Survival Craft Equipment-Update to Type Approval Requirements, 62842-62920 [2020-21032]
Download as PDF
62842
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
46 CFR Parts 121, 160, 169, 184 and
199
For
information about this document, call or
email LT Brock Hashimoto, Lifesaving &
Fire Safety Division (CG–ENG–4), Coast
Guard; telephone 202–372–1426, email
Brock.J.Hashimoto@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[Docket No. USCG–2020–0107]
Table of Contents for Preamble
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
RIN 1625–AC51
Survival Craft Equipment—Update to
Type Approval Requirements
Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Coast Guard is proposing
to update the type approval
requirements for certain types of
equipment that survival craft are
required to carry on U.S.-flagged
vessels. The proposed rule is
deregulatory and would remove Coast
Guard type approval requirements for
nine of these types of survival craft
equipment and replace them with the
requirement that the manufacturer selfcertify that the equipment complies
with a consensus standard.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before December 4, 2020. Comments
sent to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on collection of
information must reach OMB on or
before December 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2020–0107 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
Collection of information. Submit
comments on the collection of
information discussed in section VII.D.
of this preamble both to the Coast
Guard’s online docket and to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the White House Office of
Management and Budget using one of
the following two methods:
• Email: dhsdeskofficer@
omb.eop.gov.
• Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk
Officer for the Coast Guard.
Viewing material proposed for
incorporation by reference. Make
arrangements to view this material by
calling the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards and Incorporation
by Reference
M. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
The Coast Guard views public
participation as essential to effective
rulemaking and will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period. Your comment can
help shape the outcome of this
rulemaking. If you submit a comment,
please include the docket number for
this rulemaking, indicate the specific
section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason
for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If you cannot
submit your material by using https://
www.regulations.gov, call or email the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule
for alternate instructions. Documents
mentioned in this proposed rule, and all
public comments, will be available in
our online docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed
by following that website’s instructions.
Additionally, if you visit the online
docket and sign up for email alerts, you
will be notified when comments are
posted or if a final rule is published.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting, but we will consider doing so
if public comments indicate that a
meeting would be helpful. We would
issue a separate Federal Register (FR)
notification to announce the date, time,
and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
ASTM American Society for Testing and
Materials
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COA Certificate of approval
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ECEC U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation
FR Federal Register
CG MIX U.S. Coast Guard Maritime
Information Exchange
IBA Inflatable buoyant apparatus
IBR Incorporation by reference
ICR Information collection request
IEC International Electrotechnical
Commission
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISO International Organization for
Standardization
LSA Code Life-Saving Appliances Code
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OES U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Occupational Employment Statistics
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RA Regulatory Analysis
SOLAS International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
UL Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
III. Basis and Purpose
The legal authority for this proposed
rule is found in Title 46 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) sections 2103,
3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4302, 4502,
7101, 8101 and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation
No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b). This
proposed rule would update the type
approval requirements for 12 types of
survival craft equipment that survival
craft are required to carry on certain,
specified U.S.-flagged vessels—bilge
pumps, compasses, fire extinguishers,
first-aid kits, fishing kits, hatchets,
jackknives, knives, signaling mirrors,
provisions (food rations), emergency
drinking water, and sea anchors—as
well as some of the survival craft
equipment required for sailing school
vessels. For nine of these types of
equipment, the proposed rule would
replace the Coast Guard type approval
requirement with a requirement that the
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
manufacturer self-certify that the
equipment complies with a consensus
standard: Bilge pumps, compasses, firstaid kits, fishing kits, hatchets,
jackknives, mirrors, sea anchors, and
water.
Updating type approval requirements
for survival craft equipment reduces the
financial burden and amount of time
spent by equipment manufacturers,
vessel owners and operators, and the
Coast Guard on current Coast Guard
type approval requirements for survival
craft equipment.
IV. Background
Many of the current requirements for
survival craft equipment were
developed in the 1950s and 1960s and
have not been significantly updated
since they were published. After
thorough review of these requirements,
as well as Coast Guard enforcement
procedures, current maritime industry
practice, and the availability of new
consensus standards, we believe that the
additional scrutiny provided by Coast
Guard type approval does not increase
the safety of the following nine types of
survival craft equipment: Bilge pumps,
compasses, first-aid kits,1 fishing kits,
hatchets, knives (including jackknives),
mirrors, sea anchors, and emergency
drinking water.
For these types of equipment, the
current Coast Guard type approval
requirements are outdated and overly
prescriptive. This places a burden on
the equipment manufacturers, which in
turn affects the design costs of
complying with the outdated standard,
the administrative overhead costs, and
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
1 Different first-aid kits are required for different
survival craft and this is explained further in this
proposed rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
the time-to-market costs of
manufacturing and selling equipment. It
also places a financial burden on the
vessel owners and operators who are
required to carry this specific approved
equipment on board their survival craft.
This equipment is frequently more
costly and more difficult to obtain than
similar products that are not type
approved. Finally, it places a burden on
the Coast Guard to review and approve
this equipment without commensurate
increases in safety.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
several approval and carriage
requirements in title 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). Specifically,
we are proposing to remove current
approval requirements for first-aid kits
in part 121 under subchapter K, part 160
under subchapter Q, and part 184 under
subchapter T, and to update those
requirements to industry standards. In
addition, we propose removing approval
requirements for certain survival craft
equipment and provisions in part 160
under subchapter Q and in part 169
under subchapter R, and updating those
requirements to industry standards.
Finally, we are proposing to update the
carriage requirements for lifesaving
systems on certain inspected vessels in
part 199 under subchapter W, by
replacing some Coast Guard-specific
standards with voluntary consensus
standards.
The proposed rule would add a new
subpart 160.046 (Emergency Provisions)
to part 160 of title 46 of the CFR to
consolidate and update applicable
standards, including making mandatory
several voluntary consensus standards
consistent with the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62843
Public Law 104–113 (codified as a note
to 15 U.S.C. 272). This rule would make
mandatory three voluntary consensus
standards from the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO):
ISO 18813:2006 ‘‘Ships and marine
technology—Survival equipment for
survival craft and rescue boats’’
(referred to as ISO 18813); ISO
17339:2018 ‘‘Ships and marine
technology—Sea anchors for survival
craft and rescue boats’’ (referred to as
ISO 17339); and ISO 25862:2009 ‘‘Ships
and marine technology—Marine
magnetic compasses, binnacles and
azimuth reading devices’’ (referred to as
ISO 25862).
While the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) does specify some
standards for survival craft equipment
affected by this proposed rule, it does
not stipulate that the affected survival
craft equipment be approved by the
Administration. In some cases (such as
first-aid kits and drinking water), the
LSA Code references ISO 18813 as an
acceptable standard for the equipment
to meet, whereas in others (such as
fishing tackle), the LSA Code merely
requires that the equipment be carried
aboard the specified survival craft.
Table 1 provides a list of the 12 types
of survival craft equipment that would
be affected by this proposed rule, the
proposed changes that would be made
to the corresponding regulations, and
the affected CFR subparts and sections.
Table 2 presents the Coast Guard’s
baseline matrix, which summarizes the
proposed changes by CFR subpart and
section.
For a detailed explanation of the
proposed amendments presented in
table 1, see the discussion that follows
table 2.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.006
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62844
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62845
EP05OC20.007
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.008
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62846
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62847
EP05OC20.009
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.010
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62848
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62849
EP05OC20.011
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.012
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62850
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62851
EP05OC20.013
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.014
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62852
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Bilge Pump
Lifeboats that are not automatically
self-bailing are currently required to
carry manual bilge pumps approved by
the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 160,
subpart 160.044—Pumps, Bilge,
Lifeboat, for Merchant Vessels. This
proposed rule would be the first
substantive update to the design
requirements since 1951. In this
proposed rule, the Coast Guard would
only require that bilge pumps comply
with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.3. The rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
would remove requirements for the
Coast Guard to issue a Certificate of
Approval (COA) and replace it with the
requirement for the manufacturer to
self-certify that their equipment meets
the requirements outlined in ISO 18813.
This would reduce the administrative
burden for the manufacturers currently
required to have a Coast Guard-issued
COA for each bilge pump every 5 years.
Subpart 160.044 would be removed and
reserved, and the new requirements
would be listed in § 199.175(b)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62853
The requirements in ISO 18813 and in
subpart 160.044 are similar in nature,
with three key differences:
(1) The capacity requirements in ISO
18813 differ from those in subpart
160.044. The Coast Guard proposes to
incorporate by reference the ISO 18813
capacity standards and remove the
current requirements in § 199.175(b)(2).
The Coast Guard believes that the pump
capacity in the ISO standard is more
appropriate, given the current design of
modern lifeboats;
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.015
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
62854
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
(2) Subpart 160.044 requires that the
body of the bilge pump be made of
bronze, while ISO 18813 allows the
bilge pump to be made of any corrosionresistant material; and
(3) The requirements outlined in ISO
18813 would allow manufacturers more
flexibility in the design and
construction of bilge pumps. Any Coast
Guard-approved bilge pump on board
before this proposed rule becomes
effective may remain on board if it
remains in good and serviceable
condition.
Compass
Lifeboats and rescue boats are
required to carry a compass approved by
the Coast Guard under approval series
160.014. The Coast Guard currently
approves compasses using the
‘‘Guidelines for Approval of Magnetic
Compasses in Lifeboats/Liferafts,’’
issued in December 2005, which states
that manufacturers must meet either the
‘‘USCG Specification for Compasses:
Magnetic, Liquid Filled, Mariners,
Compensating, for lifeboats for
Merchant Vessels,’’ developed in 1944,
or a combination of ISO 613:2000
‘‘Ships and marine technology—
Magnetic compasses, binnacles and
azimuth reading devices—Class B’’
(referred to as ISO 613) and the
International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC)’s standard
60945:2002–08—‘‘Maritime navigation
and radio communication equipment
and systems—General requirements—
Methods of testing and required test
results’’ (referred to as IEC 60945).
This proposed rule would update the
language in § 199.175(b)(6) to state that
the compass in a survival craft must
comply with ISO 25862 Annex H.
Additionally, this proposed rule
would remove the requirement for the
Coast Guard to issue a COA and would
replace it with the requirement for the
manufacturer to self-certify that their
equipment meets the requirements
outlined in ISO 25862. As a result, the
Coast Guard would no longer maintain
separate design requirements in this
specification.
There would be no substantive change
in requirements for the class B magnetic
compass because ISO 25862 supersedes
and incorporates the requirements in
ISO 613. Similarly, the testing
requirements for the compasses would
remain the same because ISO 25862
references the same testing requirements
in IEC 60945 that are currently required
for Coast Guard approval. This proposed
rule would ensure that the compasses in
survival craft would meet the same
standard as currently required; however,
the move to self-certification would lead
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
to a reduction in paperwork and a
reduction in collected information.
Fire Extinguishers
The recent rule, ‘‘Harmonization of
Standards for Fire Protection, Detection,
and Extinguishing Equipment’’ (81 FR
48219, July 22, 2016), updated the
design and approval standards for fire
extinguishing equipment by changing
the portable fire extinguisher ratings
system from a weight-based rating
system to the Underwriters Laboratories
Inc. (UL) performance-based rating
system. Under current survival craft
regulations, survival craft are required
to carry fire extinguishers based on the
old weight-based rating system rather
than the performance-based rating
system established by the
aforementioned Harmonization rule (81
FR 48219). This proposed rule would
update the requirements in
§ 199.175(b)(9) to reflect the change in
rating system. As the Coast Guard noted
in the Harmonization rule (see 81 FR at
48230), the fire extinguishers approved
under the old weight-based system and
the new performance-based system cost
the same, so there is no cost or cost
savings associated with this change.
First-Aid Kit
The Coast Guard intends to change
current first-aid kit requirements by: (1)
Accepting ISO 18813 as the one uniform
Coast Guard-approved standard for firstaid kits; (2) updating and consolidating
references to this one standard across
multiple different first-aid carriage
requirements; and 3) grandfathering in
all preexisting first-aid kits that comply
with the current Coast Guard
standards.2 Currently, all inspected
small passenger vessels, lifeboats,
rescue boats, inflatable SOLAS liferafts,
and inflatable buoyant apparatuses are
required to carry first-aid kits approved
by the Coast Guard. There are two
different approval series for first-aid
kits, with different requirements: series
160.041, Lifeboat First-Aid Kit, for
lifeboats, rescue boats, and small
passenger vessels; and series 160.054,
First-Aid Kit for Inflatable Liferafts, for
liferafts. The current requirements for
first-aid kits are found in §§ 160.041–
4(b) and 160.054–4(b). First-aid kits
approved to § 160.041–4(b) are required
to carry more packages of certain firstaid items than first-aid kits approved to
§ 160.054–4(b).3
2 The grandfathering provision is proposed by
this rulemaking for all nine pieces of equipment.
Please see the proposed § 199.175(c).
3 For the item requirements for first-aid kits in
lifeboats and rescue boats, see the following link:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6053d1fa
121cb42db8a54803ad6f08ea&mc=true&
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
This proposed rule would remove and
reserve subparts 160.041 and 160.054
and move the requirements for first-aid
kits from subparts 160.041 and 160.054
to § 199.175(b)(10). The rule would
require that all first-aid kits, except
those grandfathered under the proposed
§ 199.175(c), meet the requirements set
forth in ISO 18813. This standard
requires a different set of items and a
different number of items in the first-aid
kit. For a thorough description of the
differences in contents between the
first-aid kits in subparts 160.041 and
160.054 and ISO 18813, see table 30 in
the regulatory analysis (RA). Finally,
this proposed rule would remove the
requirement for the Coast Guard to issue
a COA and would replace it with a
requirement for the manufacturer to
self-certify that their equipment meets
the requirements of ISO 18813.
The Coast Guard also intends to
update the references to the standards
for first-aid kits carriage requirements in
§ 121.710 for subchapter K-inspected
small passenger vessels, § 184.710 for
subchapter T-inspected small passenger
vessels, subpart 160.010 for buoyant
apparatuses,4 and subpart 160.151 for
liferafts. This proposed rule would
update the referenced first-aid kit
requirements to the consolidated
requirements listed in § 199.175(b)(10).
