Personal Flotation Devices Labeling and Standards, 56491-56500 [2014-22373]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56491-56500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22373]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 175 and 181

46 CFR Parts 160 and 169

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0263]
RIN 1625-AC02


Personal Flotation Devices Labeling and Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule to remove 
references to type codes in its regulations on the carriage and 
labeling of Coast Guard-approved personal flotation devices (PFDs). 
Removing these type codes from our regulations will facilitate future 
incorporation by reference of new industry consensus standards for PFD 
labeling that more effectively convey safety information, and is a step 
toward harmonization of our regulations with PFD requirements in Canada 
and in other countries.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 22, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in this rule as of May 3, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this final rule as being 
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert 
``USCG-2013-0263'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search'' and then 
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' icon. The following link will take you 
directly to the docket: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2013-0263.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Ms. Brandi Baldwin, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division, 
Coast Guard; telephone 202-2-372-1394, email brandi.a.baldwin@uscg.mil. 
For information about viewing or submitting material to the docket, 
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. Discussion of the Rule
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. Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FR Federal Register
LEO Law enforcement officer
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NBSAC National Boating Safety Advisory Council
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFD Personal flotation device
Pub. L. Public Law
RA Regulatory Analysis
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Basis and Purpose

    Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4102, and 4302, the Secretary of the 
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating is charged with 
prescribing safety requirements for lifesaving equipment on inspected 
vessels, uninspected vessels, and recreational vessels. Type approval 
and carriage requirements for personal flotation devices (PFDs) fall 
under this authority. In Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1(II)(92)(b), the Secretary delegated this 46 U.S.C., Subtitle II, 
authority to the Commandant. As required under 46 U.S.C. 4302(c)(4), 
the Coast Guard has consulted with the National Boating Safety Advisory 
Council (NBSAC) regarding the issue addressed by this final rule. See 
NBSAC Resolution 2012-90-05 (available in the docket).
    The purpose of this final rule, which removes references to type 
codes in our regulations on the carriage and labeling of Coast Guard-
approved PFDs, is to facilitate future adoption of new industry 
consensus standards for PFD labeling that more effectively convey 
safety information, and to help

[[Page 56492]]

harmonize our regulations with PFD requirements in Canada and in other 
countries. Specifically, this final rule will enable the Standards 
Technical Panel (Panel), the panel charged with the new industry 
consensus standards, to complete development of a standard for wearable 
PFDs without including unnecessary references to type codes. By paving 
the way for the Panel to develop a new standard, this final rule 
supports the efforts of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council, 
a bilateral effort coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) to develop a ``North American Standard for lifejackets.''

