype
testing of release mechanisms
supporting the amendments to the IMO
LSA Code’s Revised recommendation
on testing, which entered into force on
January 1, 2013.
The Coast Guard proposed in the 2012
SNPRM to revise subpart 160.133 to
incorporate by reference IMO
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and
MSC.321(89). These changes affect
release mechanisms approved under
approval series 160.133, applying new
design, performance, and prototype
testing requirements, as set forth in IMO
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and
MSC.321(89). The changes also affect
davit-launched lifeboats approved
under subpart 160.135, and SOLAS
rescue boats and fast rescue boats
approved under subpart 160.156 (other
than those fitted with automatic release
hooks under approval series 160.170).
These lifeboats and rescue boats are
required to have a release mechanism
approved under subpart 160.133 as
revised by this final rule. However,
davit-launched lifeboats, SOLAS rescue
boats, and fast rescue boats already
installed prior to the implementation of
this final rule are not affected.
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
higher standards of safety and
performance than those of the existing
requirements incorporated by reference
in 46 CFR 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 and conducted a series of
outreach sessions with the public. The
Coast Guard considers these IMO
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44131
standards to represent the best available
standards for the design and
performance of release mechanisms. 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,
pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3306, considers
them to be appropriate for lifeboats and
rescue boats subject to inspection by the
United States.
A complete discussion of these
changes is available in the 2012
SNPRM. See 77 FR 70390.
In this final rule, the Coast Guard is
making final the 2011 IR with some
changes. The changes are those made by
the 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM
amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and
164. The rest of the 2011 IR remains the
same.
B. Discussion of Comments
The Coast Guard received two
comments in response to the 2012
SNPRM.
The first commenter was generally
supportive of the suggested changes, but
noted that the IMO Standardized LifeSaving Appliance Evaluation and Test
Report Forms published in IMO MSC
Circular 980 have not been updated
since they were originally issued in
2001.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that
the standardized IMO forms are out of
date. However, the forms were
developed by the IMO to provide
guidance on how to conduct the
proscribed tests, how to record data, and
how to report the results, and are within
IMO’s control to change. Use of these
forms is not required. It is the
responsibility of the manufacturer to
ensure that the test reports submitted for
approval appropriately document both
the tests performed and the results.
Therefore, no changes to the 2012
SNPRM were made based on this
comment.
The second commenter applauded the
Coast Guard’s actions to harmonize U.S.
regulations with international
standards, but expressed concern that
the IMO Resolutions incorporated by
reference, specifically Resolution
MSC.321(89), and the resolution that it
amends (MSC.81(70)), are written in
non-mandatory language. The
commenter requested clarification on
how the Coast Guard will apply the
provisions of an otherwise nonmandatory document when it is
referenced in a regulatory requirement.
The Revised recommendation on
testing, as amended by Resolution
MSC.321(89), sets forth requirements for
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
44132
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
Summary of the 2011 IR Regulatory
Assessment
The 2011 IR became effective
November 10, 2011. As a result, this
final rule does not add any incremental
costs or benefits to that IR. This
summary of the 2011 IR provides
background into the regulatory history
surrounding the final rule.
In the 2011 IR, which promulgated
the requirements set forth in the 2010
NPRM, the Coast Guard amended 46
CFR part 160 to harmonize its
regulations with IMO standards
governing certain types of lifesaving
equipment. The Coast Guard also
allowed the use of independent
laboratories under Coast Guard approval
procedures for certain types of
lifesaving equipment, including
requiring the use of independent
laboratories at certain stages of the
approval procedures, instead of Coast
Guard personnel to perform these
inspections and witness these tests. We
1 The 2010 NPRM, 2011 SNPRM, 2011 IR and the
2012 SNPRM. The 2010 NPRM and 2011 SNPRMs
also contained regulatory analyses, but as the
analyses in these documents were the same as those
in the 2011 IR and the 2012 IR, they are not
discussed separately.
2 The deflator used for conversion was the
consumer price index (all urban consumers), series
CUUR0000SA0. This data was downloaded on
December 12, 2013 from the Bureau of Labor
(https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost). Data from
the ‘‘Annual’’ column in this table, for 2008 and
2012, was used (215.303 and 229.594). Dollars were
converted to 2012 instead of 2013 because the 2013
data was not available as of the date the
calculations were made. Unless otherwise stated, all
conversions in this regulatory analysis to 2012
dollars were made using this BLS dataset.
V. Incorporation by Reference
The Director of the Federal Register
has approved the material in 46 CFR
160.133–5(c)(6) and (c)(7) for
incorporation by reference under 5
U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of
the material are available from the
sources listed in paragraph (a) of that
section.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to
rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on several of these
statutes or E.O.s.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility.
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
E.O. 12866. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it
under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we
developed an analysis of the costs and
benefits of the rule to ascertain its
probable impacts on industry. A final
regulatory assessment follows.
As this regulatory assessment is based
on the regulatory analyses contained in
the previously published documents
and supporting documentation for the
2011 IR, the 2012 IR, and the 2012
SNPRM, the regulatory assessment
below is only a summation of the
analyses performed in those
documents.1 A summary of each
rulemaking is provided here. Those
interested in the full analyses contained
in those documents should refer to them
on the docket as indicated in Table 1 of
this preamble. As all the documents,
with the exception of the 2012 SNPRM,
are already effective, the emphasis of
the discussion below will be on the
2012 SNPRM. As the phases of this
rulemaking prior to the 2012 SNPRM
are already effective, and the 2012
SNPRM does not impose costs, the final
rule also does not impose any new
costs. We received no additional
information from the public or from
other sources to cause us to modify our
estimated costs and benefits for any of
these phases.
expected that the changes to harmonize
existing regulations with international
standards would have no additional
costs for manufacturers of lifesaving
equipment. In order for their lifesaving
equipment to be used on vessels for
international voyages from any nation
that is signatory to SOLAS, equipment
manufacturers must comply with the
international standards for lifesaving
equipment established by SOLAS. We
further expected that the 2011 IR
reflected existing industry practices
adopted in response to these
international standards governing the
performance of certain types of
lifesaving equipment.
We expected the changes requiring
the use of independent laboratories,
instead of Coast Guard personnel,
would result in additional costs for
manufacturers of certain types of
lifesaving equipment. The Coast Guard
did not have a regulatory mechanism to
charge for any step in the approval
process for lifesaving equipment. The
use of independent laboratories required
by the 2011 IR created a new cost for
manufacturers of lifesaving equipment.
However, we expected that the costs of
inspections by independent laboratories
would be partially offset by an overall
reduction in the number of inspections,
made possible through the coordination
of independent laboratories.
Manufacturers, as a result of the 2011
IR, are able to schedule inspections and
testing for independent laboratories
acting on behalf of multiple nations,
including the United States, rather than
requiring separate Coast Guard
inspections and testing. This
coordinated use of independent
laboratories avoids multiple inspections
and testing of the same equipment.
Data obtained from the Coast Guard
Maritime Information Exchange
indicated that the population affected
by the 2011 IR included eight U.S.
manufacturers. We estimated the annual
costs to manufacturers for using
independent laboratories was
approximately $130,000 for U.S. firms,
in 2008 dollars. After converting to 2012
dollars, the cost comes to $138,597.2
Over a 10-year period the nominal nondiscounted cost is estimated at
$1,385,969. The cost is $973,447 when
discounted at 7 percent, and $1,182,260
when discounted at 3 percent. These
estimates, along with the annual costs,
can be seen in Table 2.
prototype testing of release mechanisms.
It is accepted as the best available
standard to demonstrate compliance
with the LSA Code. The Coast Guard
makes these requirements mandatory by
incorporating by reference the Revised
recommendation on testing and IMO
Resolution MSC.321(89) into the
regulations. Alternative standards or
tests to demonstrate compliance with
the LSA Code may be accepted in
accordance with 46 CFR 159.005–7(c).
The non-mandatory language in these
documents does not matter for the
purposes of Coast Guard regulations, as
the standards become mandatory when
incorporated by reference into Coast
Guard regulations, as we do in this final
rule. Therefore, no changes to the 2012
SNPRM were made based on this
comment.
Based on the above discussion of the
two comments received, no changes
were made to the regulatory text
proposed in the 2012 SNPRM. All
comments received on the NPRM and
the 2011 SNPRM were addressed in the
2011 and 2012 IRs, respectively. See 76
FR 62962 and 77 FR 9859.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
44133
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—10-YEAR ESTIMATED COSTS OF INSPECTION AND TESTING BY THIRD-PARTY INSPECTORS TO U.S.
MANUFACTURERS
[2012 dollars]
Discounted
Year
Nominal
7%
3%
1 ...................................................................................................................................................
2 ...................................................................................................................................................
3 ...................................................................................................................................................
4 ...................................................................................................................................................
5 ...................................................................................................................................................
6 ...................................................................................................................................................
7 ...................................................................................................................................................
8 ...................................................................................................................................................
9 ...................................................................................................................................................
10 .................................................................................................................................................
$138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
$129,530
121,056
113,136
105,735
98,818
92,353
86,311
80,665
75,388
70,456
$134,560
130,641
126,836
123,142
119,555
116,073
112,692
109,410
106,223
103,129
Total ......................................................................................................................................
1,385,969
973,447
1,182,260
Annualized ............................................................................................................................
138,597
138,597
138,597
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The other changes stemming from the
2011 IR, not resulting from
harmonization with international
standards or use of independent
laboratories, updated Coast Guard
regulations to reflect current industry
practice or to incorporate newer
versions of existing standards, and were
determined to have no costs. These
included an amendment specifying the
attachment point for sea anchors to
liferafts, the addition of a new subpart
in 46 CFR part 164 addressing resins
used in the construction of lifeboats and
rescue boats, and incorporating the use
of equivalent international standards as
an alternative to national consensus
standards.