In current regulations, the medicine
in first-aid kits is required to conform to
the latest standards of the U.S.
Pharmacopoeia.5 These proposed
regulations do not change this
requirement and would be outlined in
§ 199.175(b)(10).6
Fishing Kit
Lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts
are required to carry a fishing kit and
tackle approved by the Coast Guard, as
directed in 46 CFR part 160, subpart
160.061. This proposed rule would
remove and reserve subpart 160.061 and
move the requirements for fishing kits
from subpart 160.061 to
§ 199.175(b)(11). The proposed rule
would make two substantive changes to
the requirements. First, the Coast Guard
would mandate that fishing kits meet
the standards set forth in ISO 18813.
node=se46.6.160_1041_64&rgn=div8. For the item
requirements for liferafts and buoyant apparatuses,
see the following link: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/
text-idx?SID=6053d1fa121cb42db8a54803
ad6f08ea&mc=true&node=se46.6.160_1054_
64&rgn=div8.
4 Only required for ‘‘open reversible liferafts’’
Annex 11 to IMO Res. MSC.97(73).
5 Compendium of drug information for the United
States published annually by the United States
Pharmacopeial Convention.
6 This replaces the U.S. requirement for first-aid
kits to contain ‘‘Aspirin’’ with the ISO requirement
for ‘‘Analgesic.’’
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Second, this proposed rule would
remove the requirement for the Coast
Guard to issue a COA and replace it
with the requirement for the
manufacturer to self-certify that their
equipment meets the specifications
outlined in § 199.175(b)(11).
The requirements in subpart 160.061
were last substantively updated in
September 1965 and are very
prescriptive (for example, pork bait is
no longer commercially available but is
a listed requirement in fishing kits). By
contrast, ISO 18813 is much less
prescriptive, and the Coast Guard does
not believe this loss in specificity
decreases the usefulness of fishing kits
likely to be produced and sold. Instead,
this proposed rulemaking would align
the Coast Guard requirements for fishing
kits with international requirements and
would make it easier for fishing kit
manufacturers to meet Coast Guard
requirements.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Hatchet
All lifeboats are required to carry
hatchets approved by the Coast Guard to
the specifications found in 46 CFR part
160, subpart 160.013. This proposed
rule would remove and reserve subpart
160.013 and move the requirements for
hatchets from subpart 160.013 to
§ 199.175(b)(13). This proposed rule
would make two substantive changes to
the current requirements. First, it would
remove the requirement for the Coast
Guard to issue a COA and would
replace it with the requirement for the
manufacturer to self-certify that their
equipment meets the requirements
outlined in § 199.175(b)(13). Second, it
would remove some of the current
testing requirements, because the Coast
Guard does not believe they increase
safety. Specifically, the requirements
found in subpart 160.013 state that the
hatchet must comply with the Federal
Specification GGG–A–926—Axes,
which was cancelled in 1999.7 The
Coast Guard is proposing to retain
pertinent requirements from current
regulations and remove outdated ones.
For example, we would retain the
handle, lanyard, and sheath
specifications for a hatchet, because
these specifications reflect the safety
requirements of a hatchet.
Jackknife
All lifeboats and SOLAS liferafts are
required to carry a jackknife approved
by the Coast Guard, as specified in 46
CFR part 160, subpart 160.043. This
proposed rule would remove and
7 Department of Defense Index of Specifications
and Standards Numerical Canceled Listing
(APPENDIX) Part IV.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
reserve subpart 160.043 and move the
requirements from subpart 160.043 to
§ 199.175(b)(16). The proposed rule
would make four changes to the current
requirements. First, this proposed rule
would require that a jackknife must
comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.19,
rather than the existing requirements in
subpart 160.043. Second, this proposed
rule would update references to the
jackknife found in § 199.175. Third, this
proposed rule would remove the
requirement for the Coast Guard to issue
a COA and would replace it with the
requirement for the manufacturer to
self-certify that their equipment meets
the requirements outlined in ISO 18813.
Fourth, Table 1 to 199.175—Survival
Craft Equipment would be updated so
that a jackknife could replace both a can
opener and a knife when they are
required as specified in § 199.175.
The standards set by ISO 18813 are
broader and less specific than those
contained in 46 CFR part 160, subpart
160.043, but they would not
substantively alter the requirements for
the design of jackknives. The proposed
standards allow the manufacturer
additional options for the materials used
in the jackknife. There would also be a
reduction in the test requirements. ISO
18813 requires only the cutting test,
while subpart 160.043 requires three
tests, including the same cutting test.
The additional tests required by subpart
160.043—the hardness test and the
bending and drop test—do not lead to
an increase in safety nor an
improvement in equipment quality. The
Coast Guard therefore proposes to
remove the requirements for these tests.
Knife
Buoyant apparatuses, inflatable
liferafts, lifeboats, rigid liferafts, and
rescue boats are required to carry a
knife. The proposed rule would revise
§§ 160.010–3(a)(12)(ii) and 160.051–
11(b) to update the quantity of knives to
be carried to match the LSA Code and
would add regulatory text allowing a
knife to be replaced with a jackknife
meeting the requirements in
§ 199.175(b)(16). If the apparatus is
permitted to accommodate 13 or more
persons, the proposed rule removes
requirements for jackknives in
§ 199.175(b)(17), which may be
substituted for a second non-folding
knife, and, instead, proposes they must
meet the requirements in ISO 18813.
Mirror
All lifeboats and inflatable liferafts are
required to carry a signaling mirror
approved by the Coast Guard under
approval series 160.020, using the
‘‘USCG Specification for Signaling
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62855
Mirrors for Merchant Vessels’’ issued in
October 1944. This proposed rule would
update § 199.175(b)(19) and make two
changes to the current requirements.
First, the Coast Guard proposes to
change the standard for signaling
mirrors to the requirements in ISO
18813 paragraph 4.23. Second, this
proposed rule would remove the
requirement for the Coast Guard to issue
a COA and replace it with the
requirement for the manufacturer to
self-certify that their equipment meets
the requirements outlined in ISO 18813.
The requirements in ISO 18813 provide
the same safety standards as the 1944
Coast Guard specification, but would
allow for more flexibility in meeting the
requirements. The 1944 Coast Guard
specification requires the mirror to be
rectangular; ISO 18813 allows the
mirror to be any shape provided the
reflective surface meets the minimum
area requirements.
Provisions
All lifeboats and SOLAS A pack
liferafts are required to carry provisions
approved by the Coast Guard under
approval series 160.046, using the
‘‘Guidelines for Approval of Emergency
Provisions for Lifeboats and Liferafts’’
issued in August 1997. This proposed
rule would create a new subpart 160.046
that outlines the requirements for
emergency provisions that must comply
with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.31.
The design and test requirements
found in ISO 18813 are the same as
those found in the aforementioned Coast
Guard guidelines for approval. This
proposed rule would formalize those
requirements into regulation, while
maintaining the current level of safety.
Manufacturers would be required to
continue to maintain a valid COA under
approval number 160.046 and prove
compliance with the referenced
standards. Unlike the changes regarding
the other survival craft equipment
described in this proposed rule, there
will be no costs or cost savings
associated with these provisions as
manufacturers will still need a COA
under approval number 160.046. The
proposed change only formalizes
preexisting agency policy, which will
lead to no reduction in burden. The
Coast Guard is retaining the requirement
for a valid COA for provisions because
we recognized that provisions is a
critical part of lifesaving equipment. We
know that manufacturers also produce
emergency provisions for other outdoorrelated industries.Validating the
performance of the provision can only
be done by independent laboratory
testing rather than by physical
inspection. We want to maintain the
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62856
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
current level of quality and nutritional
value that is necessary specific to the
maritime industry and environment.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Sea Anchor
All lifeboats, rescue boats, and rigid
liferafts are required to carry a sea
anchor approved by the Coast Guard
under approval series 160.019.
Inflatable liferafts and buoyant
apparatuses are also required to carry
sea anchors, but those sea anchors are
not required to be Coast Guardapproved. The Coast Guard approves
sea anchors using either the ‘‘USCG
Specification for Sea Anchors,’’ revised
in August 1944, or ISO 17339. This
proposed rule would update
§ 199.175(b)(27) and state that the sea
anchor must comply with ISO 17339.
The Coast Guard also proposes to
remove the requirement for the Coast
Guard to issue a COA and replace it
with the requirement for the
manufacturer to self-certify that their
equipment meets the requirements
outlined in ISO 17339. This proposed
rule would result in a reduction in
paperwork and information collection
and a reduction in the overall
administrative burden to the
manufacturers of sea anchors from no
longer requiring a COA.
Water
All lifeboats and SOLAS A pack
liferafts are required to carry emergency
drinking water approved by the Coast
Guard under approval series 160.026.
Subpart 160.026—Water, Emergency
Drinking (In Hermetically Sealed
Containers), for Merchant Vessels,
contains the regulations for Coast Guard
approval of emergency drinking water.
The last substantive update to subpart
160.026 occurred on September 8, 1965
(30 FR 11466). In November 1981, the
Coast Guard issued a policy letter,
‘‘Guidelines for Approval of Emergency
Drinking Water for Lifeboats and
Liferafts,’’ outlining alternative
requirements for the approval of
emergency drinking water.
This proposed rule would remove and
reserve subpart 160.026 and move the
requirements for drinking water from
subpart 160.026 to § 199.175(b)(40). The
proposed rule would make three
changes to the current requirements.
First, the emergency drinking water
would be required to comply with ISO
18813 paragraph 4.46 rather than the
existing requirements in subpart
160.026. Second, the rule would remove
the requirement for the Coast Guard to
issue a COA and replace it with the
requirement for the manufacturer to
self-certify that their water meets the
requirements outlined in ISO 18813.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
Third, water quality would be required
to be verified by the local municipality
or an independent laboratory accepted
by the Coast Guard.
Current Coast Guard regulations in
subpart 160.026 only allow for the use
of cans as water receptacles, while ISO
18813 allows for the use of different
types of water receptacles. The 1981
Coast Guard Guidelines allow for the
use of flexible material in the water
receptacle. ISO 18813 and the Coast
Guard Guidelines have the same
requirements for the flexible material,
and there are no changes in the testing
requirements between the Coast Guard
Guidelines and ISO 18813.
Incorporating ISO 18813 would update
regulations to allow flexible material for
water receptacles in addition to cans, in
accordance with 1981 Coast Guard
guidelines.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
A summary of our analyses based on
these statutes or Executive orders
follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Material proposed for incorporation
by reference is currently listed in
§ 199.05 and would also be added to the
new § 160.046–3. The substance of the
individual standards is described in
section V. of this preamble, and we have
also summarized them in section VII.L.
Copies of the material are available to
purchase from the publishers at the
addresses listed in §§ 160.046–3 and
199.05. Information about purchasing
these standards is also available online
(via the internet). Before publishing a
binding rule, we will submit this
material to the Director of the Federal
Register for approval of the
incorporation by reference.
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 costs and benefits, reducing
costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771
(Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to
reduce regulation and control regulatory
costs and provides that ‘‘for every one
new regulation issued, at least two prior
regulations be identified for elimination,
and that the cost of planned regulations
be prudently managed and controlled
through a budgeting process.’’
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not designated this proposed
rule a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, OMB has not
reviewed it. DHS considers this rule to
be an Executive Order 13771
deregulatory action.9 A regulatory
analysis (RA) follows.
As discussed in section V of this
proposed rule, the Coast Guard would
remove the requirement for nine types
of survival craft equipment to be
approved by the Coast Guard from 46
CFR part 160 in subchapter Q
(Equipment, Construction, and
Materials: Specifications and Approval)
and from § 199.175 (Survival Craft and
Rescue Boat Equipment). The
requirement for COAs on these nine
types of equipment (bilge pumps,
compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits,
hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, sea
anchors, and water) would be replaced
by a self-certification requirement, in
order to comply with the LSA Code. For
those types of equipment that still
require a COA, provisions and fire
extinguishers, we do not estimate any
8 For the full set of requirements being modified
and eliminated, refer to table 39 in the RA. None
of these changes will result in costs or costs savings,
which is explained in table 39.
9 See the OMB Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance
Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled
‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017).
Sailing School Vessels
In addition to the types of equipment
discussed above, this proposed rule
would also update the survival craft
requirements for sailing school vessels
found in §§ 169.525 through 169.529.
We propose to reference the equipment
requirements in § 199.175. This would
eliminate the unique requirements for
survival craft equipment on sailing
school vessels, such as a lantern,
matches, illuminating oil, and storm
oil.8 This proposed change would align
outdated requirements with the modern
standards in § 199.175 that are
applicable to other vessels in
commercial service. As a result of these
proposed changes, equipment
manufacturers would be able to
manufacture one piece of equipment
that is acceptable on all types of U.S.flagged vessels.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
changes in costs or cost savings.10
Finally, this proposed rule would
update the survival craft requirements
for sailing school vessels found in
§§ 169.525 through 169.529, eliminating
the unique requirements for survival
craft equipment on sailing school
vessels.
Table 3 provides a summary of the
affected population, costs, cost savings,
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
10 Knives are not required to be Coast Guard
approved, however they must meet the
requirements in the LSA Code. This is an
administrative change that will lead to no cost or
cost savings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
and benefits of this proposed rule. The
affected population includes the
manufacturers of the survival craft
equipment and the vessels equipped
with survival craft. Additionally, we
estimate the potential cost savings to
manufacturers by reducing reporting,
recordkeeping, and production
requirements of this survival craft
equipment. We estimate the potential
cost savings to vessel owners and
operators by the price reductions in
survival craft equipment, and we
estimate the potential cost savings for
the Government for reducing the review
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62857
necessary for certain equipment. We
estimate an annualized cost savings to
industry of $335,733 (with a 7-percent
discount rate) and an annualized cost
savings to Government of $9,142 (with
a 7-percent discount rate) for a total
annualized cost savings of $344,875.
Using a perpetual period of analysis, we
estimate the total annualized cost
savings of this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to be $241,000 in
2016 dollars and discounted back to
2016 using a 7-percent discount rate.11
11 This analysis assumes the implementation year
for this rule would be 2021.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Affected Population
This proposed rule would impact four
separate affected populations. First, this
proposed rule would impact
manufacturers of Coast Guard-approved
equipment because it changes the
standards and approval process for nine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
types of survival craft equipment.