III. Background

    Labeling of PFDs is an important safety matter, as it is the 
primary means by which the manufacturer communicates to the end user 
how to select the right PFD and use and maintain it properly. Based on 
the volume of queries to the Coast Guard in recent years, including 
questions from NBSAC members, we believe that the current labels on 
Coast Guard-approved PFDs are confusing to the boating public and do 
not effectively communicate important safety and regulatory information 
to users and law enforcement personnel.
    As noted in the previous section, the Coast Guard is charged with 
establishing minimum safety standards, as well as procedures and tests 
required to measure compliance with those standards, for commercial and 
recreational vessels, and associated equipment. Under this authority, 
the Coast Guard has established requirements for the carriage of 
approved PFDs that meet certain minimum safety standards.
    The minimum requirements for Coast Guard-approved PFDs are codified 
in 46 CFR part 160, and include requirements for labeling. Our current 
regulations require that a type code be marked on each Coast Guard-
approved PFD. The Coast Guard historically has used type codes in its 
regulations to identify the level of performance of an approved PFD. 
Types I, II, and III refer to wearable PFDs (lifejackets) in decreasing 
order of performance; Type IV refers to throwable PFDs; and Type V 
refers to any PFD that is conditionally approved as equivalent in 
performance to Type I, II, III, or IV.
    Coast Guard regulations specify which Coast Guard-approved PFDs are 
acceptable for particular applications. Although most of the carriage 
requirements for inspected vessels identify the appropriate PFDs by the 
applicable approval series \1\ (see, for example, 46 CFR 199.10 and 
199.70(b)), our carriage requirements for recreational boats (33 CFR 
part 175), uninspected commercial vessels (46 CFR part 25) and sailing 
school vessels (46 CFR part 169) specify particular type codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Approval series refers to the first six digits of a number 
assigned by the Coast Guard to approved equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, the consultant Applied Safety and Ergonomics studied the 
current PFD classification and labeling system through the National 
Non-Profit Organization Recreational Boating Safety Grant Program. The 
consultant's final report, entitled ``Revision of Labeling and 
Classification for Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs)'' (available in 
the docket), suggested that our current labels are inadequate and that 
users do not adequately understand our PFD type codes.
    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 14, 
2013 (78 FR 49412) that proposed to remove references to type codes in 
our regulations on the carriage and labeling of Coast Guard-approved 
PFDs. Removing these type codes from our regulations will free the 
Panel to develop improved industry consensus standards for the specific 
content and format of PFD labels and facilitate future incorporation by 
reference of new industry consensus standards for PFD labeling that 
will more effectively convey safety information, and is a step toward 
harmonization of our regulations with PFD requirements in Canada and in 
other countries. Once the Panel completes their work on revising the 
standards, the Coast Guard intends to evaluate those standards for 
possible incorporation by reference in our regulations; any such 
incorporation by reference would involve a separate notice-and-comment 
rulemaking.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received 31 written submissions to the docket. No public 
meetings were requested and none were held.
    Several commenters noted that current PFD labeling is confusing, 
and that most people who use PFDs do not know or do not care about type 
codes. The Coast Guard agrees that current PFD labeling is not well 
understood by the public.
    One commenter agreed with the Coast Guard in that the type code 
system is flawed, but stated he is not sure a new system will be any 
easier. Another commenter pointed out that the type codes are currently 
being taught in the state boating safety education classes. Other 
commenters expressed concern that the removal of type codes would leave 
recreational boaters and commercial vessel operators with no 
information for selecting the correct PFD. The Coast Guard notes that, 
although this rule will remove the type code terminology from CFR 
sections in the regulatory text, PFD labels will not change until the 
industry consensus standards are revised. Although we expect that the 
transition to a new system of classification and labeling would require 
some re-education of the boating community, we are confident that the 
public would ultimately benefit from a system of classification and 
labeling that uses plain language terminology. Throughout this 
transition, PFD users will have sufficient information to comply with 
PFD requirements because our definition for a ``throwable PFD'' or a 
``wearable PFD'' readily conveys whether a PFD with a type code on it 
meets the requirement.
    Several commenters expressed concerns about the impact that 
eliminating the existing type code system will have on boaters and 
their existing PFDs. This final rule removes type code language from 
our carriage requirements and from our regulations for labeling of new 
PFDs, but does not make any changes to the number of wearable or 
throwable PFDs required. Also we are not requiring any changes to any 
existing approved PFDs already purchased and in use. The Coast Guard 
acknowledges that PFDs are typically carried on boats for several years 
and reaffirms that approved PFDs marked with type codes will still meet 
carriage requirements as wearable or throwable PFDs, as appropriate, as 
long as they remain in serviceable condition.
    Several commenters had specific suggestions for alternate 
formatting and content of a new PFD label. Our proposed rule addressed 
only the minimum information required to be present on PFD labels, not 
the specific format. Therefore, these comments are beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking. The Coast Guard will refer those concerns to the 
Panel, so that they may be considered as appropriate during the 
standards development process.
    One commenter proposed that the Coast Guard PFD performance and 
labeling requirements should align exactly with International 
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) standards. Another 
commenter suggested that instead of labeling, the Coast Guard reorient 
its focus to increased performance standards. Comments regarding PFD 
performance requirements are beyond the scope of

[[Page 56493]]