The benefits of the 2011 IR included
compliance with U.S. obligations as a
signatory nation to SOLAS, and the
removal of inconsistencies between
international standards and the Coast
Guard’s regulations. In addition, the
rule also provided possible savings for
manufacturers from coordination
efficiencies for inspections that were not
quantified in the IR. It also increased
efficiency for the Coast Guard by
providing flexibility in assigning its
human resources, particularly those
3 One
stationed at overseas Coast Guard
offices.
The 2011 IR’s provisions relating to
third-party inspections have already
been enacted, and the final rule makes
no further modifications to these
provisions. Therefore, this final rule
does not impose new costs or benefits.
Summary of the 2012 IR Regulatory
Assessment
The 2012 IR became effective March
22, 2012. As a result, this final rule does
not add any incremental costs or
benefits to that IR. This summary of the
2012 IR provides background to the
regulatory history surrounding the final
rule.
In the 2012 IR, which implemented
the requirements set forth in the 2011
SNPRM, the Coast Guard amended the
2011 IR addressing lifesaving equipment
to harmonize Coast Guard regulations
for inflatable liferafts and inflatable
buoyant apparatuses with recently
adopted international standards
affecting capacity requirements for such
lifesaving equipment. Having found no
additional information (including
public comments) that changed our
findings in the 2011 SNPRM, we
adopted the assessment in the 2011
SNPRM for the 2012 IR as final.
The 2012 IR addressed the change in
the international standard for occupant
weight used in testing equipment to
establish the rated capacity of inflatable
liferafts and inflatable buoyant
apparatuses by revising the occupant
weight or ‘‘assumed average occupant
mass’’ from the previous 75 kg
(approximately 165 pounds) 3 to the
current weight standard of 82.5 kg
(approximately 182 pounds).
While the 2012 IR required
manufacturers to conduct prototype and
production tests for inflatable liferafts
and inflatable buoyant apparatuses
manufactured on or after March 22,
2012, using the new occupant weight
standard, it limited retesting of
currently approved equipment
manufactured to only liferafts then
currently rated for six occupants. The
2012 IR did not apply to liferafts
currently in service aboard U.S. vessels.
These were grandfathered in. As a
result, no vessel incurred replacement
costs for liferafts based on the 2012 IR.
Therefore, only manufacturers were
impacted. A summary of changes to the
baseline testing requirements is shown
in Table 3. It should be noted that Table
3 only applies to manufacturers of
liferafts, not vessels carrying liferafts.
kilogram is equal to 2.20462262 pounds.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
44134
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE BASELINE TESTING REQUIREMENTS STEMMING FROM THE 2012 IR
Device
Testing type
Existing equipment (approval prior to January 1,
2012)
New equipment (approval after January 1,
2012)
Testing
SOLAS Inflatable
Liferafts
(160.151).
Prototype testing ...
Production Testing
Non-SOLAS Inflatable Liferafts
(160.051).
Prototype testing ...
Impacts
Testing
Impacts
Manufacturers must
obtain a new Certificate of Approval certifying rated occupancy using the new
occupant weight
standard. Manufacturers may either
retest or have a certification made using
previous test results
adjusted for the new
occupant weight
standard.
All tests use the new
weight standard to
establish occupancy
rating.
Existing Certificates of
Approval may be renewed without retesting.
Units with rated capacity of fewer than six
occupants are ineligible for SOLAS
service. Costs of
testing unchanged
as nature of the test
is unchanged.
All tests use the new
occupant weight
standard to establish
occupancy rating.
Costs of testing unchanged as nature of
the test is unchanged.
Units with rated capacity of fewer than six
occupants are ineligible for SOLAS
service.
Costs of testing unchanged as nature of
the test is unchanged.
No cost or benefit as
the use of the new
occupant weight
standard is optional.
All tests use the new
occupant weight
standard to establish
occupancy rating.
All tests use the new
occupant weight
standard to establish
occupancy rating.
Costs of testing unchanged as nature of
the test is unchanged.
Costs of testing unchanged as nature of
the test is unchanged.
Production Testing
All tests use the new
occupant weight
standard to establish
occupancy rating.
Costs of testing unchanged as nature of
the test is unchanged.
Prototype testing ...
Existing Certificates of
Approval may be renewed without retesting.
No cost or benefit as
the use of the new
occupant weight
standard is optional.
All tests use the new
occupant weight
standard to establish
occupancy rating.
Costs of testing unchanged as nature of
the test is unchanged.
Production Testing
Inflatable Buoyant
Apparatus
(160.010).
No cost or benefit. The use of the new occupant
weight standard is optional for equipment manufactured under an existing Certificate of Approval.
No cost or benefit. The use of the new occupant
weight standard is optional for equipment manufactured under an existing Certificate of Approval.
All tests use the new
occupant weight
standard to establish
occupancy rating.
Costs of testing unchanged as nature of
the test is unchanged.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
As shown in Table 3, manufacturers
of SOLAS inflatable liferafts approved
under subpart 160.151 and
manufactured on or after March 22,
2012, were allowed the option of either
retesting using the new occupant weight
standard or requesting certification for a
lower rated occupancy (adjusted for the
new occupant weight standard) based
on the certification testing submitted for
their current approval.
We expected that the principal cost
impact for manufacturers of SOLAS
liferafts would be for currently
approved inflatable liferafts whose rated
capacity is six occupants using the
current weight standard of 75 kg. Since
SOLAS requires that inflatable liferafts
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
have a minimum capacity of six
occupants, any SOLAS liferaft currently
approved for six occupants had to be
retested under the new occupant weight
standard in order to retain approval.
We indicated in the 2012 IR that there
were three U.S. manufacturers of inscope liferafts. These three firms
manufactured a total of five different
models of liferafts with three of the
models having a capacity of six
occupants. See Table 4. U.S. firms that
manufactured liferafts with a capacity of
six occupants were assumed to retest
their liferafts in order to maintain their
SOLAS certification. From data
obtained from industry and used in the
2012 IR, we estimated the costs of
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
retesting for compliance with the new
occupant weight standard at $1,800 for
each model.
We estimated the total cost to
industry to retest all current SOLAS
liferaft models manufactured by U.S.
firms to be $5,400. This figure is in 2011
dollars. See Table 4. We show the
converted 2011 dollars to 2012 dollars
in Table 5. This cost was only incurred
once, when the 2012 IR was
implemented. There were no
requirements to test in subsequent
years. Therefore, in terms of the overall
cost of the 2012 IR, we expected that
there were no additional costs, other
than those identified in Tables 4 and 5.
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
44135
TABLE 4—SOLAS LIFERAFTS; COSTS TO RETEST FROM THE 2012 IR, IN 2011 DOLLARS
Manufacturer
Number of
manufacturers
Total number of
models of liferaft
produced
Total number of
models of liferaft
produced with an
occupancy rating
of six
Cost to retest
each SOLAS
liferaft
Total cost to
retest
U.S. owned Total .............................................
3
5
3
$1,800
$5,400
TABLE 5—SOLAS LIFERAFTS; COSTS TO RETEST FROM THE 2012 IR, IN 2012 DOLLARS, FOR U.S. MANUFACTURERS
PRODUCING SOLAS LIFERAFTS
Number of
U.S. owned
manufacturers
Total number of
models of
lifeboat
manufactured
Total number of
models of
liferafts produced
with an
occupancy
rating of six
Cost-to retest
each SOLAS
liferaft
Total cost to
retest
3 .......................................................................................................
5
3
$1,876
$5,513
The principal benefit of the 2012 IR
was the protection of life at sea by
establishing capacity standards for
inflatable liferafts and inflatable
buoyant apparatuses, reflecting a global
increase in mariner weights.
Additionally, the 2012 IR ensured
compliance with internationally
applicable standards for SOLAS and
adopted by the IMO.
This final rule does not change the
requirements in the 2012 IR discussed
above, and it does not add additional
costs or benefits related to the 2012 IR.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Summary of the 2012 SNPRM
Regulatory Assessment
The 2012 SNPRM proposed
amendments to the regulations
promulgated by the 2011 IR concerning
release mechanisms for lifeboats and
rescue boats with recently adopted
international standards affecting design,
performance, and testing for such
lifesaving equipment. It also proposed
to clarify the requirements concerning
grooved drums in launching appliance
winches. The 2012 SNPRM had three
components that could potentially have
cost impacts. The first component
involved amendments made to the IMO
LSA Code by the IMO MSC regarding
release mechanisms for lifeboats and
rescue boats. The second component
was a rewording made to 46 CFR
160.115–7(b)(5)(i) with respect to the
acceptance of non-grooved winch drums
as an alternative to grooved drums on
launching appliance winches. The third
component dealt with the need for
applications for pre-approval review for
Certificates of Approval.4
The first component, the set of
amendments made by the IMO’s MSC to
4 These pre-approval reviews are in accordance
with 160.133–23.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
design, performance and testing
requirements for release mechanisms,
incorporated into the CFR, impacted
one U.S. manufacturer of release
mechanisms. That one manufacturer
had to design, manufacture and test a
release mechanism that fulfilled these
new amendments. However, that single
manufacturer designed, tested, and
began to manufacture, market and sell
release mechanisms that fulfilled the
new requirements before the 2012
SNPRM became effective on January 1,
2013.5 The manufacturer did this
independently of the Coast Guard’s
implementation of the 2012 SNPRM.6
If we had assumed the Coast Guard
had promulgated the 2012 SNPRM in
the absence of an IMO amendment,
there would have been a cost. The single
U.S. manufacturer would have
experienced fixed testing and design
costs that it would not otherwise have
incurred.7
The second component, the
rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115–
7(b)(5)(i), had no impact on the design,
manufacturing or testing of release
mechanism, or on any process involving
government approval. The rewording
only was intended to make it clear to
the public that non-grooved winch
drums were acceptable as well as
grooved winch drums. This wording
clarified the Coast Guard’s previous
practice of accepting both.