Second, this proposed rule would
impact any new and existing U.S.flagged vessels that carry survival craft
because it would reduce the cost of
buying and replacing survival craft
equipment. Third, this proposed rule
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would impact small passenger vessels
inspected under subchapter K or T
because they are required to maintain a
separate first-aid kit onboard, and this
rule reduces the cost of replacing firstaid kits. Fourth, this proposed rule
would impact sailing school vessels, but
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.016
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62858
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
we do not estimate any costs, cost
savings, or benefits to these vessels.
This proposed rule would remove table
169.527 from part 169 and it would
remove the requirements for equipment
outlined in § 169.529(a) through (mm)
as these requirements are outdated and
the Coast Guard is moving the reference
to these pieces of equipment to part 199.
Data on manufacturers comes from
the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime
Information Exchange (CGMIX),12
which is a public-facing version of the
Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database, unless
otherwise specified. For each
subchapter of inspected vessels that are
required to carry survival craft, we
looked at annual data (2008–2017) 13
from the MISLE database to estimate the
number of vessels that would be
affected by this proposed rule. We used
this timeframe of vessel data from
MISLE to obtain the average number of
vessels, survival craft, and survival craft
12 https://cgmix.uscg.mil/
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
13 The Coast Guard used 10 years of MISLE data
for a robust data set.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
equipment presented in the vessel
populations in the following sections.
Manufacturers of Coast Guard
Approved Equipment
The Coast Guard is proposing to
modify approval requirements for nine
types of survival craft equipment,
discussed in detail in section V of this
proposed rule. These nine types of
equipment include: (1) Bilge pumps; (2)
compasses; (3) first-aid kits for lifeboats
and for liferafts; (4) fishing kits; (5)
hatchets; (6) jackknives; (7) signaling
mirrors; (8) sea anchors; and (9)
emergency drinking water. For these
nine types of survival equipment, there
are 27 unique Coast Guard typeapproved products.14 This proposed
rule would impact products currently
on the market as well as newly
approved products. Those products
affected by this NPRM that are currently
on survival craft would remain
acceptable for the purpose of carriage
after this rule’s implementation.
14 Type Approval is the primary process for
equipment and materials to receive Coast Guard
approval. The certificate is valid for 5 years, and the
approval will be listed on the CGMIX.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62859
The 2018 collection of information,
‘‘Supporting Statement for Title 46 CFR
Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical,
Engineering and Navigation Equipment,
Construction and Materials & Marine
Sanitation Devices (33 CFR part 159)’’
(OMB Control Number: 1625–0035)
estimates that companies would seek
Coast Guard approval for 3 percent of
the number of survival craft equipment
products on the market each year. The
Coast Guard estimates that each new
product approval replaces a preexisting
product approval, such that the total
number of approved products would not
change each year, as the number of
newly approved products has been
historically small. Table 4 presents the
annual average of new products each
year for the nine types of survival craft
equipment. To calculate the annual
average of new products, we multiplied
the values in the ‘‘Number of Approved
Products’’ column (table 4), which
contains the number of existing
approved products for each type of
survival craft equipment, by 3 percent
(‘‘Percentage of New Approvals Each
Year’’ column).
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
U.S.-Flagged Vessels That Carry Coast
Guard-Approved Equipment
This proposed rule would impact a
total of 14,666 existing vessels. Of these
vessels, we estimate the total amount of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
survival craft maintained by the affected
population to be 34,456. Table 5 shows
the breakdown of the survival craft
population as follows: 2,142 inflatable
buoyant apparatuses (IBAs), 25,910
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
liferafts, 3,472 lifeboats, and 2,932
rescue boats. These vessels, which are
categorized by subchapter, are required
to carry survival craft in accordance
with the applicable regulations.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.017
62860
Table 6 presents vessels by the
subchapter to which they are inspected
in title 46 of the CFR. ‘‘Other vessels’’
includes public and recreational vessels
not subject to inspection. The owners
and operators of the 14,666 identified
vessels would experience cost savings
from the lower estimated cost of
replacing equipment after this proposed
regulation takes effect. We used this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
existing vessel population data from
MISLE and multiplied it by the average
number of IBAs, liferafts, lifeboats, and
rescue boats per vessel, which we also
retrieved from MISLE, to obtain our
estimated survival craft population.
This is the existing population of
survival craft. Regarding those pieces of
survival craft equipment that are nondurable and will be replaced within 10
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62861
years, this is the population that
provides the number of survival craft
that will need to replace Coast Guardapproved equipment with presumably
less expensive equipment, because the
replacement equipment would not need
Coast Guard approval. Those vessels
with previously approved survival craft
equipment would not be required to
replace their survival craft equipment
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.018
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
until it expires or becomes
unserviceable.
After establishing the existing number
of current survival craft, we then
estimate the growth in the number of
survival craft each year in order to
project out our affected population for
the next ten years. To calculate the
number of new survival craft each year,
we multiply the ‘‘Number of New
Vessels per Year’’ by each ‘‘Average per
Vessel’’ column in table 6 to obtain our
annual totals for each new survival craft
type.15 We estimate that 14 new IBAs,
278 new liferafts, 46 new lifeboats, and
41 new rescue boats would be outfitted
with equipment subject to this proposed
rule each year.
We then sum the totals for each
survival craft type across each affected
subchapter to obtain our estimated
population of new survival craft each
year for this NPRM. This annual growth
in the survival craft population provides
an estimate of the number of new
survival craft that will enter the market
each year. The vessel owners and
operators of these craft would
experience cost savings from buying
some equipment, as discussed in this
NPRM, which will no longer need Coast
Guard approval. Table 6 presents the
estimated total number of new survival
craft each year.
15 ‘‘The Number of New Vessels per Year’’
column was calculated by taking the total number
of new vessels by subchapter by year from the
MISLE database. The Coast Guard calculated the
‘‘Average per Vessel’’ column by dividing column
(b) by column (a) in table 5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.019
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62862
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Subchapter K and Subchapter T Vessels
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
This proposed rule would also affect
all U.S.-flagged vessel operators
regulated under subchapters K and T, as
these vessel operators are required to
maintain a Coast Guard-approved firstaid kit onboard their vessels, in addition
to any first-aid kits carried in the
survival craft. The owners and operators
of these small passenger vessels would
no longer be required to maintain Coast
Guard-approved first-aid kits aboard the
vessels themselves. Using MISLE data,
we estimate there to be 2,069 existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
small passenger vessels, with 101 new
vessels being built on an annual basis.
This number includes all small
passenger vessels defined in
subchapters K and T, found in
§§ 121.710 and 184.710, respectively,
regardless of what type of survival craft
they have onboard. Therefore, this count
may include vessels that do not have an
IBA, lifeboat, liferaft, or rescue boats
onboard.
Equipment Type for Each Survival Craft
The type of equipment each survival
craft is required to carry varies
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62863
depending on the distance a vessel is
traveling. Inspected vessels must carry
an equipment pack for an international
voyage, with the exception of lifeboats
on sailing school vessels, which, if they
are equipped with lifeboats, must carry
the equipment required in §§ 169.527
and 169.529. Currently, based on MISLE
data, none of the seven U.S.-flagged
sailing school vessels are equipped with
lifeboats. Table 7 contains the
equipment required by pack and type of
survival craft.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.020
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62864
pack, a SOLAS A pack, or a SOLAS B
pack depending on vessel size, distance
traveled, whether the ocean route is
designated as a cold-water route or
warm-water route, and the number of
persons onboard. Table 8 provides a
brief description of the packs that can be
carried by lifeboats and liferafts.16
We used vessel route types from
MISLE to estimate the percentage of
vessels with a SOLAS A pack compared
to a SOLAS B pack. All vessels with
‘‘ocean’’ listed as a route type are
presumed to carry survival craft with
SOLAS A packs. We estimate the
remaining route types, not listed as
‘‘ocean,’’ would have SOLAS B packs.
Using commercial fishing vessel data
from MISLE and knowledge from
subject matter experts from the Coast
Guard’s Life Saving & Fire Safety
Division (CG–ENG–4), who specialize in
survival craft data, we estimate that 50
percent of non-ocean going fishing
vessels will have Coastal Service packs
and 50 percent of non-ocean going
fishing vessels will have SOLAS B
packs.
We created a distribution of SOLAS
A, SOLAS B, and Coastal Service packs
by pulling all U.S.-flagged vessels by the
inspection subchapter and then pulling
these vessels by route type from the
MISLE database. We excluded any
vessels that did not have survival craft
or had an unknown field for survival
craft in the MISLE database. The routetype designation included ‘‘Ocean’’ for
ocean-going vessels in MISLE,17 which
we designated as SOLAS A vessels, and
the remainder were therefore SOLAS B
vessels.18 We then calculated the
number of SOLAS A packs by dividing
the population of our vessels (by
subchapter) by the sum of vessels that
had ‘‘Ocean’’ routes and dividing that
sum by the sum of vessels in that given
subchapter. To calculate the percentage
of SOLAS B packs, we simply
subtracted the number of SOLAS A
packs from 100 percent. This data pull
provided the total number of inflatable
liferafts and lifeboats, respectively, and
the percentage of each survival craft
pack type by subchapter, which is
presented in table 9.
16 Readers can find more information on
Inflatable Liferafts for domestic service in the
following link: https://ecfr.io/Title-46/
sp46.6.160.160_1051.
17 The ‘‘Ocean’’ designation in MISLE specifically
refers to those vessels with SOLAS certificates that
designates them as SOLAS A vessels. The MISLE
data being pulled is from 2007–2017.
18 The sole exception was Commercial Fishing
Vessels, which we broke out the Coastal routes and
short international routes by vessel because
Commercial Fishing Vessels are the only type of
vessels in our affected population that would carry
Coastal Service packs instead of only having
SOLAS B packs for short international shipping
routes.
Equipment Pack Types for Commercial
Fishing Vessels
Commercial fishing vessels must be
equipped with either a Coastal Service
Equipment Pack types for Survival Craft
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62865
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.021
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.022
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62866
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
Column (b) in table 10, ‘Short
Internatonal/SOLAS B packs for
inflatable liferafts’, is calculated by
multiplying column (d) in table 9,
which is the percentage of Short
International/SOLAS B packs by vessel
subchapter, by column (c) in table 5,
which is the total number of inflatable
liferafts by subchapter. Column (c) in
table 10, ‘International/Solas A packs
for liferafts’, is calculated by
multiplying column (e) in table 9, which
is hte percentage of International/
SOLAS A packs by vessel subchapter,
by column (c) in table 5, which is the
total number of inflatable liferafts by
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
subchapter. Column (e) in table 10,
‘Short Interntaional/Solas B packs for
lifeboats’, is calculated by taking the
sum of multiplying columns (c) and (d),
the percentages of Coastal Packs and
Short Intertanional/SOLAS B packs in
table 9 by column (e) in table 5, which
is the total number of lifeboats by
subchapter. Column (f) in table 10,
‘Interntaional/Solas A packs for
lifeboats’ is calculated by multiplying
column (e) from table 9, which is the
percentage of International Packs/
SOLAS A, by column (e) in table 5,
which is the total number of lifeboats by
subchapter.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.023
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
We then estimated the number of
liferafts and lifeboats by equipment
pack type for existing and new vessels
by looking at the total number of packs
carried by lifeboats and liferafts. Table
10 presents the number of SOLAS A,
SOLAS B, and Coastal Service packs by
liferaft and lifeboat for each subchapter
of vessels. The total number of inflatable
liferafts with Coastal Service Packs
(Column (a)) in table 10 is calculated by
multiplying the percentage of Coastal
Service Packs in liferafts and lifeboats
(column (c) in table 9) by the total
number of inflatable liferafts by
subchapter (column c) in table 5).
62867
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.024
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62868
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
liferafts presented in table 6 and
multiplying that figure by the
distribution in table 9 to obtain the
number of new packs needed for the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
new liferafts and lifeboats on vessels
each year.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.025
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table 11 presents the total number of
new packs needed each year for new
survival craft. This table is calculated by
taking the number of new lifeboats and
62869
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.026
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62870
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
We anticipate that this proposed rule
would generate a cost savings to: (1)
Vessel owners and operators from
having the option to purchase less
expensive survival craft equipment; (2)
equipment manufacturers from reducing
reporting, record keeping, and
production requirements of survival
craft equipment; and (3) the Federal
Government from reducing record
keeping requirements. The details and
calculations of the cost savings are
discussed later in this NPRM.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Wages
This proposed rule would reduce the
burden of review that is required by
both industry and the Federal
Government. This review includes
preparing COA application renewals,
and product instructions by certain
manufacturers. We presume clerical
employees would be responsible for all
the manufacturer’s recordkeeping
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
activities, and production employees
would be responsible for marking
equipment and packing instructions.
Federal Government employees who
possess the technical knowledge of
survival craft to review submissions to
ensure safety standards would be senior
engineers at the GS–14 grade. These
employees would be responsible for the
review of all the submitted information.
We calculate the costs for each
activity by estimating the labor hours
required in each labor category and then
multiplying those burdens by the wage
rate for each labor category. For this
analysis, we calculated private sector
wages using 2018 wage data from the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) for the miscellaneous
manufacturing sector (North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
339000).19 We added a load factor to the
19 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/naics3_
339000.htm
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
industry wages using December 2018
wage and total compensation data from
the BLS Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation (ECEC) survey, which
accounts for employee benefits. This
load factor represents the total benefits
as a percentage of total salary.20
20 A loaded labor rate is what a company pays per
hour to employ a personbeyond the hourly wage.