this rulemaking, which focuses only on simplifying PFD labeling and the 
removal of type code language from our regulations.
    Two commenters suggested eliminating the ``throwable'' 
classification, as defined in our NPRM, and no longer requiring 
carriage of throwable PFDs. The Coast Guard believes the ``throwable'' 
classification is a necessary distinction from ``wearable'' PFDs. 
Wearable and throwable PFDs are evaluated to different standards, have 
different purposes, and meet different carriage requirements. 
Additionally, removing the carriage requirement for throwable PFDs is 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter referenced the exemption from carriage requirements 
for sailboats in our proposed 33 CFR 175.17(c) (existing 33 CFR 
175.17(d)). Our edits to 33 CFR 175.17 remove existing paragraph (a), 
which relates to labeling, and reorganize the subsequent paragraphs 
accordingly. This rule does not exempt sailboats or any other vessels--
changes to the current carriage requirements are beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking.
    One commenter suggested breaking the proposed ``wearable'' category 
further into ``active'' and ``passive.'' The Coast Guard notes that 
delineating between active and passive PFDs would be of no consequence 
without a change to the carriage requirements, which is beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking. However, the Coast Guard acknowledges that 
the activation mechanism of the PFD can help the user make an informed 
decision when selecting an appropriate PFD for a particular activity 
and will refer this comment to the Panel for consideration in future 
standard development efforts.
    One commenter suggested that ``PFD'' is confusing as a term, and 
that the Coast Guard should refer to PFDs as ``lifejackets.'' The Coast 
Guard agrees that the term lifejacket is more widely understood by the 
public, and uses the term lifejacket to refer to wearable PFDs in media 
and other public outreach materials. However, the Coast Guard prefers 
to use the term PFD in regulatory and standards language because it 
appropriately captures both wearable devices (e.g., lifejackets, 
buoyancy aids) and throwable devices (e.g., ring buoys, buoyant 
cushions).
    One commenter stated that there may be ``unintended complications'' 
from our efforts to harmonize terminology with Canada and to simplify 
the labeling of PFDs. The Panel consists of both U.S. and Canadian 
stakeholders, including representatives of the Coast Guard and 
Transport Canada, and both countries have agreed in principle to adopt 
this harmonized standard. The Coast Guard has worked with, and will 
continue to work with, our Canadian counterparts to resolve any 
complications to which the commenter alludes. Once the Panel completes 
their work, the Coast Guard will evaluate the new standard for 
incorporation by reference into our regulations; we would publish an 
NPRM soliciting public comment if we seek to incorporate the Panel 
standard by reference. The potential adoption or regulatory 
incorporation of a harmonized standard into Coast Guard regulations 
would be subject to notice-and-public-comment procedures, providing an 
additional venue for identifying and resolving complications.
    Several commenters acknowledged this rulemaking as a step towards 
harmonization, but expressed concern over the current process for PFD 
approval and the availability of recognized independent laboratories 
for testing and factory follow-up. This rulemaking does not address 
approval or testing, and does not affect the existing requirements for 
recognized independent laboratories, and thus these comments are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Some State agency commenters requested more time to comply with the 
changes introduced by this rule. They noted that costs will be incurred 
when updating and revising not only State laws and regulations, as 
applicable, but also written material--such as guide books or 
educational pamphlets. As discussed above, this rulemaking is a 
necessary step to permit the transition to a new PFD labeling format. 
This final rule does not affect existing PFDs previously purchased or 
currently in use, because our definition for a ``throwable PFD'' or a 
``wearable PFD'' readily conveys whether a PFD with a type code on it 
meets the requirement. Additionally, we believe that, even after a new 
label standard is completed, it will take industry time to exhaust its 
supplies of type labels and to begin printing the new labels. 
Therefore, we expect a prolonged transition to a new label format, 
during which time both label formats would be present in the market. 
Likewise, we anticipate that it will take time for States and other 
entities to update their outreach and education materials, which will 
result in an overlap period. States may choose not to update their 
training materials immediately since existing PFDs, with type codes on 
them, may still be used. However, this final rule must be effective to 
permit a transition phase to begin. This rule will become effective 
October 22, 2014, and we encourage all affected agencies to update 
their outreach materials as the market transitions over the next few 
years.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard reach out to authors 
of other voluntary consensus standards regarding possible impacts of 
this rule. As discussed in the NPRM, we reviewed material from other 
Federal and State regulatory agencies, particularly existing regulatory 
text, for potential impacts from the removal of the type codes from the 
Coast Guard's regulations. We also noted there may be other entities 
interested. We acknowledge the comment and note no additional entities 
identified their organizations during the proposal's comment period or 
in response to the proposal's public affairs material. We would expect 
that others affected may emerge as they review the Federal Register and 
other public affairs materials and will work with them as the Panel 
develops the new standard.
    One commenter pointed out several additional sections of regulatory 
text where references to type codes still appear in marking 
requirements and suggested that we amend these as well. The Coast Guard 
acknowledges that it did miss some references to type codes that should 
have been removed when we drafted the NPRM. To correct that omission, 
we made two changes to the regulatory text. We amended the regulatory 
text related to PFD marking requirements in 46 CFR 160.053-5 and 
160.077-31. These changes are consistent with our proposed changes in 
the NPRM. However, the Coast Guard notes that it cannot remove every 
reference to type codes at this time. The industry consensus standards 
which are currently incorporated by reference into the regulations as 
the basis for Coast Guard approval of PFDs, which include requirements 
for materials, construction, and testing, as well as labeling, still 
use type codes. Therefore, the PFDs tested to these standards still are 
assigned a type code, even if that type code is no longer required to 
be printed on the label. But these remaining references to type codes 
will not hinder the Panel's efforts to develop improved industry 
consensus standards.
    In addition to the changes noted above based on comments, we made a 
few editorial, non-substantive changes from the regulatory text 
proposed in the NPRM. For example, in 33 CFR 175.17 we changed our 
qualifier for canoes and kayaks from ``16 feet in length and over'' to 
``16 feet or more in length'' to make it consistent with preferred 
language used in 33 CFR 175.15(b).

[[Page 56494]]

V. Discussion of the Rule

    In this final rule, the Coast Guard removes references to 
longstanding PFD type codes from its regulations for the carriage and 
marking of Coast Guard-approved PFDs. Under these amendments, the 
number and kind of PFDs required to be carried on a vessel will not 
change, but the terminology used to refer to approved PFDs will. Our 
current assignment of a type code to a PFD does not affect the PFD's 
suitability for meeting the applicable vessel carriage requirements. 
This final rule removes regulatory barriers to the development of a new 
industry consensus standard for PFD labels, which would potentially 
allow manufacturers to produce a more user-friendly label format on 
Coast Guard-approved PFDs in the future. For a detailed description of 
the proposed rule, see the NPRM (78 FR 49413, August 14, 2013).

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 14 of these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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). 
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility.
    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not 
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 
6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed a 
regulatory analysis (RA) describing the costs and benefits of the rule 
to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. A final RA follows.
    The RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated 
with this final rule. The table which follows provides a summary of the 
final rule's costs and benefits.