The third component was a
requirement for manufacturers to
provide the Coast Guard with an
application for pre-approval review for
certificates of approval for the new
5 Telephone conversation between the Coast
Guard and the manufacturer.
6 Telephone conversation between the Coast
Guard and the manufacturer.
7 Based on telephone conversation between the
Coast Guard and the manufacturer.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
release mechanisms. However, as
already stated in this preamble, the
single U.S. manufacturer phased in
production of release mechanisms that
fulfilled the new IMO requirements
prior to January 1, 2013, and
independently of whether the Coast
Guard put forth the requirements in the
2012 SNPRM.8 As the introduction of a
new release mechanism would have
required, regardless of its specifications,
the completion of such paperwork, the
cost was already incurred.
The incorporation of the IMO’s new
amendments to the LSA Code into the
CFR harmonized U.S. standards with
the IMO’s standards. This
harmonization was necessary for two
reasons. First, it was needed for the
United States to comply with its treaty
obligations as a signatory to SOLAS. By
harmonizing Coast Guard requirements
for release mechanisms for lifeboats and
rescue boats, the United States now has
the same requirements as the
international standards established by
the IMO LSA Code. Secondly, the
harmonization was necessary to clarify
requirements and remove
inconsistencies between the
requirements for SOLAS compliance
and parts of Title 46 that regulate
release mechanisms on lifeboats and
rescue boats.
One benefit of U.S. harmonization
with international standards is that it
allows the domestic manufacturer, as
well as any future manufacturers, of inscope equipment to sell the equipment
on the international market and to do so
in a more efficient manner. Adoption of
the international standards, and Coast
Guard inspection and certification of the
equipment in line with those standards,
8 The manufacturer told the Coast Guard this in
a phone conversation in June of 2012.
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
44136
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
enables domestic manufacturers to enter
foreign markets and to sell more
effectively as a result of the Coast Guard
certification they obtain.
Harmonization also enables vessels
with the in-scope equipment to operate
in international waters and ports
without fear of detention or fines.
Without the adoption of the
international standards, these vessels
would be in violation of IMO
requirements. There are 170 members 9
of the IMO. As member-nations of the
IMO normally adopt IMO requirements
into their own legal maritime codes,
vessels with in-scope equipment would
be able to operate in a large number of
nations without fear of legal
repercussions and the implied fines and
loss of revenue stemming from
associated delays.
The 2012 SNPRM could also have
affected U.S. vessel owners or operators
of U.S. vessels that were required to
carry lifeboats and/or rescue boats,
which would need to be equipped with
release mechanisms that fulfilled the
new requirements. However, only those
release mechanisms purchased after
January 1, 2013, would need to be
replaced. If release mechanisms meeting
both the pre-2012 SNPRM and post2012 SNPRM requirements were
available, the Coast Guard assumes
vessel owners or operators would
purchase the less expensive of the two,
which were those mechanisms that met
the pre-2012 SNRPM requirements (i.e.,
pre-January 1, 2013). As stated above,
however, the one U.S.-based supplier of
in-scope, galvanized steel release
mechanisms stopped manufacturing
them and began manufacturing and
selling release mechanisms that fulfilled
the new IMO LSA Code amendments
proposed in the 2012 SNPRM. This U.S.
manufacturer was the only
manufacturer of galvanized steel (or its
regulatory equivalent) in the world.10
Therefore, the galvanized steel
mechanisms (or their regulatory
equivalent) would no longer be
available for purchase after the single
U.S. manufacturer stopped producing
them. Only the non-galvanized,
corrosion resistant mechanisms that
were in compliance with the IMO
requirements would be available after
January 1, 2013.
The 2012 SNPRM is adopted without
change in this final rule. The Coast
Guard does not expect a change in the
benefits or costs between the 2012
SNPRM and this final rule.11
Summation of the Costs and Benefits of
the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and 2012 SNPRM
As stated previously, the 2011 and
2012 IRs have already been
implemented. The 2012 SNPRM had no
quantifiable costs or benefits and is
being implemented in this final rule
with no additional changes being made
that may impact either costs or benefits.
Thus, this final rule has no incremental
costs or benefits associated with it. The
aggregate costs and benefits of the 2011
IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM are
only being presented to provide the
reader with perspective on the previous
rulemakings.
This section aggregates the monetized
costs and qualitative benefits relating to
the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012
SNPRM. The costs and benefits are each
aggregated in Tables 6 and 7. In Table
6, we aggregate the total nominal 10year costs at $1,391,482. Discounted, at
7 percent, the 10-year total came to
$978,599 ($139,331 on an annualized
basis) and, at 3 percent, to $1,187,612
($139,224 on an annualized basis). The
2012 SNPRM had no monetized costs,
and it is not included in the table.
It should be stressed that this final
rule does not add additional costs to
those already established by the
previous phases of this rulemaking.
Additionally, we received no public
comments or other information
suggesting any change was required.
TABLE 6—MONETIZED COSTS
[2012 Dollars]
2011 IR
Year
2012 IR
Estimated annual cost inspection and
testing by third-party inspectors for U.S.
manufacturers
Costs to U.S. manufacturers producing inscope liferafts with the capacity of holding
only six passengers
Total
Discounted
Nominal
Discounted
Discounted
Nominal
7%
3%
Nominal
7%
3%
7%
3%
$138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
$129,530
121,056
113,136
105,735
98,818
92,353
86,311
80,665
75,388
70,456
$134,560
130,641
126,836
123,142
119,555
116,073
112,692
109,410
106,223
103,129
$5,513
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$5,152
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$5,352
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$144,110
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
138,597
$134,682
121,056
113,136
105,735
98,818
92,353
86,311
80,665
75,388
70,456
$139,913
130,641
126,836
123,142
119,555
116,073
112,692
109,410
106,223
103,129
Total ...................................
1,385,969
973,447
1,182,260
5,513
5,152
5,352
1,391,482
978,599
1,187,612
Annualized .........................
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1 ................................................
2 ................................................
3 ................................................
4 ................................................
5 ................................................
6 ................................................
7 ................................................
8 ................................................
9 ................................................
10 ..............................................
138,597
138,597
138,597
551
734
627
139,148
139,331
139,224
The benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012
IR, and the 2012 SNPRM are
summarized in Table 7. The final rule
does not change any of the amendments
discussed above relating to benefits, nor
does it add or delete any benefits.
Therefore, the final rule will not change
the benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR
and 2012 SNPRM.
9 According to the official IMO’s Web site, on
March 14, 2014, the IMO had 170 members and
three associate members (https://www.imo.org/
About/Membership/Pages/Default.aspx).
10 Based on telephone discussions with numerous
distributors and manufacturers of release
mechanisms in the U.S.
11 There were no public comments received, or
other information found, that implied any changes
were needed in the 2012 SNPRM.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
44137
TABLE 7—BENEFITS
Benefits (qualitative)
2011 IR ..............
2012 IR ..............
2012 SNPRM ....
Harmonization of domestic and international standards will lead to—
* The implementation of the regulation has led to the requirement for one homogeneous standard that replaces the
more numerous standards being used domestically. This leads to reduced transaction costs due to the fact that there
are fewer standards to follow.
* Increased market size, and economies of scale, to manufacturers that will lead to lower costs in terms of investment
that is fixed in manufacturing, research and development, marketing, and other fixed variables.
* Common international standards also encourage new entrants into the market by reducing the barriers to entry encountered in markets fragmented by different standards.
* Enabling the U.S. to fulfill its obligations as a signatory party to SOLAS.
New placement of anchor requirements will lead to—
* Potentially fewer personnel casualties.
* Updating and replacing some standards for fire retardant resins incorporated by reference in 46 CFR 160.035(b) into a
separate subpart, 46 CFR subpart 164.017.
Possibly reduced costs of manufacturing and inventories because the adoption of international standards means the need for
fewer models of in-scope equipment for both domestic and international markets.
The use of independent laboratories instead of Coast Guard personnel will lead to—
* Manufacturers will have greater flexibility over when they can arrange inspections.
* Enables the Coast Guard to concentrate on fulfilling its lifesaving and environmental stewardship functions.
Higher weight testing standards lead to—
* Possibly fewer personnel casualties and less property damage.
* Enabling the U.S. to fulfill its obligations as a signatory party to SOLAS.
Adoption of new IMO LSA design, construction and testing standards leads to—
* Potentially fewer accidents, and therefore few personnel casualties and less property damage.
Added wording on Coast Guard’s acceptance of non-grooved drums as alternative to grooved drums on launching appliance
winches is expected to—
* Reduce uncertainty for both manufacturers and consumers. This, in turn, leads to more confidence in purchasing the
appropriate in-scope equipment.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
A brief summary of the analyses
performed for the 2011 IR, 2012 IR and
2012 SNPRM for purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is provided
below. Each of these analyses is
discussed separately in its own section.
The discussions are only intended as a
brief synopsis. In-depth analysis can be
found on the docket.
2011 IR
As discussed in the ‘‘Summary of the
2011 IR’’ in Section VII.A of this
preamble, we determined that six of the
eight U.S. firms manufacturing in-scope
lifesaving equipment were classified as
small entities under the Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards.
We estimated the annual costs to use
independent laboratories was less than
0.5 percent of annual revenue for five of
the six small entities, and less than 1.25
percent of annual revenue for the other.