Instead, the loaded labor rate includes the cost of
benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). We
calculate the load factor for wages by dividing total
compensation by wages and salaries. For this
analysis, we used BLS’ Employer Cost for Employee
Compensation/Manufacturing Occupations, Private
Industry report (Series IDs, CMU2013000000000D
and CMU2023000000000D for all workers using the
multi-screen data search). Using 2018 Q4 (Quarter
4) Manufacturing data, we divided the total
compensation amount of $39.09 by the wage and
salary amount of $25.59 to get the load factor of
1.53 ($39.09 divided by $25.59). This data is found
in table 10 of the Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation December 2018 News Release
available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
archives/ecec_03192019.pdf
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.027
Cost Savings
62871
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62872
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
For Federal Government employees,
Commandant Instruction 7310.1T,
Reimbursable Standard Rates 21
provides fully loaded wages for both
Coast Guard military and civilian
employees and lists the loaded hourly
21 On page 2 of Enclosure 2 of the following link,
the reader can access the in-government wage rates
for USCG personnel: https://media.defense.gov/
2018/Dec/12/2002071837/-1/-1/0/CI_7310_1T.PDF
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
wage rate for a GS–14 senior engineer as
$105. Table 12 summarizes the loaded
wage rates for industry used in this RA.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62873
EP05OC20.028
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Cost Savings to Equipment
Manufacturers
We estimate that manufacturers of
Coast Guard-approved equipment
would have a cost savings associated
with no longer having to complete COA
applications and renewals to obtain and
maintain Coast Guard approval. In
addition, this proposed rule would
remove recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and reduce testing
requirements for some pieces of survival
equipment.
Number of Survival Craft Products
This proposed rule would modify the
approval requirements for nine types of
survival craft equipment. For each type
of equipment, companies manufacture
unique products. In total, there are 27
products for these 9 types of survival
craft equipment. These pieces of
equipment are the specific items that
vessel owners and operators purchase to
be in compliance with the vessel
carriage regulations found in 46 CFR
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Equipment Approval and Markings
In the current regulations,
manufacturers seeking Coast Guard
approval must submit a COA
application with information such as
technical plans, drawings,
22 Refer to the appendix titled ‘‘Appendix C:
Carriage Requirements for all the Survival Craft
Equipment’’ in the docket folder for more
information on carriage requirements for all vessels
affected by this NPRM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
subchapters C, T, K, and W.22 These
pieces of equipment also account for the
total items that must be stowed aboard
survival craft.
To comply with the lifesaving
equipment regulations in 46 CFR
subchapter Q, manufacturers submit
these products to the Coast Guard for
review and approval. Once approved,
the manufacturer of each piece of
equipment must mark it (or stamp it)
with its COA number. Table 13 presents
the total number of pieces of survival
craft equipment manufactured on an
annual basis.
There are two types of survival craft
equipment: (1) Items that are durable
and need not be replaced or serviced
frequently, such as bilge pumps,
compasses, fishing kits,23 jackknives,
signaling mirrors, hatchets, and sea
anchors; and (2) items that are not
durable, expire, and must be replaced,
such as first-aid kits and water. We used
the annual number of pieces of survival
craft equipment needed to stock new
survival craft in order to estimate the
number of new pieces of equipment
manufactured and stamped on an
annual basis. We estimate that, in the
long term, the supply of new survival
equipment would equal the demand of
new survival craft equipment.
The Coast Guard does not have
substantive data on how long these
durable goods last, and we estimate that
these goods would last as long as the
survival craft themselves. We request
comments from the general public and
interested stakeholders regarding the
length of time bilge pumps, compasses,
fishing kits, jackknives, signaling
mirrors, hatchets, and sea anchors last,
and whether they last as long as the
survival craft they equip.
We discuss the renewal rate of nondurable goods, first-aid kits, and water
later in this analysis.24 Table 13 lists the
estimated number of pieces of survival
craft equipment manufactured on an
annual basis.
specifications, instructional materials,
and test reports. In addition to the
initial application, manufacturers of
Coast Guard approved equipment must
also submit application renewals every
5 years to maintain their approval
status. Table 4 presents the estimated
number of new COA applications for
each equipment type, as the annual
average number of new products each
year.
23 There is one Coast Guard-approved fishing kit
on CG–MIX currently. The only non-durable aspect
of the fishing kit, the bait, is made of synthetic
resin, plastisol, a form of rubber which, if stored
properly, has an indefinite shelf life.
24 Refer to the sections titled First Aid Kits, First
Aid Kits for Liferafts and IBA, and Emergency Water
further in the regulatory analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.029
62874
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
annual basis, the number of renewal
applications is equal to 20 percent of the
total number of products. Once a
product has been approved, the
manufacturer must stamp each
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
individual piece of survival craft
equipment with the Coast Guard
approval number and other information.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.030
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table 14 presents the estimated
number of application renewals for each
equipment type. Since the Coast Guard
estimates that one of every five
applications will be renewed on an
62875
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
We estimate that it would take the
technical staff 2 hours 25 to prepare a
new application, and the clerical staff
would spend 0.17 hours per application
on recordkeeping, for a total cost of
$135 per new application [(2 technical
hours × $65) + (0.17 clerical hours ×
$29) = $135]. For renewal applications,
we estimate a burden of 0.5 technical
hours and 0.17 clerical hours, for a total
cost of $37 [(0.5 technical hours × $65)
+ (0.17 clerical hours × $29) = $37].
Under this proposed rule, the Coast
Guard would no longer require COA
applications for any new survival craft
equipment. As shown in table 15, we
estimate this would result in a cost
saving to industry of approximately
$108 per year for new applications and
approximately $200 per year for renewal
applications. This results in a total
annual cost savings of about $308.
The Coast Guard is proposing to
remove the requirements that
equipment must be marked with a Coast
Guard approval number. With the
exception of compasses and hatchets,
equipment only needs to be marked to
indicate that it meets standards set in
ISO 18813. Compasses would no longer
need to be marked with their Coast
Guard approval number, but would still
need to be marked to indicate they meet
ISO 25862, as is currently required by
the Coast Guard approval guidelines for
magnetic compasses in lifeboats and
rescue boats. The Coast Guard is
proposing that hatchets would not need
to be marked at all, as they do not have
to meet any consensus standard.
The Coast Guard assumes the burden
to mark the equipment is the same
whether it is being marked with a Coast
Guard approval number or whether it is
marked indicating that it meets the ISO
standard; therefore, this proposed
change would only result in a cost
savings to the manufacturers of
hatchets. The Coast Guard estimates that
25 Based
on information from the subchapter Q
ICR.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.031
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62876
Instructions
The Coast Guard currently requires
that equipment manufacturers provide
instruction material with certain types
of equipment to ensure that crew
members have access to information on
the proper use of the equipment. We
currently require instructions for five of
the nine types of equipment subject to
this proposed rulemaking: Compasses,
first-aid kits, mirrors, fishing kits and
jackknives. ISO 18813 requires
instructions for three types of
equipment: First-aid kits, mirrors, and
fishing kits. ISO 18813 does not state
that instructions need to be provided for
compasses and jackknives; therefore, the
manufacturers of compasses and
jackknives would no longer have to
develop, maintain, and pack
instructions for their products under
this proposed rule.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard requires
that instructions be updated and
submitted with application renewals.
Since manufacturers of this equipment
would no longer have to submit renewal
applications, we estimate that
manufacturers would no longer update
their instructions, resulting in a cost
savings for manufacturers for all five
types of equipment. In addition to these
cost savings, there is a cost savings
associated with removing the need to
pack the instructions with the
equipment. Using the same
methodology to estimate the number of
pieces of equipment that need to be
marked annually, we estimate that the
same number of instructions required to
be packed for pieces of equipment
would be the same as the number of
pieces of equipment required to be
marked. Table 16 presents the number
of instructions developed and renewed
each year under the baseline presented
in the subchapter Q ICR.28
Based on information in the current
subchapter Q ICR, we estimate that it
takes 8 hours of technical time, costing
$520 (8 hours × $65) to prepare a new
set of instructions. Similarly, we
estimate that it takes 2 hours of
technical time, costing $130 (2 hours ×
$65) to prepare instructions for renewal
submissions. The Coast Guard estimates
that packing each set of instructions
would incur the same burden (amount
of time) as marking each piece of
equipment, or 0.06 hours of production.
We estimate the cost of marking each
piece of equipment to be $1.44 [0.06
hours × $24 (production staff time)].
In tables 17, 18 and 19, we present the
total annual industry cost savings for no
longer having to develop new
instructions for some types of new
survival craft equipment, for no longer
having to update instructions for
renewal applications, and for packing
fewer instructions. Table 18 presents the
cost savings to develop new instructions
for those types of survival craft
equipment requiring instructions, which
leads to a total annual cost savings of
approximately $63. The total cost in
columns (b) and (d), $520, is the loaded
wage of a safety engineer and inspector,
$65, multiplied by the estimated burden
of work, 8 hours, for preparing a set of
new instructions. This table presents the
baseline scenario burden, the proposed
post-regulatory scenario burden, and the
difference between the two as cost
savings.
26 This is based on information from the
subchapter Q information collection request (ICR).
27 This value is incorporated in column (a) of
table 24.
28 To access the subchapter Q ICR follow this
link: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201811-1625-005. Select
‘‘All’’ in the first box titled, ‘‘Display additional
information by clicking on the following’’ and scroll
down to the ‘‘Number of Information Collection (IC)
in this ICR: 5’’. In this section, you will be able to
access Approvals, Instruction Materials, Production
Tests and Laboratory Inspections, Markings, and the
Independent and Recognized Labs forms.
it takes industry 0.06 hours of
production labor time 26 to mark each
individual piece of equipment at a cost
of $1.44 (0.06 hours × $24 = $1.44) per
piece of equipment. We estimate that 92
hatchets would be marked each year
(see table 13), for a total cost savings of
approximately $132 ($1.44 × 92).27
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62877
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.032
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table 18 presents the cost savings of
no longer having to update instructions
for renewal applications, which leads to
a total cost savings of about $416
annually. The total cost in columns (b)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
and (d) is the loaded wage of a safety
engineer and inspector, $65, multiplied
by the estimated burden of work, 2
hours, for preparing instructions for
renewal submissions. This table
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
presents the baseline scenario burden,
the proposed post-regulatory scenario
burden, and the difference between the
two as cost savings.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.033
62878
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
loaded wage of a production employee
or assembler, $24, multiplied by the
estimated burden of work, 0.06 hours,
for packing instructions. Table 19
presents the baseline scenario burden,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the proposed post-regulatory scenario
burden, and the difference between the
two as cost savings.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.034
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table 19 presents the cost savings of
having to pack fewer instructions,
which leads to a total annual cost
savings of approximately $2,218. The
total cost in columns (b) and (d) is the
62879
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Laboratory Testing and Recordkeeping
As current regulations stand, the
Coast Guard requires product testing
and recordkeeping for some lifesaving
equipment to ensure the equipment
meets minimum performance
requirements. Table 20 presents a
comparison of the current Coast Guard
testing requirements and the testing
requirements stated in ISO 18813 and
ISO 25862 (for compasses). This table
also contains a qualitative description of
the change in costs associated with
modifying the current testing
requirements. We were unable to obtain
any cost data from the Coast Guardapproved labs that conduct the testing
of this equipment.29
29 We contacted four Coast Guard approved
laboratories to obtain cost estimates for the current
and proposed testing requirements; however, the
labs were unable to provide any cost information.
The Coast Guard would appreciate any public
comments on the costs associated with the current
or proposed testing requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.035
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62880
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62881
EP05OC20.036
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Based on the information from the
current subchapter Q ICR, we estimate
that record-keeping takes 2 hours of
clerical time per year and costs $58 (2
hours × $29 clerical staff loaded hourly
wage rate). The Coast Guard is
proposing to remove the requirements
for testing records for seven types of
equipment listed in this NPRM, as these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
manufacturers would no longer need
these records to document that their
product meet the requirements of the
ISO 18813. Table 21 presents the total
cost savings of about $1,392 to industry
from removing requirements to keep
records of laboratory testing. The total
cost in columns (b) and (d), $58, is the
loaded hourly wage of a record clerk,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$29, multiplied by the estimated burden
of work, 2hours, for fulfilling
recordkeeping requirements. This table
presents the baseline scenario burden
and the post regulatory scenario burden
and then presents the difference of the
two burdens as cost savings.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.037
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62882
Laboratory Inspections
The Coast Guard currently requires
inspectors to examine the
manufacturing process in order to
ensure that quality control is
maintained throughout. This proposed
rule would remove these requirements;
however, the Coast Guard is unable to
determine if this removal would
generate any cost savings to industry.
Manufacturers are likely to still have
their production line inspected to
ensure quality as part of best industry
practices. Moreover, manufacturers may
continue third-party testing to maintain
certifications, such as the ISO 9001
standard, or to meet international
regulatory obligations. At the time of
this NPRM, the Coast Guard does not
have enough information to quantify
any potential changes in cost resulting
from the changes in inspection
requirements.
Additionally, the Coast Guard
requires inspecting entities to issue
annual reports to enable a comparison
between the production line and the
prototype tested by the Coast Guard.30
We were able to estimate a cost savings
that resulted from the removal of this
30 While the Coast Guard currently requires
testing for jackknives, it does not require laboratory
inspections. Therefore, there are no cost savings to
jackknives manufacturers for this proposed change.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62883
reporting requirement using information
from the subchapter Q ICR, which
estimated that this recordkeeping takes
24 hours of clerical time per year on
average and costs $696 (24 hours × $29
clerical wage rate). The Coast Guard
proposes to remove this reporting
requirement for all types of survival
craft equipment. As shown in table 22,
we estimate a total annual cost savings
of approximately $16,008. This table
presents the baseline scenario burden,
the proposed post regulatory scenario
burden, and the difference between the
two as cost savings.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.038
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Total Cost Savings to Manufacturers
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table 23 presents the annual total cost
savings to equipment manufacturers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
We estimate that manufacturers of Coast
Guard-approved bilge pumps, lifeboats,
compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits,
hatchets, jackknives, signaling mirrors,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sea anchors, and emergency water
would save approximately $20,537 per
year.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.039
62884
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Cost Savings to Vessel Owners or
Operators
After gathering price data from a
variety of sources, we estimate that
removing approval requirements would
allow owners and operators of vessels to
purchase less expensive equipment.31
While there are several companies
selling Coast Guard-approved
equipment, online information generally
does not specify whether the equipment
meets ISO 18813 or similar standards.