                 Table 1--Summary of the Rule's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population...............  66 PFD manufacturers.
                                    6 Federal agencies.
                                    Up to 56 State/territorial
                                     jurisdictions.
Costs ($, 7% discount rate).......  $15,224 (annualized: $692 private
                                     sector, $14,532 government).
                                    $106,928 (10-year: $4,857 private
                                     sector, $102,071 government).
Unquantified Benefits.............  * Improve effectiveness of PFD
                                     marking/labels without compromising
                                     safety.
                                    * Prevent misuse and
                                     misunderstandings of PFDs.
                                    * Remove impediment to future
                                     harmonization with international
                                     standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule revises the existing regulations regarding labeling 
of PFDs, by removing requirements for type codes to be included on PFD 
labels.
Affected Population
    Based on the Coast Guard Guard's Marine Information for Safety and 
Law Enforcement database, we estimate that this final rule affects 
approximately 66 PFD manufacturers. Up to 56 State and territorial 
jurisdictions may be impacted. There are six Federal governmental 
agencies--the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA); the Department of the Interior's Bureau of 
Reclamation, National Park Service, and United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service; the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service; and the 
Department of Defense--which may have to adjust their regulations or 
policy documents because they incorporate Coast Guard standards that 
mention PFD type codes. Of these six, OSHA is the only agency we have 
identified that specifically references Coast Guard type codes in its 
regulations. We have coordinated with the OSHA Directorate of Standards 
and Guidance to ensure that OSHA's PFD-related regulations can be 
aligned readily with the revisions to the Coast Guard regulations. We 
also have reached out via the Interagency Working Group for Visitor 
Safety to the National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest 
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and they have not expressed any objections to our 
proposed action. We received no comments on the estimated affected 
population in the public comment period.
Costs
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule will result in one-time 
costs of approximately $114,413 ($111,209 at 7% a discount rate). See 
Table 2 below. The Coast Guard estimates that $5,197 ($4,857 at 7% a 
discount rate) is attributable to the private sector. We estimate that 
this final rule affects 66 manufacturers of PFDs. No additional 
equipment will be required by the rule; however some labor may be 
required. PFD manufacturers may need to reprogram stitching machines or 
silk screen machines to conform with the new label requirements. This 
rule only affects labeling on PFDs manufactured after the effective 
date of this rule.

                                       Table 2--Regulatory Cost Breakdown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Duration                        Affected
                                                      (hours)       Loaded wage      entities          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Sector Costs............................               1          $78.74              66          $5,197
Federal Regulatory Review.......................             0.5           79.38               6             238
Federal Policy Document Update..................              10           79.38               6           4,763
Federal Stakeholder Notification................             0.5           79.38               6             238

[[Page 56495]]

 
State Regulatory Review.........................             0.5           73.43              56           2,056
State Stakeholder Notification..................             0.5           73.43              56           2,056
State Policy Update by Legislature..............              10           73.43              36          26,435
State Policy Update by Commission...............             100           73.43              10          73,430
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............         114,413
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal agencies that incorporate by reference the Coast Guard 
regulations amended by this final rule may need to review their 
regulations to assure consistency with the change. Some States and 
Federal agencies may want to initiate rulemakings or legislation to 
update their regulations or statutes to remove unnecessary references 
to type codes. States and Federal agencies may need to communicate to 
law enforcement personnel the changes of the final rule and some 
authorities may need to update their boating safety training materials 
to reflect the changes. These costs are described in the following 
passages.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges the States' concerns regarding the 
alignment of their statutes and regulations with Coast Guard 
requirements. However, our revised regulatory text includes the 
relevant type codes in the definitions of ``wearable PFD'' and 
``throwable PFD.'' Therefore, language that references type codes would 
still be considered not inconsistent with these regulations at this 
time.
    Recreational boaters will not experience a cost increase because of 
this rulemaking. Existing PFDs may continue to be used. No action is 
required by recreational boaters.
    The table which follows presents the estimated cost associated with 
the rulemaking.

                          Table 3--Total Estimated Cost Associated With the Rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discounted 7%   Discounted 3%   Undiscounted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................        $106,928        $111,081        $114,413
Year 2..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 3..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 4..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 5..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 6..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 7..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 8..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 9..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 10.........................................................               0               0               0
Total...........................................................         106,928         111,081         114,413
Annualized......................................................          15,224          13,022          11,441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard estimates that reprogramming stitching machines or 
silk screen machines takes approximately 1 hour per manufacturer. This 
estimate comports with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) 
estimated cost of compliance for relabeling of sunscreens to comply 
with new labeling requirements.\2\ This is the most similar Federal 
rulemaking we found in our research that involves a regulatory 
requirement on labels. Both the FDA's and this rulemaking involve 
changes to labeling. The FDA estimated that it would take 0.5 hour to 
prepare, complete, and review the labeling for each product. The Coast 
Guard used a higher value than FDA: 1 Hour per product to prepare, 
complete and review the new labeling. The higher value accounts for 
possible involvement of more than one type of machine (i.e., stitching 
or silk screen), more complex machinery for PFD labels and the need for 
management communication to multiple factories or stitching machine 
designers. The Coast Guard sought comment from PFD manufacturers 
regarding the costs associated with changing PFD labels in response to 
the proposed rule; however, no comments were provided by PFD 
manufacturers in response to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See SPF Labeling and Testing Requirements and Drug Facts 
Labeling for Over-the-Counter Sunscreen Drug Products; Agency 
Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection (76 FR 35678, 
June 17, 2011); and Labeling and Effectiveness Testing; Sunscreen 
Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use Final rule (76 FR 
35620, June 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor costs for a PFD manufacturer are estimated at $78.74 per hour 
(fully loaded) for a manager based on a mean wage rate of $46.87; this 
estimate is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data Occupational 
Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, for 
Industrial Production Managers (11-3051, May 2012).\3\ From there, we 
applied a load factor (or benefits multiplier) of 1.68, to determine 
the actual cost of employment to employers and industry.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The reader may review the source data at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oessrci.htm.
    \4\ This was calculated using data found on the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' Web site. The load factor is calculated specifically for 
Production, transportation and material moving occupations, Full-
time, Private Industry (Series ID: CMU2010000520610D, 2012, 2nd 
Quarter). This category was used as it was the closest available 
corresponding to the industry being analyzed in this regulatory 
analysis. Total cost of compensation per hour worked: $26.61, of 
which $15.84 is wages, resulting in a load factor of 1.6799 ($26.61/
$15.84). We rounded this factor to 1.68. (Source: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv) Using similar applicable industry groups 
and time periods results in the same estimate of load factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other costs, States will need to review their laws and 
regulations to assure conformity with the change, as some have, based 
on comments received on the NPRM. In turn, some States may need to 
initiate rulemakings or make statutory changes to remove references to 
type codes; we discuss this further in