However, these estimates do not include
adjustments for manufacturer savings
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
from the coordinated use of
independent laboratories, which would
avoid multiple inspections and tests of
the same equipment. This adjustment
could not be made, as there was no data
on which to base an estimate, but its
omission should only serve to inflate
costs. Based on available information,
the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that the 2011 IR would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
2012 IR
As discussed in the ‘‘Summary of the
2012 IR’’ in Section VII.A of this
preamble, the 2012 IR identified only
one material cost, and that was
associated with testing three different
inflatable liferafts that had the capacity
to hold exactly six passengers in order
to determine if they could meet the new
weight standards of 82.5 kg instead of
75 kg. This cost was estimated at
$1,876 12 per model. There were a total
of three in-scope models being
produced, so the total industry cost was
estimated at $5,513. This cost was only
incurred in the first year of the
implementation of the 2012 IR. No
further testing would be required.
The Coast Guard identified three
manufacturers that could be considered
small entities according to SBA small
business requirements.13 For two of
PO 00000
12 In
2012 dollar terms.
SNPRM. 76 FR 62714, page 62719.
13 2011
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
these companies, revenue data were not
available. For the third, the revenues
were $20 million per year.14 The 2012
IR’s costs came to 0.027 percent of total
annual revenue.15 Based on this
information, the Coast Guard certified
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the 2012 IR
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2012 SNPRM
As discussed in the ‘‘Summary of the
2012 SNPRM Regulatory Assessment’’
in Section VII.A of this preamble, there
were no costs estimated as a result of
the implementation of the 2012 SNPRM.
The single U.S. manufacturing firm that
produced the in-scope release
mechanisms had stopped manufacturing
the release mechanisms that fulfilled
older IMO requirements and began
manufacturing only those release
mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO
requirements prior to January 1, 2013
(the date the new IMO requirements
took effect). Only those release
mechanisms that fulfill the IMO
requirements are available on the
14 Data was not available in 2010 when the search
was originally conducted. In December 2013
another search was conducted for the same two
companies’ revenue in MANTA but the data was
also not available at that time.
15 Total costs were estimated at $5,513 over the
entire 10 year period. Total revenue was at least $20
million for the most recent available year. Thus the
cost/revenue ratio was conservatively estimated at
0.027%.
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
44138
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
market. The manufacturer made this
change prior to the publication of the
2012 SNPRM and independently of
whether or not the Coast Guard would
have implemented the 2012 SNPRM.16
Therefore, the Coast Guard certified
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Final Rule
The final rule does not amend the
2011 IR, 2012 IR or 2012 SNPRM in any
manner that may add costs and does not
add any new requirements that we find
to add costs. Therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
121, we offered to assist small entities
in understanding this rule so that they
can better evaluate its effects on them
and participate in the rulemaking. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
16 Telephone conversation between the Coast
Guard and the manufacturer.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Our analysis is explained below.
It is well settled that States may not
regulate in categories reserved for
regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also
well settled that all of the categories
covered for inspected vessels in 46
U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101
(design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping,
personnel qualification, and manning of
vessels), as well as the reporting of
casualties and any other category in
which Congress intended the Coast
Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s
obligations are within fields foreclosed
from regulation by the States. (See the
Supreme Court’s decision in United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6,
2000).)
This rule amends regulations that
establish the approval process for
lifesaving equipment designs, oversight
of prototype construction, prototype
testing, and production monitoring of
equipment for use on U.S. vessels. As
these regulations are promulgated under
the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306, they fall
within fields foreclosed from regulation
by State or local governments.
Therefore, this final rule is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in E.O. 13132.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under E.O. 12630
(‘‘Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988
(‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’) to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under E.O.
13045 (‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’). This rule is not an
economically significant rule and will
not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under E.O. 13175
(‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’), because it
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under E.O.
13211 (‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’).
We have determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under that
order because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under E.O. 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, and the
Administrator of OMB’s Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated it as a significant energy
action.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies
to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory activities unless the
agency provides Congress, through the
OMB, with an explanation of why using
these standards would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods;
sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies.
This rule uses 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
life-saving appliances, as amended by
IMO Resolution MSC.321(89).
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The 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.
Additionally, this rule finalizes
technical standards, some of which are
voluntary consensus standards, which
were addressed in the 2011 and 2012
IRs. Please see 76 FR 62962 and 77 FR
9859 for information on these standards.
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 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 rule would
satisfy the requirements of 46 U.S.C.
2118(a), as necessary.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Jkt 232001
Subpart 160.133—Release
Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue
Boats
§ 160.133–3
46 CFR Part 160
[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)(2), after the words
‘‘pages 7–71’’, remove the words
‘‘(‘‘IMO LSA Code’’)’’, and after the
words ‘‘and 160.133–7’’ add the words
‘‘(‘‘IMO LSA Code’’)’’;
■ d. 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 after the words ‘‘pages 79–
254’’, remove the words ‘‘(‘‘IMO Revised
recommendation on testing’’)’’; and
■ e. Add paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) to
read as follows:
■
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 adopts the
interim rule amending 46 CFR parts
108, 117, 133, 160, 164, 180, and 199,
which published at 76 FR 62962 on
October 11, 2011, as a final rule without
change, except as amended by the
interim rule published at 77 FR 9859 on
February 12, 2012, with the following
changes:
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. Amend § 160.115–7 by revising
paragraph (b)(5)(i) to read as follows:
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This rule is
categorically excluded under section
2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(a), (d)
and (e) and under section 6a of the
‘‘Appendix to National Environmental
Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for
Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final
Agency Policy’’ (67 FR 48244, July 23,
2002). This rule involves regulations
which are editorial, regulations
concerning equipping of vessels,
regulations concerning equipment
approval and carriage requirements, and
regulations concerning vessel operation
safety standards. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
List of Subjects
■
N. Environment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
44139
§ 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. Amend § 160.115–13 by adding
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
that the falls wind evenly on and off
each drum.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend the heading of Subpart
160.133 to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 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) to read as
set forth 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\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
44140
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
8. Amend § 160.133–13 as follows:
a. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory
text, 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.
[Amended]
9. Amend § 160.133–15(e) by
removing the last two sentences.
■ 10. Amend the heading of Subpart
160.135 to read as follows:
■
Subpart 160.135—Lifeboats
§ 160.135–5
[Amended]
11. Amend § 160.135–5(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 § 160.135–15 as follows:
■ a. In paragraph (d), remove the
reference ‘‘(e)(2)’’ and add, in its place,
the reference ‘‘(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:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
*
*
(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).
14:55 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
testing, part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated
by reference, see § 160.156–5 of this
subpart).
*
§ 160.156–5
[Amended]
13. Amend § 160.156–5(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’’.
■
[Amended]
■
■
§ 160.133–15
§ 160.135–15 Production inspections,
tests, quality control, and conformance of
lifeboats.
§ 160.156–7
[Amended]
14. Amend § 160.156–7(b)(13) by
removing the word ‘‘lifeboat’’ and
adding, in its place, the words ‘‘rescue
boat’’.
■
§ 160.156–9
[Amended]
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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: July 22, 2014.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014–17653 Filed 7–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 12–267; FCC 13–111]
Comprehensive Review of Licensing
and Operating Rules for Satellite
Services
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
The Federal Communications
Commission published a document in
the Federal Register at 79 FR 8308,
February 12, 2014, revising Commission
rules. That document inadvertently
included a reference to 2 GHz MobileSatellite Service in § 25.285(a)(2). This
document corrects the final regulation
by revising that provision.
DATES: The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing the effective date of the rule
section corrected here and of this
correction after receiving approval from
the Office of Management and Budget
for the information collection
requirements contained in the
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Spiers, Satellite Division,
International Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission,
Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418–
1593 or via email at Cindy.Spiers@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.
2014–02213 appearing on page 8308 in
the Federal Register of Wednesday,
February 12, 2014, the following
correction is made:
SUMMARY:
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) introductory
text, 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:
■
■
*
PART 164—MATERIALS
§ 25.285
[Corrected]
On page 8326, in the first column, in
§ 25.285 paragraph (a)(2), ‘‘ATC
■
E:\FR\FM\30JYR1.SGM
30JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44129-44140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17653]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 108, 117, 133, 160, 164, 180, and 199
[Docket No. USCG-2010-0048]
RIN 1625-AB46
Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the amendments to Coast Guard regulations
for certain lifesaving equipment, including launching appliances
(winches and davits), release mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats,
inflatable liferafts, and inflatable buoyant apparatus), rescue boats,
and automatic disengaging devices, which were published as an interim
rule and amended by a second interim rule. Additionally, it finalizes
the amendments to the requirements for Coast Guard-approved release
mechanisms proposed in a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM). This final rule harmonizes the Coast Guard's design,
construction, and performance standards for this lifesaving equipment
with international standards, while providing for the use of qualified
independent laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, during the
approval process and for production inspections of certain types of
lifesaving equipment.
DATES: This final rule is effective August 29, 2014. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register on August 29, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 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,
or email TypeApproval@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Discussion of Rule
A. Background
B. Discussion of Comments
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
N. Environment
I. Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
IMO LSA Code ``International Life-saving Appliance Code,'' IMO
Resolution MSC.48(66)
[[Page 44130]]
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
Revised recommendation on testing ``Revised recommendation on
testing of life-saving appliances,'' IMO Resolution MSC.81(70)
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
2010 NPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization With International Standards,'' August 31, 2010, (75
FR 53458).
2011 IR ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization
With International Standards; Interim Rule,'' October 10, 2011, (76
FR 62962).
2011 SNPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization with International Standards'' Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking, October 10, 2011, (76 FR 62714).
2012 IR ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization
with International Standards'' Interim Rule, February 21, 2012, (77
FR 9859).
2012 SNPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization with International Standards'' Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking, November 26, 2012, (77 FR 70390).