As a result, we had difficulty finding
price data for survival craft equipment
products clearly stating they met ISO
18813 standards. However, we were
31 To assess price data, we looked at online
retailers of survival craft equipment. A search of
online retailers revealed that equipment that was
not type approved was less expensive than similar
equipment that was type approved.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
62885
able to identify prices for two
products—emergency provisions and
emergency water—that the
manufacturer or advertiser explicitly
stated met the requirements of the ISO
18813 standard.
We then applied percentage price
difference between emergency water
products and emergency provisions,
which had both Coast Guard approval
and met the requirements of ISO 18813,
and those emergency provisions and
water products that only met the
requirements of ISO 18813.32 On
average, products without Coast Guard
approval were approximately 28
percent 33 less expensive than products
with Coast Guard approval.
We applied this 28-percent price
decrease to all the products affected by
this proposed rule, with the exception
of first-aid kits, because the kit content
requirements differ between the ISO
standard and current Coast Guard
standards, and we estimate the change
in price for first-aid kits by the
difference in replacement costs for firstaid kits. These differences are explained
in further detail in the section, First-Aid
Kits, in this RA. For this analysis, we
quantified the cost savings to new
vessels from being able to purchase less
expensive equipment, and the cost
32 Although provisions are not subject to changes
in this NPRM, we still examined them for the
purposes of price comparison as it provided a depth
of data allowing us to comprise a more robust ratio.
33 We calculated this 28 percent by finding the
price differential for those products that were Coast
Guard-type approved and those products that were
not Coast Guard-approved, but met ISO standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.040
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
62886
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
savings to existing vessels of replacing
expired items with less costly items. For
durable items, without data to estimate
how frequently these items are replaced,
we are not able to estimate the cost
savings to the owners and operators of
existing vessels for purchasing
replacement equipment that we estimate
would be 28 percent cheaper. However,
since emergency water and first-aid kits
expire, we estimate the cost savings for
purchasing replacement equipment for
the owners and operators of both new
and existing vessels based on how
frequently this non-durable equipment
must be replaced. This information is
presented later in this analysis.
Durable Equipment: Bilge Pumps,
Compasses, Fishing Kits, Hatchets,
Jackknives, Mirrors, and Sea Anchors
As discussed in the previous
paragraph, we estimate that only new
vessels will purchase bilge pumps,
compasses, fishing kits, hatchets,
jackknives, mirrors, and sea anchors for
their survival craft. Based on population
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
estimates (presented in table 5), 14 new
IBAs, 278 new liferafts, 46 new
lifeboats, and 41 new rescue boats
would be subject to this proposed rule
each year. Table 7 lists the survival
equipment that lifeboats, liferafts,
rescues boats, and IBAs are required to
carry. We multiply the populations in
table 5 by the carriage requirements in
table 7 to yield the total number of items
purchased for new survival craft in table
25 below. For example, the Coast Guard
requires new lifeboats to be equipped
with bilge pumps, and there were 46
new lifeboats recorded in table 5,
meaning there will be 46 purchases of
new bilge pumps per year. 34 Only the
34 The Coast Guard requires all non-self-bailing
lifeboats and rescue boats to have bilge pumps.
Based on discussions with subject matter experts in
the Coast Guard Office of Design and Engineering
Standards, Lifesaving & Fire Safety Division (CG–
ENG–4), the Coast Guard estimates that all new
lifeboats will be non-self-bailing and will therefore
require bilge pumps, and all new rescue boats that
are not also lifeboats will be self-bailing, and
therefore will not require bilge pumps.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
new lifeboats with equipment packs for
international voyages would require
fishing kits (see table 7) and all new
lifeboats and rescue boats would be
equipped with compasses, for a total of
87 purchases of compasses each year.
All 338 new IBAs, liferafts, and lifeboats
are required to be equipped with
mirrors. Finally, 271 liferafts with a
SOLAS A or SOLAS B pack would be
equipped with two sea anchors each.
This proposed rule would require that
108 IBAs, lifeboats, rescue boats, and
liferafts with coastal service packs each
have one sea anchor.
Table 24 presents the annual cost
savings from new vessels removing
Coast Guard approval for bilge pumps,
compasses, fishing kits, hatchets,
jackknives, mirrors, and sea anchors. In
total, we estimate an annual cost savings
of approximately $99,696 for U.S.flagged vessels by removing the type
approvals for these seven types of
survival craft equipment.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
As specified in § 199.175(b)(5), the
Coast Guard allows jackknives to meet
the requirements of a can opener,
thereby permitting jackknives to fulfill
two requirements. In § 199.175, Table 1
to § 199–175 states that only lifeboats
and rigid liferafts with SOLAS A packs
require can openers, and only lifeboats
may carry jackknives. This means that
rigid liferafts with SOLAS A packs are
currently carrying both knives and can
openers. The proposed rule would allow
these vessels to replace their knives
with jackknives, resulting in a cost
savings to vessel owners from being able
to purchase only a jackknife instead of
both a knife and a can opener. We
estimate that there are a total of 179 new
liferafts each year that carry SOLAS A
packs and, further, assume that these
vessel owners and operators would
choose to replace a knife with a
jackknife, thus forgoing the need to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
purchase a can opener.35 We estimate
the price of a can opener meeting the
requirements of ISO 18813 to be $6.36
Therefore, we estimate that vessel
owners and operators would save
$1,074 (179 SOLAS A liferafts × $6 per
can opener) for no longer needing can
openers because of meeting the
jackknife requirements.
Emergency Water
The Coast Guard requires survival
craft with SOLAS A packs be stocked
with 3 liters of water per person, and
that lifeboats with SOLAS B packs be
stocked with 1.5 liters of water per
person. We estimate the average cost of
Coast Guard-approved water to be $4
35 We estimate the cost savings for only one can
opener because the use of a jackknife will only
fulfill the replacement requirement for one can
opener.
36 We calculated this by taking the average of 10
can opener products on the market that meet ISO
18813 requirements. The Coast Guard is proposing
that can openers now meet the requirements of ISO
18813.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
per liter,37 while the cost of 1 liter of
emergency water that meets the ISO
18813 standard to be $3.38 The price
difference between the Coast Guard and
ISO water is $1 per liter.39 This is the
estimated additional cost of Coast Guard
approval, which is counted as cost
savings. Emergency water expires and
will need to be replaced every 5 years;
therefore, the Coast Guard estimates that
20 percent of existing survival craft and
100 percent of new survival craft will
need to purchase emergency water
annually.
We estimate that industry would save
a total of $183,939 on an annual basis
37 We calculated this by taking the average of 14
emergency drinking water products on the market
that were Coast Guard approved.
38 We calculated this by taking the average of 14
available emergency drinking water products on the
market that were compliant with ISO 18813 only.
39 To calculate this, we took the average of
emergency drinking water prices that were Coast
Guard approved and subtracted them from
emergency drinking water prices that need only
meet the ISO standard.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.041
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Jackknives as a Replacement for Can
Openers
62887
62888
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(3,227 survival craft × 19 people per
survival craft × 3 liters of water × -$1
cost savings) for survival craft with
SOLAS A packs during Years 1 through
5 of implementation.40 To calculate this
cost savings, we took the 12,306 existing
liferafts with SOLAS A packs and 2,744
lifeboats with international voyage
packs (see table 10) for a total of 15,050
existing survival craft that are required
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
40 We calculated this by taking the average of the
survival craft capacity for all survival craft. We
retrieved this data from the MISLE database on
November 11, 2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
to stock emergency water. We then
estimated that 20 percent (100 percent
of these survival craft ÷ 5 years) or 3,010
survival craft [(12,306 liferafts × 20
percent) + (2,744 lifeboats × 20 percent)]
will replace their emergency water
annually. Additionally, all 38 new
lifeboats with international packs and
179 new liferafts with SOLAS A packs
(see table 11) are required to buy
emergency water. We summed these
totals to get 3,227 survival craft that will
need to purchase emergency water on
an annual basis (3,010 existing survival
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
craft + 38 new lifeboats + 179 new
liferafts). Table 25 presents these cost
savings.
In Years 6 through 10, there would be
more cost savings because vessels will
have entirely replaced their survival
craft by Year 6, as described earlier in
this proposed rule, therefore we
estimate an annual cost savings of about
$196,308 [3,444 survival craft (3227 +
217 new craft) × 19 people × 3 liters of
water × -$1 cost savings] for survival
craft with SOLAS A packs. Table 26
presents these cost savings.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
We used the same methodology when
calculating the number of SOLAS A
packs in Years 1 through 10 of
implementation in order estimate the
total costs savings for survival craft with
SOLAS B packs. There are a total of 728
existing liferafts with SOLAS B packs
(see table 10). We estimate that 20
percent of these survival craft or 146
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
survival craft (728 lifeboats × 20
percent) will replace their emergency
water annually. Additionally, all 8 new
lifeboats with SOLAS B packs are
required to buy emergency water, for a
total of 154 survival craft (146 lifeboats
+ 8 new lifeboats) purchasing
emergency water in Years 1 through 5.
In Years 6 through 10, the number of
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62889
existing lifeboats will increase by eight
to account for the new vessels that will
be built in Years 1 through 5 (154) for
a total of 162 survival craft (154 existing
survival craft + 8 new lifeboats).
The cost savings for survival craft
with SOLAS B packs purchasing
emergency water would be
approximately $4,389 (154 survival craft
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.042
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
× 19 people × 1.5 liters of water × -$1
cost savings) in Years 1 through 5 and
approximately $4,617 (162 survival craft
× 19 people × 1.5 liters of water × -$1
cost savings) in Years 6 through 10.
Table 27 presents these cost savings in
Years 1 through 5 of implementation,
and table 28 presents these cost savings
in Years 6 through 10 of
implementation.
Table 29 presents the total annualized
cost savings to vessel owners and
operators from removing Coast Guard
approval requirements for emergency
water. The Coast Guard estimates an
annualized cost savings of about
$193,571 with a 7-percent discount rate
($194,162 with 3-percent discount rate).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.043
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62890
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
required contents of first-aid kits, by
removing the requirements for some
items, adding additional items, or
changing the number of mandatory
items. Since items within the kits expire
and need to be replaced, the proposed
change would impact both new and
existing vessels including small
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
passenger vessels described in the
section Subchapter K and Subchapter T
in this preamble. Table 30 highlights
these differences in the first-aid kit
requirement. Due to the differences in
the first-aid kits, we estimated the cost
of purchasing each of the individual
items in the kit.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.044
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
First-Aid Kits
The Coast Guard is proposing to
modify the requirements for first-aid
kits so that all survival craft would need
to meet the standards outlined in ISO
18813. In addition to removing the
testing requirements for the kits, this
proposed change would modify the
62891
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
First-Aid Kits for Lifeboats and Rescue
Boats
We estimate that new vessels with
lifeboats or rescue boats will have a cost
savings as a result of the proposed
changes to first-aid kits because we
estimate that first-aid kits that meet the
proposed standard are $40 less
expensive than Coast Guard-approved
kits under approval series 160.041. We
estimate that a total of 87 new lifeboats
and rescue boats will purchase a firstaid kit each year for a total costs savings
of approximately $3,480 (87 survival
craft × -$40 cost savings).
The Coast Guard is not requiring
existing vessels to replace their current
kits; however, existing vessels must
replace medication and ointments
within the kits by their expiration date.
Currently, vessels must replace their
iodine swabs, pain relief medication,
and eye ointment, which we estimate
costs about $19 per kit.41 We calculated
the cost per kit by taking the average
price for 10 different iodine swab
41 ISO
18813 uses the specific language of
Analgesic and Ophthalmic when describing the
medication in the first-aid kits. Refer to the
appendix titled ‘‘Appendix B: Product Prices’’ in
the docket folder for more information on product
prices for these items that comprise the first-aid kit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
products, 12 different pain relief
medication, and 8 different eye
ointments. Under the proposed rule,
these vessels would no longer have to
replace eye ointment, and would need
to replace fewer doses of pain relief
medication. Additionally, vessel
operators would be able to replace
iodine swabs with less expensive
antiseptic preparation. However, under
this proposed rule, vessels would incur
an additional cost from replacing the
burn cream in the kits, as required by
ISO 18813 shown above in table 30. We
estimate the cost of replacing these
items to be $19, meaning the proposed
change is cost neutral to existing vessels
with lifeboat first-aid kits.42
First-Aid Kits for Liferafts and IBAs
We estimate that first-aid kits that
meet the requirements of ISO 18813 will
be, on average, $1 less expensive than
the Coast Guard-approved kits for
liferafts and IBAs.43 All 271 new
42 The Coast Guard used the same price
estimation for the average cost of these items as the
cost it would take to replace them.
43 The Coast Guard took the average price of six
Coast Guard approved first-aid kits and subtracted
it from an average of six first-aid kits that met ISO
standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
liferafts and all 14 new IBAs would
need to be equipped with the kits each
year for an annual cost savings of $285
(285 survival craft ×¥$1 cost saving).44
Liferaft first-aid kits are sealed in plastic
bags, and most drugs expire within a 2to 3-year timeframe. Vessel owners and
operators have to replace the entire firstaid kit with a brand new kit after using
even one item. Once the packaging for
the kit is opened, the majority of items
in it will have the same expiration date,
not just the individual item.45
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates
that vessels will replace the items in
their first-aid kits once they have
expired, every 2.5 years (average of 2
and 3 years), and this process occurs
during the annual servicing at an
approved servicing facility.
We calculate that 40 percent (one
replacement every 2.5 years) of vessels
would replace these items annually.
Forty percent of all existing 2,142 IBAs
and 24,097 liferafts [table 10 (sum of the
totals for SOLAS A and SOLAS B for
44 There are 278 liferafts affected by this rule, but
those requiring SOLAS A and B packs (271 liferafts)
will be required to have first-aid kits.
45 We contacted a liferaft servicing firm to
determine how the expired items in liferaft and
lifeboat first-aid kits are replaced.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.045
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62892
62893
inflatable liferafts columns)] would be
10,496 survival craft [(2,142 IBAs × 40
percent) + (24,097 liferafts × 40
percent)]. Beginning in Year 3, the new
survival craft from Year 1 would need
to replace their kits for a total of 10,781
survival craft (10,496 existing survival
craft + 285 survival craft built in Year
1). In Year 4, the new survival craft from
Year 2 would need to replace their kits,
but those from Year 1 would not need
to do this since they would have
replaced their aid kits in the prior year.