[[Page 56496]]

this section. The Coast Guard estimates that these agencies will take 
approximately 0.5 hour to review their laws and regulations. Their 
review task is estimated by the loaded wage rate of $73.43 per hour 
(from an unloaded hourly mean wage rate of $44.50 for a manager from 
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2012, 11-1021 General and 
Operations Managers Local Government). The average cost for a State to 
perform this task would be approximately $36.71.
    Some commenters to the NPRM suggested that there may be additional 
tasks required of States; commenters stated that training materials 
would need to be updated. One commenter believed that ``The vast 
majority of PFD users have no idea of one type of PFD from another . . 
. they don't know and they don't care. For those who do care they will 
be without guidance. Several years ago the USCG started to allow some 
traditional type V PFD to be called and used as type III. I have to 
decide now to issue citations to PFD users who think they are legal but 
in fact are not legal.'' The Coast Guard does not intend for State law 
enforcement officers (LEOs) to issue citations based on this final 
rule's changes. Existing PFDs may continue to be used. In response to 
the comment, the Coast Guard has added a cost to its estimate to 
reflect some labor that States may expend to communicate the change to 
law enforcement officials and to explain what will be expected of them 
as a result of the final rule. The Coast Guard estimates that the labor 
required for this task to be approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to 
prepare an email and/or electronic bulletin board notice to LEOs. The 
Coast Guard anticipates that more than one layer of authority may be 
involved in disseminating this information and has estimated the task's 
duration accordingly. In addition, although the Coast Guard anticipates 
that most States do not have training manuals for LEOs which cover this 
topic, we acknowledge that there may be some States that have a 
training manual which may need to be updated to reflect the final 
rule's changes.\5\ For this reason, although they are not included in 
the total cost of the final rule, we estimate the cost of updating a 
training manual. If a State were to update their training manual, we 
estimate that it may take a given State 1 hour of labor time. The Coast 
Guard acknowledges that States may choose not to update their training 
materials immediately since existing PFDs, with type codes on them, may 
still be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We estimate the number of States needing to update their 
training manuals would be fewer than 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, this final rule impacts some Federal agencies and they 
will need to review their regulations or policy documents to determine 
if any changes are needed. The Coast Guard estimates that it would take 
0.5 hour to do this task. The Coast Guard estimates the labor cost to 
be $79.38 per hour for a Federal manager (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
``Occupational Employment and Wages, First-Line Supervisors of 
Transportation and Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle Operators, 53-
1031 Federal Executive Branch and a load factor of 1.65) \6\ and there 
are an estimated six Federal agencies potentially impacted. Based on 
these data, this task costs each affected Federal agency less than $50 
to review regulations or policy documents. To update a policy document, 
we estimate that 10 hours would be expended by a Federal agency to do 
so. We also estimate that Federal governmental agencies may expend 30 
minutes (0.5 hour) to communicate the change to Federal LEOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This load factor is calculated specifically for Public 
Administration, State and Local Government occupations, Full-time 
(Series ID: CMU3019200000000D,CMU3019200000000P, 2012, 2nd Quarter. 
Total cost of compensation per hour worked: $39.642, of which $23.97 
is wages, resulting in a load factor of 1.653734 ($39.64/$23.97). We 
rounded this factor to 1.65 (rounded to the nearest hundredth). 
(Source: https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/data.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional costs may occur as a result of this rule; these costs 
arise from labor expended for rulemaking. More specifically, some State 
and Federal agencies may require a rulemaking to update their 
regulations to incorporate this proposed change into their regulations, 
policy documents or statutes.
    To assess these costs, we first note the rulemaking process varies 
greatly across State and territorial governmental units. The reader 
should note that not all impacted governmental units are expected to 
incur a cost associated with this task because some States incorporate 
by reference Coast Guard standards and will not need to take action. 
Some agencies may be able to update their regulations for this change 
by incorporating this change into an existing or planned rulemaking. 
Some also may choose not to pursue a rulemaking immediately.
    To estimate a cost for this step, we reviewed publicly available 
data on the Internet for States and territories. Based on that review, 
we estimated the number of States and territories which would fall into 
the various categories of rulemaking. In the first category, we 
estimate that there would be six States and territories which 
incorporate by reference Coast Guard regulations and, therefore, would 
incur no costs. Next, we estimate another 36 States and territories 
engage in rulemaking activities by State agencies. In the next 
category, an estimated 10 States and territories will update their 
regulations by more lengthy processes; either by statute change via a 
legislative vote, or by a rulemaking process involving the legislative 
branch of government or the State-level executive branch of government. 
The change may be a stand-alone proposed rule or legislation, or the 
change may be part of an omnibus set of changes. In the last category, 
we estimate that four States and territories would take no rulemaking 
action; for these, their regulations or statutes may not need revision 
because of how they are written. The table which follows presents a 
summary of this data.