II. Regulatory History
The complete regulatory history of the Lifesaving Equipment
rulemaking is summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Rulemaking History
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document type Federal Register cite Date published Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of proposed rulemaking 75 FR 53458 8/31/2010 Proposed amendments to regulations
(2010 NPRM). for certain lifesaving equipment.
Harmonized the design,
construction, and performance
standards for this lifesaving
equipment with international
standards and provided for the use
of qualified independent
laboratories, instead of Coast
Guard inspectors, during the
approval process and for
production inspections.
Interim Rule (2011 IR)............ 76 FR 62962 10/11/2011 Established the requirements set
forth in the 2010 NPRM, and
indicated this would be an interim
rule because of anticipated
forthcoming changes to
international standards for
release mechanisms.
Supplemental notice of proposed 76 FR 62714 10/11/2011 Proposed amending the 2011 IR
rulemaking (2011 SNPRM). published on the same date to
harmonize Coast Guard regulations
for inflatable liferafts and
inflatable buoyant apparatuses
with recently adopted
international standards.
Interim Rule Correction........... 76 FR 70062 11/10/2011 Made four editorial corrections to
the 2011 IR.
Interim Rule (2012 IR)............ 77 FR 9859 2/21/2012 Implemented the requirements set
forth in the 2011 SNPRM,
recognizing that before the 2011
IR would become a final rule, an
additional SNPRM would be issued
to address release mechanisms for
lifeboats and rescue boats.
Supplemental notice of proposed 77 FR 70390 11/26/2012 Proposed amendments to the 2011 IR
rulemaking (2012 SNPRM). to harmonize lifeboats and rescue
boat release mechanism regulations
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 31, 2010, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization With International Standards'' (2010 NPRM) to harmonize
the Coast Guard's requirements for certain lifesaving equipment,
including launching appliances (winches and davits), release
mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and
inflatable buoyant apparatuses), rescue boats, and automatic
disengaging devices with international design, construction, and
performance standards, and to expand the use of qualified independent
laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, in the approval
process and for production inspections. A complete discussion of these
changes is available in the NPRM, published August 30, 2010. See 75 FR
53458, 53460.
On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim rule
titled ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization
With International Standards; Interim Rule'' (2011 IR) making effective
the changes proposed in the NPRM. See 76 FR 62962. The Coast Guard
issued that interim rule in anticipation of future amendments to
international standards from the International Maritime Organization's
(IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) regarding release mechanisms. A
complete discussion of the 2011 IR, published October 11, 2011, is also
available. See 76 FR 62962.
Concurrently on October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published a
supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (2011 SNPRM) proposing
amendments to the portion of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
modified by the 2011 IR regarding inflatable liferafts and inflatable
buoyant apparatuses. See 76 FR 62714. The 2011 SNPRM proposed
manufacturers conduct tests on prototype and production liferafts for
Coast Guard approval under subpart 160.151 (SOLAS liferafts) using the
new assumed average mass of liferaft occupants (82.5 kg), instead of
the previous assumed average mass (75 kg), without imposing this
requirement on liferafts currently in service. On February 21, 2012,
the Coast Guard published a second interim rule (2012 IR) which made
amendments to the 2011 IR by making the changes proposed in the 2011
SNPRM regarding inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses
effective. See 77 FR 9859. A complete discussion of these changes is
available in the 2011 SNPRM. See 76 FR 62714. A complete discussion of
the 2012 IR, published February 21, 2012, is also available. See 77 FR
9859.
On November 26, 2012, the Coast Guard published a second SNPRM
(2012 SNPRM) proposing amendments to the portion of the CFR modified by
the 2011 IR regarding release mechanisms. See 77 FR 70390. We received
two public comments to the 2012 SNPRM, which we address below. No
public meeting was requested and none was held.
The Coast Guard is making final the 2011 interim rule with some
changes. The only changes are those made by the 2012 IR, and the 2012
SNPRM
[[Page 44131]]
amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and 164. The rest of the 2011 IR remains
the same.
III. Basis and Purpose
The Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that lifesaving equipment
used on vessels subject to inspection by the United States meets
specific design, construction, and performance standards. See 46 U.S.C.
3306. The Coast Guard carries out this charge through the approval of
lifesaving equipment per 46 CFR part 2, subpart 2.75. The approval
process includes pre-approval review of 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. Please see the 2010 NPRM for further information on the Coast
Guard's International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended, (SOLAS) obligations.
IV. Discussion of Rule
A. Background
In the 2012 SNPRM, amendments were proposed to the Coast Guard's
standards for release mechanisms found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart
160.133 to implement current SOLAS requirements for lifeboat release
mechanisms. The Coast Guard also proposed amendments to subpart 160.115
to clarify the winch drum design requirements, and also proposed
technical amendments to correct non-substantive errors in 46 CFR part
160, subparts 160.133, 160.135, and 160.156, and in 46 CFR part 164.
Current requirements for lifeboat release mechanisms are the IMO
standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS. Those IMO standards are
the ``International Life-saving Appliance Code,'' IMO Resolution
MSC.48(66), as amended (IMO LSA Code), and the ``Revised recommendation
on testing of life-saving appliances,'' IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), as
amended (Revised recommendation on testing). The IMO updates these
standards by adopting MSC Resolutions which promulgate amendments to
these standards. The 2011 IR incorporated by reference all MSC
Resolutions affecting release mechanisms adopted at the time the 2010
NPRM was published.
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 design and performance
requirements for release mechanisms in the IMO LSA Code, which entered
into force on January 1, 2013. The amendments include specific
requirements for increased hook stability, corrosion-resistance, and
additional safety features. Resolution MSC.321(89) specifies revisions
to the prototype testing of release mechanisms supporting the
amendments to the IMO LSA Code's Revised recommendation on testing,
which entered into force on January 1, 2013.
The Coast Guard proposed in the 2012 SNPRM to revise subpart
160.133 to incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and
MSC.321(89). These changes affect release mechanisms approved under
approval series 160.133, applying new design, performance, and
prototype testing requirements, as set forth in IMO Resolutions
MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89). The changes also affect davit-launched
lifeboats approved under subpart 160.135, and SOLAS rescue boats and
fast rescue boats approved under subpart 160.156 (other than those
fitted with automatic release hooks under approval series 160.170).
These lifeboats and rescue boats are required to have a release
mechanism approved under subpart 160.133 as revised by this final rule.
However, davit-launched lifeboats, SOLAS rescue boats, and fast rescue
boats already installed prior to the implementation of this final rule
are not affected.
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 higher standards of safety and performance than those of the
existing requirements incorporated by reference in 46 CFR 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 and conducted a series of
outreach sessions with the public. The Coast Guard considers these IMO
standards to represent the best available standards for the design and
performance of release mechanisms. 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, pursuant to 46 U.S.C.
3306, considers them to be appropriate for lifeboats and rescue boats
subject to inspection by the United States.
A complete discussion of these changes is available in the 2012
SNPRM. See 77 FR 70390.
In this final rule, the Coast Guard is making final the 2011 IR
with some changes. The changes are those made by the 2012 IR, and the
2012 SNPRM amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and 164. The rest of the 2011
IR remains the same.
B. Discussion of Comments
The Coast Guard received two comments in response to the 2012
SNPRM.
The first commenter was generally supportive of the suggested
changes, but noted that the IMO Standardized Life-Saving Appliance
Evaluation and Test Report Forms published in IMO MSC Circular 980 have
not been updated since they were originally issued in 2001.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that the standardized IMO forms are
out of date. However, the forms were developed by the IMO to provide
guidance on how to conduct the proscribed tests, how to record data,
and how to report the results, and are within IMO's control to change.
Use of these forms is not required. It is the responsibility of the
manufacturer to ensure that the test reports submitted for approval
appropriately document both the tests performed and the results.
Therefore, no changes to the 2012 SNPRM were made based on this
comment.
The second commenter applauded the Coast Guard's actions to
harmonize U.S. regulations with international standards, but expressed
concern that the IMO Resolutions incorporated by reference,
specifically Resolution MSC.321(89), and the resolution that it amends
(MSC.81(70)), are written in non-mandatory language. The commenter
requested clarification on how the Coast Guard will apply the
provisions of an otherwise non-mandatory document when it is referenced
in a regulatory requirement.
The Revised recommendation on testing, as amended by Resolution
MSC.321(89), sets forth requirements for
[[Page 44132]]
prototype testing of release mechanisms. It is accepted as the best
available standard to demonstrate compliance with the LSA Code. The
Coast Guard makes these requirements mandatory by incorporating by
reference the Revised recommendation on testing and IMO Resolution
MSC.321(89) into the regulations. Alternative standards or tests to
demonstrate compliance with the LSA Code may be accepted in accordance
with 46 CFR 159.005-7(c). The non-mandatory language in these documents
does not matter for the purposes of Coast Guard regulations, as the
standards become mandatory when incorporated by reference into Coast
Guard regulations, as we do in this final rule. Therefore, no changes
to the 2012 SNPRM were made based on this comment.
Based on the above discussion of the two comments received, no
changes were made to the regulatory text proposed in the 2012 SNPRM.
All comments received on the NPRM and the 2011 SNPRM were addressed in
the 2011 and 2012 IRs, respectively. See 76 FR 62962 and 77 FR 9859.
V. Incorporation by Reference
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in
46 CFR 160.133-5(c)(6) and (c)(7) for incorporation by reference under
5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available
from the sources listed in paragraph (a) of that section.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on several of these statutes or E.O.s.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not
reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of
the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on
industry. A final regulatory assessment follows.