Therefore, the total needing to replace
first-aid kits would still be 10,781
survival craft (10,496 existing survival
craft + 285 survival craft built in Year
2). In Year 5, the survival craft built in
Year 1 and Year 3 would replace their
kits for a total of 11,066 survival craft
(10,496 existing survival craft + 285
survival craft built in Year 1 + 285
survival craft built in Year 3). This
pattern continues over the 10-year
analysis period. In conclusion, we
estimate the total annualized cost
savings from removing Coast Guard
approval for liferaft first-aid kits would
be $9,283 with a 7-percent discount rate
as shown in table 31.
First-Aid Kits for Small Passenger
Vessels (Subchapters K and T)
series 160.041; therefore, we used the
same cost savings estimates for
replacing first-aid kits in the section
titled First-Aid Kits for Lifeboats and
Rescue Boats. This comes to $41 per
first-aid kit. The Coast Guard applied
these estimates to small passenger
vessels which will no longer need Coast
Guard approval for the first-aid kits
aboard the vessels themselves. Using
data from MISLE, we estimate there
would be 101 new small passenger
vessels every year. All of the 101 new
passenger vessels will need to be
equipped with first-aid kits each year
for an annual cost savings of $4,141.
This NPRM would also remove Coast
Guard approval requirements for firstaid kits aboard small passenger vessels,
which the Coast Guard regulates under
subchapters K and T. Small passenger
vessels are currently required to have
first-aid kits approved under approval
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.046
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
62894
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Total Cost Savings to Vessel Owners
and Operators
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table 32 presents the annual
undiscounted total cost savings to vessel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
owners and operators by equipment
type, and table 33 presents the total
annualized cost savings. We estimate
the total undiscounted costs savings to
vessel owners and operators at $3.16
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
million over a 10-year period of
analysis, with an annualized total cost
savings of about $315,196 discounted at
7 percent ($315,829 with a 3-percent
discount rate).
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62895
EP05OC20.047
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Total Cost Savings to Industry
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table 34 presents the total annualized
costs savings to industry over the 10-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
year period. At a 7-percent discount rate
($336,367 cost savings with a 3-percent
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
discount rate), the cost savings is
approximately $335,733.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.048
62896
Federal Government Cost Savings
Equipment Approval
We estimate that this proposed rule
would reduce costs to the Federal
Government, since the Coast Guard
would no longer review COA
applications, application renewals, or
inspection reports for the equipment
that is subject to this proposed rule. The
Coast Guard does not anticipate that this
proposed rule would generate any cost
savings from vessels inspections, as the
proposed rule does not modify any
inspection requirements.
In addition to generating a cost
savings to industry by removing COA
application requirements, this proposed
rule would also create a cost savings to
the Federal Government, as Coast Guard
staff will no longer review new COA
applications and renewals. The 2018
Commandant Instruction 7310.1T
estimates that it takes 24 hours of a GS–
14’s time to review each new
application and 4 hours to review each
renewal.46 We estimate the cost of
46 To see the hourly government rates for
personnel, please reference the ‘‘Hourly Rates For
Personnel ($)’’ table on page 2 of enclosure (2):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62897
reviewing a new application at $2,520
per applicant (24 hours × $105) and the
cost for reviewing a renewal application
at $420 per renewal (4 hours × $105). In
table 36, the cost of reviewing a new
application is captured in column (b)
and the cost of a renewal application is
captured in column (d). In total, we
estimate the Federal Government will
save $4,312 each year due to this
proposed rule removing the
requirements of having to review COA
applications.
https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/docs/7310/
Cl_7310_1T.pdf?ver=2019-01-28-080829-207
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.049
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Laboratory Inspections
The Coast Guard currently requires
manufacturers to submit an annual
report with the results of laboratory
inspections, allowing the Coast Guard to
ensure the production stock of the
equipment will be identical to those
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
originally tested and approved by the
Coast Guard. This NPRM would remove
this reporting requirement for the
equipment subject to the proposed rule,
removing the need for the Coast Guard
to review these reports. We were unable
to obtain data about the costs related to
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
laboratory inspections. We request
information and comments from the
general public and interested
stakeholders regarding information on
data related to laboratory inspection
costs.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.050
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62898
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
report, costing $210 (2 hours × $105).
Table 36 presents the total annual cost
saving to the Federal Government for no
Total Federal Government Savings
total, the Coast Guard estimates this
proposed rule to generate a cost savings
of approximately $9,142 per year.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table 37 presents the total annual cost
savings to the Federal Government. In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
longer having to review laboratory
inspection reports. We estimate these
costs would be $4,830 per year.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.051
We estimate that it takes
approximately 2 hours of a GS–14
senior engineer’s time to review each
62899
62900
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Many of the current requirements for
survival craft equipment were
developed in the 1950s and 1960s and
have not been significantly updated
since they were initially published.
Upon a thorough review of these
requirements, Coast Guard enforcement
procedures, current maritime industry
practice, and the availability of new
international standards, we have
determined that the additional scrutiny
of the Coast Guard type approval does
not increase or decrease the safety for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
the equipment subject to this proposed
rule. For these nine types of survival
craft equipment, the current Coast
Guard type approval requirements are
outdated and overly prescriptive.
Therefore, the Coast Guard anticipates
that by having equipment meet
international standards, as opposed to
Coast Guard standards, there would be
no decrease in the level of safety in the
maritime environment.
Benefits
There are non-monetary benefits to
owners and operators of vessels with
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
survival craft in having a larger
selection of equipment to choose from
allowing for potential operational
flexibility.
No Cost Changes
This proposed rule would also
implement several changes with no cost
impacts. The vast majority of these
changes are the result of modifying the
current lifeboat equipment requirements
for sailing school vessels as stated in
§ 169.527 to align them with the
requirements stated in § 199.175. Table
38 summarizes these changes.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.052
Change in Safety
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62901
EP05OC20.054
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.053
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62902
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62903
EP05OC20.055
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.056
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62904
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62905
EP05OC20.057
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.058
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62906
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62907
EP05OC20.059
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.060
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62908
Total Cost Savings
Table 39 presents the total annualized
cost savings of this NPRM to both
Discussion of Alternatives
When creating this proposed rule, the
Coast Guard considered three
alternatives. In this section, we examine
how the cost of the proposal would
change with each alternative.
Alternative 1:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
No Action
Using this alternative, the Coast
Guard would accept the status quo and
not replace the current approval
requirements with an international
consensus standard. This alternative
would not harmonize with international
standards, nor reduce the burden to
industry. This would incur
approximately $345,000 in annual costs,
with no estimated benefits.
Alternative 2:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
62909
industry and the Federal Government
for the 10-year period of analysis. The
Coast Guard estimates an annualized
cost savings of approximately $345,509
with a 3-percent discount rate and
$344,875 with a 7-percent discount rate.
Preferred Alternative— Remove the
Need for Coast Guard Approval
savings of approximately $366,862. We
estimate this by multiplying 254,765
pieces of equipment by $1.62 (allowing
0.06 hours × $27 clerical rate per hour
for the time and cost to mark each piece
of equipment). This would lead to a
total cost savings of $711,737, which we
calculated by adding the additional
savings from no markings ($366,862) to
the total estimated cost savings of this
proposed rule, as shown in alternative
2 ($345,000).
We reject this alternative for the
preferred alternative, since eliminating
the markings would make it impossible
for the Coast Guard to verify if
equipment is in compliance with
regulations. This alternative could
potentially lead to a decrease in safety,
if vessel owners and operators
purchased ISO non-compliant products
that were not sufficiently safe or reliable
Using this alternative, the Coast
Guard would implement the proposed
changes in table 1 regarding the removal
of Coast Guard approval standards. This
would lead to an estimated $345,000 in
annual cost savings without any
estimated reduction in benefits, as this
analysis shows.
Alternative 3:
Remove the Need for Coast Guard
Approval and Marking Requirements
Under this alternative, the Coast
Guard would still implement the
changes proposed in the preferred
alternative, but would, in addition,
remove the requirement that equipment
be marked to indicate it meets ISO
25862, ISO 17339, or ISO 18813. This
would lead to an additional annual cost
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.061
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
62910
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
for usage onboard a survival craft. The
potential for the additional burden on
the Coast Guard to research and
ascertain the compliance status of a
piece of survival craft equipment could
lead to much more significant costs than
the current additional cost of $366,862
from marking equipment.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard expects that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on small
entities. We expect this proposed rule to
result in net cost savings to regulated
entities.
We estimate there to be 11,139 unique
vessel operators and 16 equipment
manufacturers affected by this proposed
rule. For this analysis, we presumed any
company for which we were not able to
find Small Business Administration
(SBA) size data to be a small entity. An
estimated 94 percent of the regulated
entities (including the companies
without SBA size data) are considered
to be small by SBA industry size
standards. Using MISLE data, the Coast
Guard estimates there to be 11,155
unique companies affected in this
proposed rule. We estimate that the
average costs to equipment
manufacturers would be reduced by
$1,445 per year, and the average costs to
vessel owners and operators would be
reduced by $37.14 per year as a result
of removing Coast Guard approval for
the equipment subject to the proposed
rulemaking. We calculate that 100
percent of the 10,487 (0.94 × 11,155)
small vessel operators and 100 percent
of small equipment manufacturers
impacted by this proposed rule would
have a cost savings less than 1 percent
of their annual revenue. No small
governmental jurisdictions would be
impacted by this proposed rule.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If you think
that your business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a
small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic
impact on it, please submit a comment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
to the docket at the address listed in the
section of this preamble. In
your comment, explain why you think
it qualifies and how and to what degree
this proposed rule would economically
affect it.
ADDRESSES
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
121, we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or
email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a
revision to an approved 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 title and description of the
information collections, a description of
those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual
burden follow. The estimate covers the
time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing sources of data,
gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection.
Title: Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q:
Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and
Navigation Equipment, Construction
and Materials & Marine Sanitation
Devices (33 CFR 159).
OMB Control Number: 1625–0035.
Summary of the Collection of
Information: The Coast Guard currently
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
collects information from lifesaving
equipment manufacturers under 46 CFR
subchapter Q. The current information
collection request (ICR), 201811–1625–
005 (OMB Control Number 1625–0035),
accounts for the following collections of
information: New Approval
Applications, Renewal Approval
Applications, Manufacturer
Recordkeeping, Servicing Facility
Recordkeeping, Servicing Facility
Problem Reports, Instruction Materials,
Markings, Production Tests and
Laboratory Inspections, and
Independent Laboratory Applications
and Recognized Laboratory
Applications.
Need for Information: The Coast
Guard needs this information to ensure
that the manufactured safety equipment
meets minimum levels of performance
safety and helps prevent death, injuries,
and property damage associated with
commercial maritime operations.
Proposed Use of Information: The
Coast Guard uses the technical plans,
drawings, specifications, instruction
materials, and markings to determine
compliance with the technical
regulatory requirements for each piece
of equipment. Independent laboratory
reports ensure that product and material
testing complies with the applicable
Coast Guard regulations. Production
testing reports ensure that the
production stock of the equipment is
identical to the stock that was originally
tested and approved by the Coast Guard.
Independent and recognized laboratory
applications ensure that the laboratories
have the technical capabilities to
conduct the required testing and are
independent for the organizations
whose products they will test.
Description of the Respondents: The
respondents are manufacturers of the
safety equipment subject to Coast Guard
approval, independent and recognized
laboratories that conduct testing of the
equipment, and liferaft servicing
facilities.
Number of Respondents: The Coast
Guard estimates there to be 856
respondents, comprised of 480
equipment manufacturers, 233 liferaft
servicing facilities, 139 accepted
independent laboratories, and 4
recognized independent laboratories.
The proposed rule would impact 16 of
these respondents. We do not expect it
to reduce the total number of
respondents because equipment
manufacturers may still manufacture
other Coast Guard-approved lifesaving
equipment that is not subject to the
proposed rule.
Frequency of Response: The number
of responses per year will vary by
requirement. New application materials,
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
instructions, and markings are required
with the initial COA application, and
renewal application materials,
instructions, and markings are required
5 years after the initial application.
Production test records and laboratory
inspection records are required to be
kept annually. The Coast Guard
estimates the proposed rule would
reduce the number of responses for the
62911
following collections of information,
presented in table 40, along with the
current estimated time to complete each
collection.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.062 EP05OC20.088
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
In table 41, we estimate the reduction
in the number of annual responses
based on application type.
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Burden of Response: The proposed
rule would not modify the burden of
response for any other existing
collections of information.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The
current ICR estimates the total annual
burden to be 114,586 hours. As a result
of the proposed rule, we estimate the
annual burden would be 86,430 hours,
for an annual reduction of 28,156 hours.
We adjusted the burden to account for
errors in Appendix A of the current ICR,
which added 253 hours to the estimated
annual burden. Together, these changes
account for a total annual reduction in
burden of 27,903 hours. These changes
are summarized in table 42.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we
will submit a copy of this proposed rule
to OMB for its review of the collection
of information.
We ask for public comment on the
proposed collection of information to
help us determine, among other
things—
• How useful the information is;
• Whether the information can help
us perform our functions better;
• How we can improve the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information;
• Whether the information is readily
available elsewhere;
• How accurate our estimate is of the
burden of collection;
• How valid our methods are for
determining the burden of collection;
and
• How we can minimize the burden
of collection.
If you submit comments on the
collection of information, submit them
by the date listed in the DATES section
of this preamble to both the OMB and
to the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number from
OMB. Before the Coast Guard could
enforce the collection of information
requirements in this proposed rule,
OMB would need to approve the Coast
Guard’s request to collect this
information.
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 13132 and have
determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and
preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis
follows.
It is well settled that States may not
regulate in categories reserved by
Congress for regulation by the Coast
Guard. It is also well settled that all of
the categories regulated under 46 U.S.C.
2103, 3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4502,
7101, and 8101 (design, construction,
alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel
qualification, and manning of vessels),
as well as 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
Supreme Court’s decision in United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). This
proposed rule involves the design,
maintenance, and equipping of vessels,
specifically, certain survival craft
equipment that is required to be carried
in survival craft and rescue boats on
certain, specified U.S.-flagged vessels.