                       Table 4--Estimated Rulemaking Activities for States and Territories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Number of States     Level of effort
                  Level of activity                     or territories     required (hours)       Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporate by Reference............................                   6                   0                  $0
State Policy Update by Legislature..................                  36                  10              26,435
State Policy Update by Commission...................                  10                 100              73,430
No change necessary.................................                   4                   0                   0
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................  ..................  ..................              99,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56497]]

    We estimate that costs to a given State or territory for this step 
range from no cost to $7,343. Some costs may be offset because some 
States may have already started this process in anticipation of the new 
industry consensus standard for PFD labeling through the Panel.
    During the public comment period, the Coast Guard received two 
comments on its cost estimates. One commenter wrote ``Florida is one of 
the ten states referenced where making appropriate changes in state law 
will require legislative action. Both the estimated number of hours and 
associated cost as provided . . . are considered to be reasonable 
estimates . . . the benefit of the intended outcomes outweigh the 
challenge of making changes to state law.'' Another commenter suggested 
that our estimate of 100 hours for a legislative change may be too low 
but acknowledged that ``it is difficult to define what would be an 
accurate number of hours'' due to extraneous factors, and further 
acknowledged that the commenter's State authorities may not take action 
immediately to implement the change since existing PFDs are still 
useable. The Coast Guard has not changed its estimates for the cost of 
legislative changes since no data are available to refine its estimates 
and some States may not act immediately. The commenter similarly noted 
that boater education manuals and Web site materials may need to be 
updated. The Coast Guard agrees that boater education material may need 
to be updated for some States and notes that some States may choose not 
to do so immediately since existing PFDs are still useable.
    As noted earlier, the Coast Guard received a comment on the need of 
State (and Federal) governmental agencies to update training manuals on 
the subject. The Coast Guard agreed, but it is unknown if Federal 
agencies have training manuals for their LEOs which cover PFDs. In the 
case of any Federal agency which has a training manual which covers PFD 
types, we estimate that Federal governmental agencies may expend one 
hour to do so. We also estimate that Federal governmental agencies may 
expend 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to communicate the change to Federal LEOs. 
In addition to the costs noted in the previous paragraphs, the Coast 
Guard may experience some costs in subsequent years to augment existing 
boater education efforts to include information associated with this 
final rule. However, the Coast Guard may be able to use existing 
partnerships, Internet resources, and other technologies which offer 
more cost effective solutions.
Benefits
    The final rule amends existing regulations regarding labeling of 
PFDs. The rulemaking promotes maritime safety by eliminating confusion 
associated with type codes, and by improving the understanding of PFD 
performance and use. The Coast Guard is pursuing this amendment to 
allow the Panel to develop new labeling standards that better prevent 
misuse, misunderstandings, and inappropriate selection of PFDs without 
compromising the existing level of safety.
    The rulemaking improves the relevance of markings on PFDs. The 
Coast Guard believes that removing irrelevant information increases the 
likelihood that the user will read and understand the label, and thus 
select the proper PFD and be able to use it correctly. This also would 
provide benefits by reducing confusion among enforcement officers and 
the boating public over whether a particular PFD is approved and meets 
the relevant carriage requirements.
    The rulemaking also allows for the harmonization of our regulations 
with other countries, and allows for the adoption of future industry 
consensus standards for label requirements. For recreational PFDs, 
which comprise about 97 percent of the U.S. PFD market, the approvals 
are based on industry consensus standards that contain marking 
requirements. By referring to those standards directly, the Coast Guard 
reduces regulatory redundancy and minimizes the risk of conflict 
between regulatory requirements and industry consensus standards.

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.
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on small entities. As described in the ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review'' section, the Coast Guard expects this rule to 
result in costs to industry (approximately $78 per PFD manufacturer). 
An estimated 92.4 percent of the 66 PFD manufacturers are considered 
small by the Small Business Administration size standards. The 
compliance costs for this rulemaking amount to less than 1 percent of 
revenue for all small entities. Costs will be incurred in the first 
year of the final rule's enactment for PFD manufacturers. No additional 
costs for labor or equipment will be incurred in future years. No small 
governmental jurisdictions are impacted by the rulemaking.
    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 could 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.

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. As defined in 5 
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting, 
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar 
actions. The final rule will not require a change to existing OMB-
approved collection of information (1625-0035 Title 46 CFR Subchapter 
Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and Navigation Equipment, 
Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR part 
159)). The final rule will not require relabeling of PFDs, but instead 
will remove minor data elements from existing labeling requirements. 
Labeling of PFDs is an automated process, and the change in content 
will not result in any change in burden hours.