As this regulatory assessment is based on the regulatory analyses
contained in the previously published documents and supporting
documentation for the 2011 IR, the 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM, the
regulatory assessment below is only a summation of the analyses
performed in those documents.\1\ A summary of each rulemaking is
provided here. Those interested in the full analyses contained in those
documents should refer to them on the docket as indicated in Table 1 of
this preamble. As all the documents, with the exception of the 2012
SNPRM, are already effective, the emphasis of the discussion below will
be on the 2012 SNPRM. As the phases of this rulemaking prior to the
2012 SNPRM are already effective, and the 2012 SNPRM does not impose
costs, the final rule also does not impose any new costs. We received
no additional information from the public or from other sources to
cause us to modify our estimated costs and benefits for any of these
phases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2010 NPRM, 2011 SNPRM, 2011 IR and the 2012 SNPRM. The
2010 NPRM and 2011 SNPRMs also contained regulatory analyses, but as
the analyses in these documents were the same as those in the 2011
IR and the 2012 IR, they are not discussed separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the 2011 IR Regulatory Assessment
The 2011 IR became effective November 10, 2011. As a result, this
final rule does not add any incremental costs or benefits to that IR.
This summary of the 2011 IR provides background into the regulatory
history surrounding the final rule.
In the 2011 IR, which promulgated the requirements set forth in the
2010 NPRM, the Coast Guard amended 46 CFR part 160 to harmonize its
regulations with IMO standards governing certain types of lifesaving
equipment. The Coast Guard also allowed the use of independent
laboratories under Coast Guard approval procedures for certain types of
lifesaving equipment, including requiring the use of independent
laboratories at certain stages of the approval procedures, instead of
Coast Guard personnel to perform these inspections and witness these
tests. We expected that the changes to harmonize existing regulations
with international standards would have no additional costs for
manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. In order for their lifesaving
equipment to be used on vessels for international voyages from any
nation that is signatory to SOLAS, equipment manufacturers must comply
with the international standards for lifesaving equipment established
by SOLAS. We further expected that the 2011 IR reflected existing
industry practices adopted in response to these international standards
governing the performance of certain types of lifesaving equipment.
We expected the changes requiring the use of independent
laboratories, instead of Coast Guard personnel, would result in
additional costs for manufacturers of certain types of lifesaving
equipment. The Coast Guard did not have a regulatory mechanism to
charge for any step in the approval process for lifesaving equipment.
The use of independent laboratories required by the 2011 IR created a
new cost for manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. However, we
expected that the costs of inspections by independent laboratories
would be partially offset by an overall reduction in the number of
inspections, made possible through the coordination of independent
laboratories. Manufacturers, as a result of the 2011 IR, are able to
schedule inspections and testing for independent laboratories acting on
behalf of multiple nations, including the United States, rather than
requiring separate Coast Guard inspections and testing. This
coordinated use of independent laboratories avoids multiple inspections
and testing of the same equipment.
Data obtained from the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange
indicated that the population affected by the 2011 IR included eight
U.S. manufacturers. We estimated the annual costs to manufacturers for
using independent laboratories was approximately $130,000 for U.S.
firms, in 2008 dollars. After converting to 2012 dollars, the cost
comes to $138,597.\2\ Over a 10-year period the nominal non-discounted
cost is estimated at $1,385,969. The cost is $973,447 when discounted
at 7 percent, and $1,182,260 when discounted at 3 percent. These
estimates, along with the annual costs, can be seen in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The deflator used for conversion was the consumer price
index (all urban consumers), series CUUR0000SA0. This data was
downloaded on December 12, 2013 from the Bureau of Labor (https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost). Data from the ``Annual'' column in
this table, for 2008 and 2012, was used (215.303 and 229.594).
Dollars were converted to 2012 instead of 2013 because the 2013 data
was not available as of the date the calculations were made. Unless
otherwise stated, all conversions in this regulatory analysis to
2012 dollars were made using this BLS dataset.
[[Page 44133]]
Table 2--10-Year Estimated Costs of Inspection and Testing by Third-Party Inspectors to U.S. Manufacturers
[2012 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted
Year Nominal -------------------------------
7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $138,597 $129,530 $134,560
2............................................................... 138,597 121,056 130,641
3............................................................... 138,597 113,136 126,836
4............................................................... 138,597 105,735 123,142
5............................................................... 138,597 98,818 119,555
6............................................................... 138,597 92,353 116,073
7............................................................... 138,597 86,311 112,692
8............................................................... 138,597 80,665 109,410
9............................................................... 138,597 75,388 106,223
10.............................................................. 138,597 70,456 103,129
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 1,385,969 973,447 1,182,260
-----------------------------------------------
Annualized.................................................. 138,597 138,597 138,597
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other changes stemming from the 2011 IR, not resulting from
harmonization with international standards or use of independent
laboratories, updated Coast Guard regulations to reflect current
industry practice or to incorporate newer versions of existing
standards, and were determined to have no costs. These included an
amendment specifying the attachment point for sea anchors to liferafts,
the addition of a new subpart in 46 CFR part 164 addressing resins used
in the construction of lifeboats and rescue boats, and incorporating
the use of equivalent international standards as an alternative to
national consensus standards.
The benefits of the 2011 IR included compliance with U.S.
obligations as a signatory nation to SOLAS, and the removal of
inconsistencies between international standards and the Coast Guard's
regulations. In addition, the rule also provided possible savings for
manufacturers from coordination efficiencies for inspections that were
not quantified in the IR. It also increased efficiency for the Coast
Guard by providing flexibility in assigning its human resources,
particularly those stationed at overseas Coast Guard offices.
The 2011 IR's provisions relating to third-party inspections have
already been enacted, and the final rule makes no further modifications
to these provisions. Therefore, this final rule does not impose new
costs or benefits.
Summary of the 2012 IR Regulatory Assessment
The 2012 IR became effective March 22, 2012. As a result, this
final rule does not add any incremental costs or benefits to that IR.
This summary of the 2012 IR provides background to the regulatory
history surrounding the final rule.
In the 2012 IR, which implemented the requirements set forth in the
2011 SNPRM, the Coast Guard amended the 2011 IR addressing lifesaving
equipment to harmonize Coast Guard regulations for inflatable liferafts
and inflatable buoyant apparatuses with recently adopted international
standards affecting capacity requirements for such lifesaving
equipment. Having found no additional information (including public
comments) that changed our findings in the 2011 SNPRM, we adopted the
assessment in the 2011 SNPRM for the 2012 IR as final.
The 2012 IR addressed the change in the international standard for
occupant weight used in testing equipment to establish the rated
capacity of inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses by
revising the occupant weight or ``assumed average occupant mass'' from
the previous 75 kg (approximately 165 pounds) \3\ to the current weight
standard of 82.5 kg (approximately 182 pounds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ One kilogram is equal to 2.20462262 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the 2012 IR required manufacturers to conduct prototype and
production tests for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant
apparatuses manufactured on or after March 22, 2012, using the new
occupant weight standard, it limited retesting of currently approved
equipment manufactured to only liferafts then currently rated for six
occupants. The 2012 IR did not apply to liferafts currently in service
aboard U.S. vessels. These were grandfathered in. As a result, no
vessel incurred replacement costs for liferafts based on the 2012 IR.
Therefore, only manufacturers were impacted. A summary of changes to
the baseline testing requirements is shown in Table 3. It should be
noted that Table 3 only applies to manufacturers of liferafts, not
vessels carrying liferafts.
[[Page 44134]]
Table 3--Summary of Changes to the Baseline Testing Requirements Stemming From the 2012 IR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing equipment (approval prior to January New equipment (approval after January 1,
1, 2012) 2012)
Device Testing type --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing Impacts Testing Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLAS Inflatable Liferafts Prototype testing..... Manufacturers must Units with rated All tests use the new Units with rated
(160.151). obtain a new capacity of fewer occupant weight capacity of fewer
Certificate of than six occupants standard to than six occupants
Approval certifying are ineligible for establish occupancy are ineligible for
rated occupancy using SOLAS service. Costs rating. Costs of SOLAS service.
the new occupant of testing unchanged testing unchanged as
weight standard. as nature of the nature of the test
Manufacturers may test is unchanged. is unchanged.
either retest or have
a certification made
using previous test
results adjusted for
the new occupant
weight standard.
Production Testing.... All tests use the new Costs of testing All tests use the new Costs of testing
weight standard to unchanged as nature occupant weight unchanged as nature
establish occupancy of the test is standard to of the test is
rating. unchanged. establish occupancy unchanged.
rating.
Non-SOLAS Inflatable Liferafts Prototype testing..... Existing Certificates No cost or benefit as All tests use the new Costs of testing
(160.051). of Approval may be the use of the new occupant weight unchanged as nature
renewed without occupant weight standard to of the test is
retesting. standard is optional. establish occupancy unchanged.
rating.
-----------------------------------------------
Production Testing.... No cost or benefit. The use of the new All tests use the new Costs of testing
occupant weight standard is optional for occupant weight unchanged as nature
equipment manufactured under an existing standard to of the test is
Certificate of Approval. establish occupancy unchanged.
rating.
-----------------------------------------------
Inflatable Buoyant Apparatus Prototype testing..... Existing Certificates No cost or benefit as All tests use the new Costs of testing
(160.010). of Approval may be the use of the new occupant weight unchanged as nature
renewed without occupant weight standard to of the test is
retesting. standard is optional. establish occupancy unchanged.
rating.
-----------------------------------------------
Production Testing.... No cost or benefit. The use of the new All tests use the new Costs of testing
occupant weight standard is optional for occupant weight unchanged as nature
equipment manufactured under an existing standard to of the test is
Certificate of Approval. establish occupancy unchanged.
rating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 3, manufacturers of SOLAS inflatable liferafts
approved under subpart 160.151 and manufactured on or after March 22,
2012, were allowed the option of either retesting using the new
occupant weight standard or requesting certification for a lower rated
occupancy (adjusted for the new occupant weight standard) based on the
certification testing submitted for their current approval.