Therefore, because the States may not
regulate within these categories, this
rule is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive
Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may
not regulate in categories in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be
the sole source of a vessel’s obligations,
the Coast Guard recognizes the key role
that State and local governments may
have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules
with federalism implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order
13132 specifically directs agencies to
consult with State and local
governments during the rulemaking
process. If you believe this proposed
rule would have implications for
federalism under Executive Order
13132, please call or email the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
F. Unfunded Mandates
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 million (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Although this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this proposed rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform) to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.063
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
62912
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This proposed rule is not an
economically significant rule and would
not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it would not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
L. Technical Standards and
Incorporation by Reference
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 proposed rule uses technical
standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards bodies to meet the
stringent equipment requirements for
survival craft and rescue boats onboard
U.S.-flagged vessels. These standards
provide internationally accepted and
recognized parameters which the
equipment must meet in order to ensure
its safety, proper usage, and
preservation on the seas. The standards
being incorporated were developed by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
either the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) or the ISO, which
are voluntary consensus standardsetting organizations. The sections that
reference these standards and the
locations where these standards are
available are listed in 46 CFR parts 160
and 199.
Two ASTM standards would be
updated and incorporated by reference
in this rulemaking: (1) ASTM F 1003–
02 ‘‘Standard Specification for
Searchlights on Motor Lifeboats’’ (2007);
and (2) ASTM F 1014–02 ‘‘Standard
Specification for Flashlights on Vessels’’
(2002). These ASTM standards specify
requirements for construction, including
materials, dimensions, performance
and/or capability. The newer versions
are not materially different from the
previous versions. We do not propose to
update the third ASTM standard already
incorporated in § 199.05, ASTM 93–97,
‘‘Standard Test Methods for Flash Point
by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.’’
The following three ISO standards
listed here would be incorporated by
reference in this rulemaking:
1. ISO 18813, Ships and marine
technology—Survival equipment for
survival craft and rescue boats.
This standard specifies design,
performance, and use of various items of
survival equipment carried in survival
craft and rescue boats complying with
the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 (as
amended), and the International
Maritime Organization Life-Saving
Appliance Code (LSA Code). It also
includes guidelines for maintenance
and periodic inspections for many
items.
2. ISO 25862, Ships and marine
technology—Marine magnetic
compasses, binnacles and azimuth
reading devices.
This standard gives requirements
regarding construction and performance
of marine magnetic compasses for
navigation and steering purposes,
binnacles and azimuth reading devices.
3. ISO 17339, Ships and marine
technology—Life saving and fire
protection—Sea anchors for survival
craft and rescue boats.
This standard specifies requirements
for the design, performance and
prototype testing of sea anchors for
survival craft (liferafts and lifeboats) and
rescue boats in accordance with the LSA
Code.
With this rulemaking, we also
propose to update our incorporation by
reference of Resolution MSC.4(48)
International Code for the Construction
and Equipment of Ships carrying
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC
Code), 1994, and the International Code
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62913
for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk,
(IGC Code), 1993, to reflect the updated
editions. No changes to the specific
referenced material have been made
between those older editions and the
2016 editions. The IBC Code provides
an international standard for the safe
transport by sea of dangerous and
noxious liquid chemicals in bulk. The
purpose of the IGC Code is to provide
an international standard for the safe
transport by sea in bulk of liquefied
gases and certain other substances.
Consistent with 1 CFR part 51
incorporation by reference provisions,
this material is reasonably available.
Interested persons have access to it
through their normal course of business,
may purchase it from the organization
identified in 46 CFR 160.046–3, 169.115
or 199.05 or online (via the internet), or
may view a copy by means we have
identified in those sections. Members
and representatives of the regulated
industries are also participants in the
standards development organizations.
If you disagree with our analysis of
these standards or are aware of
standards that might apply but are not
listed, please send a comment
explaining your disagreement or
identifying additional standards to the
docket using one of the methods listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01,
Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental
Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions
on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
This proposed rule would be
categorically excluded under paragraphs
L52, L57, and L58 of Table 1 in
Appendix A of DHS Directive 023–01–
001–01, Rev. 1. CATEX L52 pertains to
regulations concerning vessel and
operation safety standards. Paragraph
L57 pertains to regulations concerning
manning, documentation,
admeasurements, inspection, and
equipping of vessels. Paragraph L58
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62914
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
pertains to regulations concerning
equipment approval and carriage
requirements.
This proposed rule is intended to
remove the Coast Guard type approval
requirement for some survival craft
equipment, and replace it with the
requirement that the manufacturer selfcertify that their equipment complies
with a consensus standard. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
PART 160—LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT
3. The authority citation for part 160
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306,
3703, 4102, 4302, and 4502 and Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1,
para. II, (92)(b).
4. Revise § 160.010–3(a)(12)(ii) and
(e)(7)(ii) to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects
§ 160.010–3
46 CFR Part 121
Communications equipment, Marine
safety, Navigation (water), Passenger
vessels.
(a) * * *
(12) * * *
(ii) Knives. One knife, of a type
designed to minimize the chance of
damage to the inflatable buoyant
apparatus and secured with a lanyard
ready for use near the painter
attachment. Any knife may be replaced
with a jackknife meeting the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(16).
In addition, an inflatable buoyant
apparatus which is permitted to
accommodate 13 persons or more must
be provided with a second knife that is
of the non-folding type;
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) First-aid kit. A first-aid kit as
described in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10);
*
*
*
*
*
46 CFR Part 160
Incorporation by reference, Lifesaving
equipment, Marine safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 169
Fire prevention, Incorporation by
reference, Marine safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Vessels.
46 CFR Part 184
Communications equipment, Marine
safety, Navigation (water), Passenger
vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 199
Cargo vessels, Incorporation by
reference, Lifesaving systems for certain
inspected vessels, Marine safety, Oil
and gas exploration, Passenger vessels,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing
to amend 46 CFR parts 121, 160, 169,
184, and 199 as follows:
PART 121—VESSEL CONTROL AND
MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND
EQUIPMENT
Inflatable buoyant apparatus.
Subpart 160.013—[Removed and
Reserved]
5. Remove and reserve subpart
160.013.
■
Subpart 160.026—[Removed and
Reserved]
6. Remove and reserve subpart
160.026.
■
Subpart 160.041—[Removed and
Reserved]
Subpart 160.046—Emergency
Provisions
Sec.
160.046–1 Scope.
160.046–3 Incorporation by reference.
160.046–5 General requirements for
emergency provisions.
160.046–7 Independent laboratory.
160.046–9 Manufacturer certification and
labeling.
160.046–11 Manufacturer notification.
§ 160.046 –1
Scope.
Emergency provisions approved to be
carried in lifeboats and liferafts.
§ 160.046–3
Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. All approved material is
available for inspection at the Coast
Guard Headquarters. Contact
Commandant (CG–ENG–4), U.S. Coast
Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther
King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20593–7501, telephone 202–372–1426,
email typeapproval@uscg.mil. It is also
available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
email fedreg.legal@nara.gov, or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html. All approved
material is available from the sources
listed in this section.
(b) International Standard
Organization (ISO), BIBC II, Chemin de
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier,
Geneva, Switzerland, https://
www.iso.org, telephone +41 22 749 01
11, email central@iso.org.
(1) ISO 18813:2006 Ships and marine
technology—Survival equipment for
survival craft and rescue boats, 2006,
IBR approved for §§ 160.046–5,
160.046–7, and 160.046–11.
(2) [Reserved]
§ 160.046–5 General requirements for
emergency provisions.
■
1. The authority citation for part 121
continues to read as follows:
■
Emergency provisions must meet the
requirements found in ISO 18813:2006
paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by
reference, see § 160.046–3).
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O.
12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
Subpart 160.043—[Removed and
Reserved]
§ 160.046–7
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
container that is marked ‘‘First-Aid Kit’’.
A first-aid kit must be easily visible and
readily available to the crew.
7. Remove and reserve subpart
160.041.
2. Revise § 121.710 to read as follows:
§ 121.710
First-aid kits.
A vessel must carry either a first-aid
kit that meets the requirements in 46
CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with
equivalent contents and instructions.
For equivalent kits, the contents must be
stowed in a suitable, watertight
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
8. Remove and reserve subpart
160.043.
■
Subpart 160.044—[Removed and
Reserved]
9. Remove and reserve subpart
160.044.
■ 10. Add subpart 160.046 to read as
follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Independent laboratory.
Unless the Commandant directs
otherwise, an independent laboratory
accepted by the Coast Guard under 46
CFR 159.010 must perform or witness,
as appropriate, inspections, tests, and
oversight required by ISO 18813:2006
paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by
reference, see § 160.046–3). Approval
and production tests of emergency
provisions must be carried out in
accordance with the procedures for
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
independent laboratory inspections in
46 CFR 159.007 and in this section
unless the Commandant authorizes
alternative tests and inspections. The
Commandant may prescribe additional
production tests and inspections
necessary to maintain quality control
and to monitor compliance with the
requirements of this subpart.
§ 160.046–9
labeling.
Manufacturer certification and
(a) Each emergency provision must be
certified by the manufacturer as
complying with the requirements of this
subpart.
(b) The container should be clearly
and permanently marked with:
(1) The name and address of the
approval holder;
(2) The U.S. Coast Guard Approval
number;
(3) The total food energy value of
provisions in the container in Calories
and kiloJoules;
(4) The lot number;
(5) The month and year the provision
was packed; and
(6) The month and year of expiration
(5 years after the date of packing).
(c) The emergency provision must
include waterproof instructions for use,
assuming consumption of 3350
kiloJoules per person per day.
§ 160.046–11
Manufacturer notification.
Each manufacturer of emergency
provisions approved in accordance with
the specifications of this subpart must
send a test report required by ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.31.2
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 160.046–3) to the Commandant (CG–
ENG–4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509,
2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20593–7509 or email
typeapproval@uscg.mil:
(a) With the application for approval;
(b) Every year as long as the
manufacturer continues to produce
provisions; and
(c) Each time the contents of the
emergency provisions change.
■ 11. Revise § 160.051–11(b) to read as
follows:
§ 160.051–11 Equipment required for
Coastal Service inflatable liferafts.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Knife. One knife, of a type
designed to minimize the chance of
damage to the inflatable liferaft and
secured with a lanyard. In addition, an
inflatable liferaft which is permitted to
accommodate 13 persons or more must
be provided with a second knife that is
of the non-folding type. Any knife may
be replaced with a jackknife meeting the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(16).
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
Subpart 160.054—[Removed and
Reserved]
12. Remove and reserve subpart
160.054.
■
Subpart 160.061—[Removed and
Reserved]
13. Remove and reserve subpart
160.061.
■ 14. Revise § 160.135–7(b)(23) to read
as follows:
■
§ 160.135–7 Design, construction, and
performance of lifeboats.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(23) Bilge pump. Each lifeboat that is
not automatically self-bailing must be
fitted with a manual bilge pump that
meets the requirements in 46 CFR
199.175(b)(2). Each such lifeboat with a
capacity of 100 persons or more must
carry an additional manual bilge pump
or an engine-powered bilge pump.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. Revise § 160.151–21(b), (h), (o),
and (q) through (s) to read as follows:
§ 160.151–21 Equipment required for
SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Jackknife (IMO LSA Code, as
amended by Resolution MSC.293(87),
Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.2). Each folding knife
must be a jackknife meeting the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(16).
*
*
*
*
*
(h) First-aid kit (IMO LSA Code, as
amended by Resolution MSC.293(87),
Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.8). Each first-aid kit
must meet the requirements in 46 CFR
199.175(b)(10).
*
*
*
*
*
(o) Signalling mirror (IMO LSA Code,
as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87),
Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.15). Each signalling
mirror must meet the requirements in 46
CFR 199.175(b)(19).
*
*
*
*
*
(q) Fishing tackle (IMO LSA Code, as
amended by Resolution MSC.293(87),
Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.17). The fishing
tackle must meet the requirements in 46
CFR 199.175(b)(11).
(r) Food rations (IMO LSA Code, as
amended by Resolution MSC.293(87),
Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.18). The food rations
must meet the requirements in 46 CFR
199.175(b)(22).
(s) Drinking water (IMO LSA Code, as
amended by Resolution MSC.293(87),
Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.19). Emergency
drinking water must meet the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(40).
The desalting apparatus or reverse
osmosis desalinator must be approved
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62915
by the Commandant under subpart
160.058 of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. Revise § 160.156–7(b)(22) to read
as follows:
§ 160.156–7 Design, construction and
performance of rescue boats and fast
rescue boats.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(22) Manual bilge pump. Each rescue
boat that is not automatically selfbailing must be fitted with a manual
bilge pump that meets the requirements
in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(2), or an enginepowered bilge pump.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 169—SAILING SCHOOL
VESSELS
17. The authority citation for part 169
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C.
3306, 6101; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971–1975 Comp., p. 793; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1;
§ 169.117 also issued under the authority of
44 U.S.C. 3507.
18. Revise § 169.527 to read as
follows:
■
§ 169.527 Required equipment for
lifeboats.
(a) All lifeboats must be equipped in
accordance with Table 1 to § 199.175 of
this chapter except as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) The following equipment must be
carried in addition to the equipment
required under § 199.175 of this chapter:
(1) Cover;
(2) Ditty bag; and
(3) Mast and sail.
(c) If operating on protected waters,
lifeboat equipment need only to consist
of the following:
(1) Boathook—(1);
(2) Bucket—(1);
(3) Fire extinguisher—(2) U.S Coast
Guard approved Type B–C (motor
propelled lifeboats only);
(4) Hatch—(1);
(5) Lifeline—(1);
(6) Oar unit—(1);
(7) Painter—(1);
(8) Plug—(1);
(9) Oarlock unit—(1); and
(10) Toolkit (motor propelled lifeboats
only).
■ 19. Revise § 169.529 to read as
follows:
§ 169.529 Description of lifeboat
equipment.
(a) All lifeboat equipment must meet
the requirements under § 199.175 of this
chapter, except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62916
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
(b) The following equipment, carried
in addition to the equipment required
under § 199.175 of this chapter, must
meet the following requirements:
(1) Cover, protecting. The cover must
be of highly visible color and capable of
protecting the occupants against
exposure. A cover is not required for
fully enclosed lifeboats.