E. Federalism

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

[[Page 56498]]

    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 the field foreclosed from 
regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the 
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) In this final rule, the 
Coast Guard replaces unnecessary references to type codes in labeling 
and carriage requirements for Coast Guard-approved PFDs on inspected 
vessels and recreational vessels. With regard to these regulations 
promulgated under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306 concerning inspected 
vessels, 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.
    With regard to regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 4302 
concerning recreational vessels, under 46 U.S.C. 4306, those Federal 
regulations that establish minimum safety standards for recreational 
vessels and their associated equipment, as well as regulations that 
establish procedures and tests required to measure conformance with 
those standards, preempt State law, unless the State law is identical 
to a Federal regulation or a State is specifically provided an 
exemption to those regulations, or permitted to regulate marine safety 
articles carried or used to address a hazardous condition or 
circumstance unique to that State. As an exemption has not been 
granted, and because the States may not issue regulations that differ 
from Coast Guard regulations within these categories for recreational 
vessels, this final rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    In the NPRM, we invited affected State and local governments and 
their representative national organizations to indicate their desire 
for participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by 
submitting comments on the proposed rule. We also noted we would 
document the extent of our consultation with State and local officials 
that submit comments, summarize the nature of concerns raised by State 
or local governments and our response, and state the extent to which 
the concerns of State and local officials have been met.
    Our consultation with State and local governments and their 
representative national organizations who submitted comments has been 
reflected in our responses to those comments in the preamble of this 
final rule. In the Discussion of Comments and Changes section above, we 
summarized all comments received and provided our responses to those 
comments, which included comments from State or local governments.
    We believe we have met the concerns expressed by State and local 
officials. Outside the preamble of this final rule, we did not respond 
separately in writing to submissions from State agencies.

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 would not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

 J. Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175 
(``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''), 
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribal governments.

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.

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 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 does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, 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) of the Instruction and under section 6(a) of the 
``Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures 
for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR 
48244, July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations which are 
editorial and concern carriage requirements and vessel operation safety 
standards. An environmental analysis checklist and a

[[Page 56499]]

categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where 
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 175

    Marine safety.

33 CFR Part 181

    Labeling, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 160

    Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 169

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Schools, Vessels.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR parts 175 and 181, and 46 CFR parts 160 and 169 as follows:

Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters

PART 175--EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 4302; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.


0
2. Revise Sec.  175.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  175.13  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    Personal flotation device or PFD means a device that is approved by 
the Commandant under 46 CFR part 160.
    Throwable PFD means a PFD that is intended to be thrown to a person 
in the water. A PFD marked as Type IV or Type V with Type IV 
performance is considered a throwable PFD. Unless specifically marked 
otherwise, a wearable PFD is not a throwable PFD.
    Wearable PFD means a PFD that is intended to be worn or otherwise 
attached to the body. A PFD marked as Type I, Type II, Type III, or 
Type V with Type (I, II or III) performance is considered a wearable 
PFD.

0
3. Amend Sec.  175.15 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs 
(a) and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  175.15  Personal flotation devices required.

    Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  175.17 and 175.25:
    (a) No person may use a recreational vessel unless--
    (1) At least one wearable PFD is on board for each person;
    (2) Each PFD is used in accordance with any requirements on the 
approval label; and
    (3) Each PFD is used in accordance with any requirements in its 
owner's manual, if the approval label makes reference to such a manual.
    (b) No person may use a recreational vessel 16 feet or more in 
length unless one throwable PFD is onboard in addition to the total 
number of wearable PFDs required in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec.  175.17 to read as follows:


Sec.  175.17  Exemptions.

    (a) Canoes and kayaks 16 feet or more in length are exempted from 
the requirements for carriage of the additional throwable PFD required 
under Sec.  175.15(b).
    (b) Racing shells, rowing sculls, racing canoes, and racing kayaks 
are exempted from the requirements for carriage of any PFD required 
under Sec.  175.15.
    (c) Sailboards are exempted from the requirements for carriage of 
any PFD required under Sec.  175.15.
    (d) Vessels of the United States used by foreign competitors while 
practicing for or racing in competition are exempted from the carriage 
of any PFD required under Sec.  175.15, provided the vessel carries one 
of the sponsoring foreign country's acceptable flotation devices for 
each foreign competitor onboard.

0
5. Revise Sec.  175.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  175.19  Stowage.

    (a) No person may use a recreational boat unless each wearable PFD 
required by Sec.  175.15 is readily accessible.
    (b) No person may use a recreational boat unless each throwable PFD 
required by Sec.  175.15 is immediately available.

0
6. Amend Sec.  175.21 by revising the introductory text to read as 
follows:


Sec.  175.21  Condition; size and fit; approval marking.

    No person may use a recreational boat unless each PFD required by 
Sec.  175.15 is--
* * * * *

PART 181--MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS

0
7. The authority citation for part 181 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 4302; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1 (92).


Sec.  181.702  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  181.702(a) and (b) by removing, wherever they appear, 
the words ``Type I, II, III, IV, or V''.

Title 46--Shipping

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

0
9. The authority citation for part 160 continues 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.