We expected that the principal cost impact for manufacturers of
SOLAS liferafts would be for currently approved inflatable liferafts
whose rated capacity is six occupants using the current weight standard
of 75 kg. Since SOLAS requires that inflatable liferafts have a minimum
capacity of six occupants, any SOLAS liferaft currently approved for
six occupants had to be retested under the new occupant weight standard
in order to retain approval.
We indicated in the 2012 IR that there were three U.S.
manufacturers of in-scope liferafts. These three firms manufactured a
total of five different models of liferafts with three of the models
having a capacity of six occupants. See Table 4. U.S. firms that
manufactured liferafts with a capacity of six occupants were assumed to
retest their liferafts in order to maintain their SOLAS certification.
From data obtained from industry and used in the 2012 IR, we estimated
the costs of retesting for compliance with the new occupant weight
standard at $1,800 for each model.
We estimated the total cost to industry to retest all current SOLAS
liferaft models manufactured by U.S. firms to be $5,400. This figure is
in 2011 dollars. See Table 4. We show the converted 2011 dollars to
2012 dollars in Table 5. This cost was only incurred once, when the
2012 IR was implemented. There were no requirements to test in
subsequent years. Therefore, in terms of the overall cost of the 2012
IR, we expected that there were no additional costs, other than those
identified in Tables 4 and 5.
[[Page 44135]]
Table 4--SOLAS Liferafts; Costs To Retest From the 2012 IR, in 2011 Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of
Total number of models of Cost to retest
Manufacturer Number of models of liferaft produced each SOLAS Total cost to
manufacturers liferaft produced with an occupancy liferaft retest
rating of six
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. owned Total......................................... 3 5 3 $1,800 $5,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--SOLAS Liferafts; Costs To Retest From the 2012 IR, in 2012 Dollars, for U.S. Manufacturers Producing
SOLAS Liferafts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of
Total number of models of
models of liferafts Cost-to retest Total cost to
Number of U.S. owned manufacturers lifeboat produced with an each SOLAS retest
manufactured occupancy rating liferaft
of six
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3................................... 5 3 $1,876 $5,513
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The principal benefit of the 2012 IR was the protection of life at
sea by establishing capacity standards for inflatable liferafts and
inflatable buoyant apparatuses, reflecting a global increase in mariner
weights. Additionally, the 2012 IR ensured compliance with
internationally applicable standards for SOLAS and adopted by the IMO.
This final rule does not change the requirements in the 2012 IR
discussed above, and it does not add additional costs or benefits
related to the 2012 IR.
Summary of the 2012 SNPRM Regulatory Assessment
The 2012 SNPRM proposed amendments to the regulations promulgated
by the 2011 IR concerning release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue
boats with recently adopted international standards affecting design,
performance, and testing for such lifesaving equipment. It also
proposed to clarify the requirements concerning grooved drums in
launching appliance winches. The 2012 SNPRM had three components that
could potentially have cost impacts. The first component involved
amendments made to the IMO LSA Code by the IMO MSC regarding release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats. The second component was a
rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with respect to the
acceptance of non-grooved winch drums as an alternative to grooved
drums on launching appliance winches. The third component dealt with
the need for applications for pre-approval review for Certificates of
Approval.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These pre-approval reviews are in accordance with 160.133-
23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first component, the set of amendments made by the IMO's MSC to
design, performance and testing requirements for release mechanisms,
incorporated into the CFR, impacted one U.S. manufacturer of release
mechanisms. That one manufacturer had to design, manufacture and test a
release mechanism that fulfilled these new amendments. However, that
single manufacturer designed, tested, and began to manufacture, market
and sell release mechanisms that fulfilled the new requirements before
the 2012 SNPRM became effective on January 1, 2013.\5\ The manufacturer
did this independently of the Coast Guard's implementation of the 2012
SNPRM.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the
manufacturer.
\6\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the
manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we had assumed the Coast Guard had promulgated the 2012 SNPRM in
the absence of an IMO amendment, there would have been a cost. The
single U.S. manufacturer would have experienced fixed testing and
design costs that it would not otherwise have incurred.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Based on telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and
the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second component, the rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115-
7(b)(5)(i), had no impact on the design, manufacturing or testing of
release mechanism, or on any process involving government approval. The
rewording only was intended to make it clear to the public that non-
grooved winch drums were acceptable as well as grooved winch drums.
This wording clarified the Coast Guard's previous practice of accepting
both.
The third component was a requirement for manufacturers to provide
the Coast Guard with an application for pre-approval review for
certificates of approval for the new release mechanisms. However, as
already stated in this preamble, the single U.S. manufacturer phased in
production of release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO
requirements prior to January 1, 2013, and independently of whether the
Coast Guard put forth the requirements in the 2012 SNPRM.\8\ As the
introduction of a new release mechanism would have required, regardless
of its specifications, the completion of such paperwork, the cost was
already incurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The manufacturer told the Coast Guard this in a phone
conversation in June of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The incorporation of the IMO's new amendments to the LSA Code into
the CFR harmonized U.S. standards with the IMO's standards. This
harmonization was necessary for two reasons. First, it was needed for
the United States to comply with its treaty obligations as a signatory
to SOLAS. By harmonizing Coast Guard requirements for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats, the United States now has
the same requirements as the international standards established by the
IMO LSA Code. Secondly, the harmonization was necessary to clarify
requirements and remove inconsistencies between the requirements for
SOLAS compliance and parts of Title 46 that regulate release mechanisms
on lifeboats and rescue boats.
One benefit of U.S. harmonization with international standards is
that it allows the domestic manufacturer, as well as any future
manufacturers, of in-scope equipment to sell the equipment on the
international market and to do so in a more efficient manner. Adoption
of the international standards, and Coast Guard inspection and
certification of the equipment in line with those standards,
[[Page 44136]]
enables domestic manufacturers to enter foreign markets and to sell
more effectively as a result of the Coast Guard certification they
obtain.
Harmonization also enables vessels with the in-scope equipment to
operate in international waters and ports without fear of detention or
fines. Without the adoption of the international standards, these
vessels would be in violation of IMO requirements. There are 170
members \9\ of the IMO. As member-nations of the IMO normally adopt IMO
requirements into their own legal maritime codes, vessels with in-scope
equipment would be able to operate in a large number of nations without
fear of legal repercussions and the implied fines and loss of revenue
stemming from associated delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ According to the official IMO's Web site, on March 14, 2014,
the IMO had 170 members and three associate members (https://www.imo.org/About/Membership/Pages/Default.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2012 SNPRM could also have affected U.S. vessel owners or
operators of U.S. vessels that were required to carry lifeboats and/or
rescue boats, which would need to be equipped with release mechanisms
that fulfilled the new requirements. However, only those release
mechanisms purchased after January 1, 2013, would need to be replaced.
If release mechanisms meeting both the pre-2012 SNPRM and post-2012
SNPRM requirements were available, the Coast Guard assumes vessel
owners or operators would purchase the less expensive of the two, which
were those mechanisms that met the pre-2012 SNRPM requirements (i.e.,
pre-January 1, 2013). As stated above, however, the one U.S.-based
supplier of in-scope, galvanized steel release mechanisms stopped
manufacturing them and began manufacturing and selling release
mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO LSA Code amendments proposed in
the 2012 SNPRM. This U.S. manufacturer was the only manufacturer of
galvanized steel (or its regulatory equivalent) in the world.\10\
Therefore, the galvanized steel mechanisms (or their regulatory
equivalent) would no longer be available for purchase after the single
U.S. manufacturer stopped producing them. Only the non-galvanized,
corrosion resistant mechanisms that were in compliance with the IMO
requirements would be available after January 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Based on telephone discussions with numerous distributors
and manufacturers of release mechanisms in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2012 SNPRM is adopted without change in this final rule. The
Coast Guard does not expect a change in the benefits or costs between
the 2012 SNPRM and this final rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ There were no public comments received, or other
information found, that implied any changes were needed in the 2012
SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summation of the Costs and Benefits of the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and 2012
SNPRM
As stated previously, the 2011 and 2012 IRs have already been
implemented. The 2012 SNPRM had no quantifiable costs or benefits and
is being implemented in this final rule with no additional changes
being made that may impact either costs or benefits. Thus, this final
rule has no incremental costs or benefits associated with it. The
aggregate costs and benefits of the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012
SNPRM are only being presented to provide the reader with perspective
on the previous rulemakings.
This section aggregates the monetized costs and qualitative
benefits relating to the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM. The
costs and benefits are each aggregated in Tables 6 and 7. In Table 6,
we aggregate the total nominal 10-year costs at $1,391,482. Discounted,
at 7 percent, the 10-year total came to $978,599 ($139,331 on an
annualized basis) and, at 3 percent, to $1,187,612 ($139,224 on an
annualized basis). The 2012 SNPRM had no monetized costs, and it is not
included in the table.
It should be stressed that this final rule does not add additional
costs to those already established by the previous phases of this
rulemaking. Additionally, we received no public comments or other
information suggesting any change was required.