Sec.  160.001-1  [Amended]

0
10. Amend Sec.  160.001-1(a)(1) by removing the words ``(Type I 
personal flotation devices (PFDs))''.


Sec.  160.001-3  [Amended]

0
11. Amend Sec.  160.001-3(d) as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (d)(4); and
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(5), (6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs 
(d)(4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively.


Sec.  160.002-6  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  160.002-6(b) by removing the words ``Type I Personal 
Flotation Device.''.


Sec.  160.005-6  [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  160.005-6(b) by removing the words ``Type I-Personal 
Flotation Device.''.


Sec.  160.047-6  [Amended]

0
14. Amend Sec.  160.047-6(a) by removing the words ``Type II Personal 
Flotation Device.''.


Sec.  160.052-8  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  160.052-8(a) by removing the words ``Type II-Personal 
flotation device.''.


Sec.  160.053-5  [Amended]

0
16. Amend Sec.  160.053-5(a) by removing the words ``Type V--Personal 
flotation device.''.


Sec.  160.055-8  [Amended]

0
17. Amend Sec.  160.055-8(b) by removing the words ``Type I or Type V 
Personal Flotation Device.''.


Sec.  160.060-8  [Amended]

0
18. Amend Sec.  160.060-8(a) by removing the words ``Type II Personal 
Flotation Device.''.

0
19. Revise Sec.  160.064-4 to read as follows:


Sec.  160.064-4  Marking.

    (a) Labels. Each water safety buoyant device must be marked in 
accordance with the recognized laboratory's listing

[[Page 56500]]

and labeling requirements in accordance with Sec.  160.064-3(a). At a 
minimum, all labels must include--
    (1) Size information, as appropriate;
    (2) The Coast Guard approval number;
    (3) Manufacturer's contact information;
    (4) Model name/number;
    (5) Lot number, manufacturer date; and
    (6) Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special 
instructions for use.
    (b) Durability of marking. Marking must be of a type which will be 
durable and legible for the expected life of the device.

0
20. Amend Sec.  160.076-5 as follows:
0
a. Remove the parenthecial ``(I, II, or III)'' from the definition of 
``Performance type'';
0
b. Remove the definition of ``PFD Approval Type''; and
0
c. Revise the definitions of ``Conditional approval'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  160.076-5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Conditional approval means a PFD approval which has condition(s) 
with which the user must comply in order for the PFD to be counted 
toward meeting the carriage requirements for the vessel on which it is 
being used.
* * * * *


Sec.  160.076-7  [Removed and Reserved]

0
21. Remove and reserve Sec.  160.076-7.
0
22. Amend Sec.  160.076-9 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``is categorized as a Type V PFD 
and''; and
0
b. Revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  160.076-9  Conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (b) PFDs not meeting the performance specifications in UL 1180 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.076-11) may be conditionally 
approved when the Commandant determines that the performance or design 
characteristics of the PFD make such classification appropriate.


Sec.  160.076-13  [Amended]

0
23. Amend Sec.  160.076-13 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (c)(3); and
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) as 
paragraphs (c)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), respectively.


Sec.  160.076-23  [Amended]

0
24. Amend Sec.  160.076-23(a)(1) by removing the words ``applicable to 
the PFD performance type for which approval is sought''.


Sec.  160.076-25  [Amended]

0
25. Amend Sec.  160.076-25(b) by removing the words ``that are 
applicable to the PFD performance type for which approval is sought''.
0
26. Revise Sec.  160.076-39 to read as follows:


Sec.  160.076-39  Marking.

    Each inflatable PFD must be marked as specified in UL 1180 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.076-11). At a minimum, all 
labels must include--
    (a) Size information, as appropriate;
    (b) The Coast Guard approval number;
    (c) Manufacturer's contact information;
    (d) Model name/number;
    (e) Lot number, manufacturer date; and
    (f) Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special 
instructions for use.


Sec.  160.077-31  [Amended]

0
27. Amend Sec.  160.077-31 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``Type [II, III, or V, as 
applicable] PFD''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d), remove the words ``Type [``I'', ``V'', or ``V Work 
Vest Only'', as applicable] PFD''.


Sec.  160.176-23  [Amended]

0
28. Amend Sec.  160.176-23 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``Type V PFD-'' and ``in lieu of 
(see paragraph (f) of this section for exact text to be used here)''; 
and
0
b. Remove paragraph (f).

PART 169--SAILING SCHOOL VESSELS

0
29. The authority citation for part 169 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101; Pub. L. 
103-206, 107 Stat. 2439; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 
Comp., p. 793; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1; Sec.  169.117 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 
3507.

0
30. Amend Sec.  169.539 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, remove the word ``either'';
0
b. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``A Type I approved'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``Approved'', and remove the second use of the 
word ``or'';
0
c. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``a Type V approved'' and add, in 
their place, the word ``Approved''; and
0
d. Revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  169.539  Type required.

* * * * *
    (c) Approved under subparts 160.047, 160.052, or 160.060 of this 
chapter or approved under subpart 160.064 of this chapter if the vessel 
carries exposure suits or exposure PFDs, in accordance with Sec.  
169.551.

    Dated: September 15, 2014.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-22373 Filed 9-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P