Table 6--Monetized Costs
[2012 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 IR 2012 IR Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual cost inspection and Costs to U.S. manufacturers producing Discounted
testing by third-party inspectors for in-scope liferafts with the capacity -------------------------
Year U.S. manufacturers of holding only six passengers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nominal
Discounted Discounted 7% 3%
Nominal -------------------------- Nominal --------------------------
7% 3% 7% 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. $138,597 $129,530 $134,560 $5,513 $5,152 $5,352 $144,110 $134,682 $139,913
2.................................. 138,597 121,056 130,641 0 0 0 138,597 121,056 130,641
3.................................. 138,597 113,136 126,836 0 0 0 138,597 113,136 126,836
4.................................. 138,597 105,735 123,142 0 0 0 138,597 105,735 123,142
5.................................. 138,597 98,818 119,555 0 0 0 138,597 98,818 119,555
6.................................. 138,597 92,353 116,073 0 0 0 138,597 92,353 116,073
7.................................. 138,597 86,311 112,692 0 0 0 138,597 86,311 112,692
8.................................. 138,597 80,665 109,410 0 0 0 138,597 80,665 109,410
9.................................. 138,597 75,388 106,223 0 0 0 138,597 75,388 106,223
10................................. 138,597 70,456 103,129 0 0 0 138,597 70,456 103,129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 1,385,969 973,447 1,182,260 5,513 5,152 5,352 1,391,482 978,599 1,187,612
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized..................... 138,597 138,597 138,597 551 734 627 139,148 139,331 139,224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM are
summarized in Table 7. The final rule does not change any of the
amendments discussed above relating to benefits, nor does it add or
delete any benefits. Therefore, the final rule will not change the
benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR and 2012 SNPRM.
[[Page 44137]]
Table 7--Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (qualitative)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 IR....................... Harmonization of domestic and
international standards will lead to--
* The implementation of the
regulation has led to the
requirement for one homogeneous
standard that replaces the more
numerous standards being used
domestically. This leads to reduced
transaction costs due to the fact
that there are fewer standards to
follow.
* Increased market size, and
economies of scale, to manufacturers
that will lead to lower costs in
terms of investment that is fixed in
manufacturing, research and
development, marketing, and other
fixed variables.
* Common international standards also
encourage new entrants into the
market by reducing the barriers to
entry encountered in markets
fragmented by different standards.
* Enabling the U.S. to fulfill its
obligations as a signatory party to
SOLAS.
New placement of anchor requirements
will lead to--
* Potentially fewer personnel
casualties.
* Updating and replacing some
standards for fire retardant resins
incorporated by reference in 46 CFR
160.035(b) into a separate subpart,
46 CFR subpart 164.017.
Possibly reduced costs of manufacturing
and inventories because the adoption of
international standards means the need
for fewer models of in-scope equipment
for both domestic and international
markets.
The use of independent laboratories
instead of Coast Guard personnel will
lead to--
* Manufacturers will have greater
flexibility over when they can
arrange inspections.
* Enables the Coast Guard to
concentrate on fulfilling its
lifesaving and environmental
stewardship functions.
2012 IR....................... Higher weight testing standards lead to--
* Possibly fewer personnel casualties
and less property damage.
* Enabling the U.S. to fulfill its
obligations as a signatory party to
SOLAS.
2012 SNPRM.................... Adoption of new IMO LSA design,
construction and testing standards
leads to--
* Potentially fewer accidents, and
therefore few personnel casualties
and less property damage.
Added wording on Coast Guard's
acceptance of non-grooved drums as
alternative to grooved drums on
launching appliance winches is expected
to--
* Reduce uncertainty for both
manufacturers and consumers. This,
in turn, leads to more confidence in
purchasing the appropriate in-scope
equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
A brief summary of the analyses performed for the 2011 IR, 2012 IR
and 2012 SNPRM for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is
provided below. Each of these analyses is discussed separately in its
own section. The discussions are only intended as a brief synopsis. In-
depth analysis can be found on the docket.
2011 IR
As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2011 IR'' in Section VII.A of
this preamble, we determined that six of the eight U.S. firms
manufacturing in-scope lifesaving equipment were classified as small
entities under the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards.
We estimated the annual costs to use independent laboratories was less
than 0.5 percent of annual revenue for five of the six small entities,
and less than 1.25 percent of annual revenue for the other. However,
these estimates do not include adjustments for manufacturer savings
from the coordinated use of independent laboratories, which would avoid
multiple inspections and tests of the same equipment. This adjustment
could not be made, as there was no data on which to base an estimate,
but its omission should only serve to inflate costs. Based on available
information, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the
2011 IR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
2012 IR
As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2012 IR'' in Section VII.A of
this preamble, the 2012 IR identified only one material cost, and that
was associated with testing three different inflatable liferafts that
had the capacity to hold exactly six passengers in order to determine
if they could meet the new weight standards of 82.5 kg instead of 75
kg. This cost was estimated at $1,876 \12\ per model. There were a
total of three in-scope models being produced, so the total industry
cost was estimated at $5,513. This cost was only incurred in the first
year of the implementation of the 2012 IR. No further testing would be
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In 2012 dollar terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard identified three manufacturers that could be
considered small entities according to SBA small business
requirements.\13\ For two of these companies, revenue data were not
available. For the third, the revenues were $20 million per year.\14\
The 2012 IR's costs came to 0.027 percent of total annual revenue.\15\
Based on this information, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that the 2012 IR would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 2011 SNPRM. 76 FR 62714, page 62719.
\14\ Data was not available in 2010 when the search was
originally conducted. In December 2013 another search was conducted
for the same two companies' revenue in MANTA but the data was also
not available at that time.
\15\ Total costs were estimated at $5,513 over the entire 10
year period. Total revenue was at least $20 million for the most
recent available year. Thus the cost/revenue ratio was
conservatively estimated at 0.027%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 SNPRM
As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2012 SNPRM Regulatory
Assessment'' in Section VII.A of this preamble, there were no costs
estimated as a result of the implementation of the 2012 SNPRM. The
single U.S. manufacturing firm that produced the in-scope release
mechanisms had stopped manufacturing the release mechanisms that
fulfilled older IMO requirements and began manufacturing only those
release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO requirements prior to
January 1, 2013 (the date the new IMO requirements took effect). Only
those release mechanisms that fulfill the IMO requirements are
available on the
[[Page 44138]]
market. The manufacturer made this change prior to the publication of
the 2012 SNPRM and independently of whether or not the Coast Guard
would have implemented the 2012 SNPRM.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the
manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Final Rule
The final rule does not amend the 2011 IR, 2012 IR or 2012 SNPRM in
any manner that may add costs and does not add any new requirements
that we find to add costs. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
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 and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis is explained below.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered for inspected vessels in 46 U.S.C.
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning
of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other
category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole
source of a vessel's obligations are within fields foreclosed from
regulation by the States. (See the Supreme Court's decision in United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135
(March 6, 2000).)
This rule amends regulations that establish the approval process
for lifesaving equipment designs, oversight of prototype construction,
prototype testing, and production monitoring of equipment for use on
U.S. vessels. As these regulations are promulgated under the authority
of 46 U.S.C. 3306, they fall within fields foreclosed from regulation
by State or local governments. Therefore, this final rule is consistent
with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements
described in E.O. 13132.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'').
H. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988 (``Civil Justice Reform'') to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''). This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175
(``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''),
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use''). We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy
action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the
Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated it as a significant energy action.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through the OMB, with an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule uses 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 life-saving appliances, as amended by IMO Resolution
MSC.321(89).
[[Page 44139]]
The 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.
Additionally, this rule finalizes technical standards, some of
which are voluntary consensus standards, which were addressed in the
2011 and 2012 IRs. Please see 76 FR 62962 and 77 FR 9859 for
information on these standards.
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 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 rule
would satisfy the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 2118(a), as necessary.
N. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(a), (d) and (e) and under section 6a of the ``Appendix
to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for
Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR 48244,
July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations which are editorial,
regulations concerning equipping of vessels, regulations concerning
equipment approval and carriage requirements, and regulations
concerning vessel operation safety standards. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
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 adopts
the interim rule amending 46 CFR parts 108, 117, 133, 160, 164, 180,
and 199, which published at 76 FR 62962 on October 11, 2011, as a final
rule without change, except as amended by the interim rule published at
77 FR 9859 on February 12, 2012, with the following changes:
PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT
0
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
0
2. Amend Sec. 160.115-7 by revising 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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 160.115-13 by adding 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.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend the heading of Subpart 160.133 to read as follows:
Subpart 160.133--Release Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats
Sec. 160.133-3 [Amended]
0
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)''.
0
6. Amend Sec. 160.133-5 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6) as
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), respectively;
0
c. In paragraph (c)(2), after the words ``pages 7-71'', remove the
words ``(``IMO LSA Code'')'', and after the words ``and 160.133-7'' add
the words ``(``IMO LSA Code'')'';
0
d. 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 after the words ``pages 79-254'', remove
the words ``(``IMO Revised recommendation on testing'')''; and
0
e. 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)'').
0
7. Amend Sec. 160.133-7 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), after the words ``IMO LSA Code,'' add the words
``as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2), after the words ``IMO Revised recommendation on
testing,'' add the words ``as amended by Resolution MSC.321(89),'';
0
c. Revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as set forth below;
0
d. In paragraph (b)(8), after the words ``required by'', add the word
``IMO'', and after the words ``LSA Code'', add
[[Page 44140]]
the words ``, as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
0
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
0
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]
0
8. Amend Sec. 160.133-13 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text, 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),'';
0
b. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(iii); and
0
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]
0
9. Amend Sec. 160.133-15(e) by removing the last two sentences.
0
10. Amend the heading of Subpart 160.135 to read as follows:
Subpart 160.135--Lifeboats
Sec. 160.135-5 [Amended]
0
11. Amend Sec. 160.135-5(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''.
0
12. Amend Sec. 160.135-15 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d), remove the reference ``(e)(2)'' and add, in its
place, the reference ``(e)'';
0
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
0
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]
0
13. Amend Sec. 160.156-5(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]
0
14. Amend Sec. 160.156-7(b)(13) by removing the word ``lifeboat'' and
adding, in its place, the words ``rescue boat''.
Sec. 160.156-9 [Amended]
0
15. Amend Sec. 160.156-9 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(22)(iv), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add, in
its place, the words ``rescue boat''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add, in its
place, the words ``rescue boat''.
0
16. Amend Sec. 160.156-15 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, 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
0
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
0
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: July 22, 2014.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-17653 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