(2) Ditty bag. The ditty bag must
consist of a canvas bag or equivalent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
and must contain a sailmaker’s palm,
needles, sail twine, marline, and marlin
spike, except that motor-propelled
lifeboats need not carry a ditty bag.
(3) Mast and sail. A unit, consisting
of a standing lug sail together with the
necessary spars and rigging, must be
provided in accordance with Table 1 to
this section, except that motor-propelled
lifeboats need not carry a mast or sails.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The sails must be of good quality
canvas, or other material acceptable to
the Commandant, colored Indian
Orange (Cable No. 70072, Standard
Color Card of America). Rigging must
consist of galvanized wire rope not less
than three-sixteenths inch in diameter.
The mast and sail must be protected by
a suitable cover.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62917
EP05OC20.064
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
62918
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
PART 184—VESSEL CONTROL AND
MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND
EQUIPMENT
20. The authority citation for part 184
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O.
12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
21. Revise § 184.710 to read as
follows:
■
§ 184.710
First-aid kits.
A vessel must carry either a first-aid
kit that meets the requirements in 46
CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with
equivalent contents and instructions.
For equivalent kits, the contents must be
stowed in a suitable, watertight
container that is marked ‘‘First-Aid Kit’’.
A first-aid kit must be easily visible and
readily available to the crew.
PART 199—LIFESAVING SYSTEMS
FOR CERTAIN INSPECTED VESSELS
22. The authority citation for part 199
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306,
3703; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b).
■
23. Revise § 199.05 to read as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 199.05
Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference in this part with the approval
of the Director of the Federal Register
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
All approved material is available for
inspection at the Coast Guard
Headquarters. Contact Commandant
(CG–ENG–4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop
7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593–
7501, telephone 202–372–1426 or email
typeapproval@uscg.mil. It is also
available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
email fedreg.legal@nara.gov, or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html. All approved
material is available from the sources
indicated in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) The material approved for
incorporation by reference (IBR) in this
part and the sections affected are as
follows:
(1) American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–
2959, 610–832–9500, https://
www.astm.org, telephone +1 610 832
9500, email service@astm.org.
(i) ASTM D 93–97, Standard Test
Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
Martens Closed Cup Tester, 1997, IBR
approved for §§ 199.261 and 199.290.
(ii) ASTM F 1003–02, Standard
Specification for Searchlights on Motor
Lifeboats, 2007, IBR approved for
§ 199.175.
(iii) ASTM F 1014–02, Standard
Specification for Flashlights on Vessels,
2002, IBR approved for § 199.175.
(2) International Maritime
Organization (IMO), Publications
Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London,
SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, https://
www.imo.org, telephone +44 (0)20 7735
7611, email info@imo.org.
(i) MSC Circular 699, Revised
Guidelines for Passenger Safety
Instructions, 17 July 1995, IBR approved
for § 199.217.
(ii) Resolution A.520(13), Code of
Practice for the Evaluation, Testing and
Acceptance of Prototype Novel Lifesaving Appliances and Arrangements,
17 November 1983, IBR approved for
§ 199.40.
(iii) Resolution A.657(16),
Instructions for Action in Survival Craft,
19 November 1989, IBR approved for
§ 199.175.
(iv) Resolution A.658(16), Use and
Fitting of Retro-reflective Materials on
Life-saving Appliances, 20 November
1989, IBR approved for §§ 199.70 and
199.176.
(v) Resolution A.760(18), Symbols
Related to Life-saving Appliances and
Arrangements, 17 November 1993, IBR
approved for §§ 199.70 and 199.90.
(vi) International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Ships
carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk
(IBC Code), 2016, Chapter 17, IBR
approved for § 199.30 and Chapter 2
approved for § 199.280.
(vii) International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Ships
carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, (IGC
Code), 2016, Chapter 19, IBR approved
for § 199.30, and Chapter 2, IBR
approved for § 199.280.
(3) International Standard
Organization (ISO), BIBC II, Chemin de
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier,
Geneva, Switzerland, https://
www.iso.org/, telephone +41 22 749 01
11, email central@iso.org.
(i) ISO 18813:2006 Ships and marine
technology—Survival equipment for
survival craft and rescue boats, 2006,
IBR approved for § 199.175.
(ii) ISO 25862:2009 Ships and marine
technology—Marine magnetic
compasses, binnacles and azimuth
reading devices, 2009, IBR approved for
§ 199.175.
(iii) ISO 17339:2018 Ships and marine
technology—Life saving and fire
protection— Sea anchors for survival
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
craft and rescue boats, 2018, IBR
approved for § 199.175.
■ 24. Amend § 199.175 as follows:
■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(4);
■ b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(5) as
paragraph (a)(6);
■ c. Add a new paragraph (a)(5);
■ d. Revise paragraphs (b) introductory
text, (b)(2), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (13),
and (16) and (b)(17)(i) and (ii);
■ e. Adding paragraph (b)(17)(iii);
■ f. Revise paragraphs (b)(19), (b)(27)(i),
and (b)(40);
■ g. Add paragraph (c); and
■ h. Revise the heading for the table to
§ 199.175 and entries 5 and 17 of the
table and add note 11 to the table.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 199.175 Survival craft and rescue boat
equipment.
(a) * * *
(4) Must be packed in a suitable and
compact form;
(5) Must be marked with either the
Coast Guard approval number or the
standard that the product meets, as
applicable; and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each lifeboat, rigid liferaft, and
rescue boat, unless otherwise stated in
this paragraph (b), must carry the
equipment listed in this paragraph (b)
and specified for it in Table 1 to this
section under the vessel’s category of
service. A lifeboat that is also a rescue
boat must carry the equipment in the
table column marked for a lifeboat.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Bilge pump. The bilge pump must
meet the requirements in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.3 (incorporated
by reference, see § 199.05) and must be
installed in a ready-to-use condition.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Can opener. A can opener must
meet the requirements in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.43
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 199.05). A can opener may be in a
jackknife meeting the requirements in
paragraph (b)(16) of this section.
(6) Compass. The compass and its
mounting arrangement must meet the
requirements in ISO 18813:2006
paragraph 4.6 (incorporated by
reference, see § 199.05).
(i) In a totally enclosed lifeboat, the
compass must be permanently fitted at
the steering position; in any other boat
it must be provided with a binnacle, if
necessary, to protect it from the
weather, and with suitable mounting
arrangements.
(ii) The compass must be tested in
accordance with the provisions in ISO
25862:2009 Annex H (incorporated by
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
reference, see § 199.05) by an
independent laboratory accepted by the
Coast Guard in accordance with part
159, subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Fire extinguisher. The fire
extinguisher must be approved under
part 162, subpart 162.028, of this
chapter. The fire extinguisher must have
a rating of a 40–B:C. Two 10–B:C
extinguishers may be carried in place of
a 40–B:C extinguisher. Extinguishers
with larger numerical ratings or
multiple letter designations may be used
instead of the requirements in the
preceding sentences.
(10) First-aid kit. Each first-aid kit
must meet the requirements in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.12
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 199.05).
(i) A first-aid kit may be considered
acceptable if it meets all of the
requirements of ISO 18813:2006
paragraph 4.12, except that it does not
contain the burn preparation. It must be
clearly marked on the first-aid kit that
it does not include the burn
preparations.
(ii) Medicinal products must be
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.
(11) Fishing kit. The fishing kit must
meet the requirements in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.13
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 199.05).
*
*
*
*
*
(13) Hatchet. The hatchet must be
suitable for cutting a rope towline or
painter in an emergency and must not
require assembly or unfolding.
(i) The hatchet must be at least 14
inches in length and have a cutting edge
of approximately 3-1⁄4 inches in length,
with a hardened steel or equivalent
alloy head.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
(ii) The hatchet must be provided a
lanyard at least 3 feet in length.
(iii) The hatchet must be stowed in
brackets near the release mechanism
and, if more than one hatchet is carried,
the hatchets must be stowed at opposite
ends of the boat.
*
*
*
*
*
(16) Jackknife. The jackknife must
consist of a one-bladed knife fitted with
a can opener and attached to the boat by
its lanyard. The jackknife must meet the
requirements in ISO 18813:2006
paragraph 4.19 (incorporated by
reference, see § 199.05).
(17) * * *
(i) The knife for a rigid liferaft must
be secured to the raft by a lanyard and
stowed in a pocket on the exterior of the
canopy near the point where the painter
is attached to the liferaft. If an approved
jackknife is substituted for the second
knife required on a liferaft equipped for
13 or more persons, the jackknife must
also be secured to the liferaft by a
lanyard.
(ii) The knife in an inflatable or rigidinflatable rescue boat must be of a type
designed to minimize the possibility of
damage to the fabric portions of the
hull.
(iii) Any knife may be replaced with
a jackknife meeting the requirements in
paragraph (b)(16) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(19) Mirror. The signalling mirror
must meet the requirements in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.23
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 199.05).
*
*
*
*
*
(27) * * *
(i) The sea anchor for a lifeboat,
rescue boat, and rigid liferaft must meet
the requirements in ISO 17339:2018
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
62919
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 199.05).
*
*
*
*
*
(40) Water. The water must meet the
requirements in ISO 18813:2006
paragraph 4.46 (incorporated by
reference, see § 199.05).
(i) The water must meet the U.S.
Public Health Service ‘‘Drinking Water
Standards’’ in 40 CFR part 141 to
suitably protect the container against
corrosion. After treatment and packing,
the water must be free from organic
matter, sediment and odor. It must have
a pH between 7.0 and 9.0 as determined
by means of a standard pH meter using
glass electrodes. Water quality must be
verified by the local municipality or
independent laboratory accepted by the
Coast Guard in accordance with part
159, subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
(ii) Containers of emergency drinking
water must be tested in accordance with
the provisions in ISO 18813:2006 by an
independent laboratory accepted by the
Coast Guard in accordance with part
159, subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
(iii) Up to one-third of the emergency
drinking water may be replaced by a
desalting apparatus approved under part
160, subpart 160.058, of this chapter
that is capable of producing the
substituted amount of water in 2 days.
(iv) Up to two-thirds of the emergency
drinking water may be replaced by a
manually powered, reverse osmosis
desalinator approved under part 160,
subpart 160.058, of this chapter that is
capable of producing the substituted
amount of water in 2 days.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Any Coast Guard approved
equipment on board before [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] may remain on
board as long as it remains in good and
serviceable condition.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
62920
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Dated: September 18, 2020.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020–21032 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:16 Oct 03, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
EP05OC20.065
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62842-62920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21032]
[[Page 62841]]
Vol. 85
Monday,
No. 193
October 5, 2020
Part III
Department of Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
46 CFR Parts 121, 160, 169, et al.
Survival Craft Equipment--Update to Type Approval Requirements;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62842]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 121, 160, 169, 184 and 199
[Docket No. USCG-2020-0107]
RIN 1625-AC51
Survival Craft Equipment--Update to Type Approval Requirements
AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to update the type approval
requirements for certain types of equipment that survival craft are
required to carry on U.S.-flagged vessels. The proposed rule is
deregulatory and would remove Coast Guard type approval requirements
for nine of these types of survival craft equipment and replace them
with the requirement that the manufacturer self-certify that the
equipment complies with a consensus standard.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before December 4, 2020. Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB
on or before December 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0107 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of
information discussed in section VII.D. of this preamble both to the
Coast Guard's online docket and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and
Budget using one of the following two methods:
Email: [email protected].
Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. Make
arrangements to view this material by calling the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email LT Brock Hashimoto, Lifesaving & Fire Safety Division
(CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1426, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference
M. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If you cannot submit your
material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule
for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this proposed rule,
and all public comments, will be available in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions. Additionally, if you visit the online docket
and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are
posted or if a final rule is published.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we will consider doing
so if public comments indicate that a meeting would be helpful. We
would issue a separate Federal Register (FR) notification to announce
the date, time, and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COA Certificate of approval
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ECEC U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation
FR Federal Register
CG MIX U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange
IBA Inflatable buoyant apparatus
IBR Incorporation by reference
ICR Information collection request
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LSA Code Life-Saving Appliances Code
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OES U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment
Statistics
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RA Regulatory Analysis
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
UL Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
III. Basis and Purpose
The legal authority for this proposed rule is found in Title 46 of
the United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703, 4102,
4302, 4502, 7101, 8101 and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b). This proposed rule would
update the type approval requirements for 12 types of survival craft
equipment that survival craft are required to carry on certain,
specified U.S.-flagged vessels--bilge pumps, compasses, fire
extinguishers, first-aid kits, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives,
knives, signaling mirrors, provisions (food rations), emergency
drinking water, and sea anchors--as well as some of the survival craft
equipment required for sailing school vessels. For nine of these types
of equipment, the proposed rule would replace the Coast Guard type
approval requirement with a requirement that the
[[Page 62843]]
manufacturer self-certify that the equipment complies with a consensus
standard: Bilge pumps, compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits,
hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, sea anchors, and water.
Updating type approval requirements for survival craft equipment
reduces the financial burden and amount of time spent by equipment
manufacturers, vessel owners and operators, and the Coast Guard on
current Coast Guard type approval requirements for survival craft
equipment.
IV. Background
Many of the current requirements for survival craft equipment were
developed in the 1950s and 1960s and have not been significantly
updated since they were published. After thorough review of these
requirements, as well as Coast Guard enforcement procedures, current
maritime industry practice, and the availability of new consensus
standards, we believe that the additional scrutiny provided by Coast
Guard type approval does not increase the safety of the following nine
types of survival craft equipment: Bilge pumps, compasses, first-aid
kits,\1\ fishing kits, hatchets, knives (including jackknives),
mirrors, sea anchors, and emergency drinking water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Different first-aid kits are required for different survival
craft and this is explained further in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these types of equipment, the current Coast Guard type approval
requirements are outdated and overly prescriptive. This places a burden
on the equipment manufacturers, which in turn affects the design costs
of complying with the outdated standard, the administrative overhead
costs, and the time-to-market costs of manufacturing and selling
equipment. It also places a financial burden on the vessel owners and
operators who are required to carry this specific approved equipment on
board their survival craft. This equipment is frequently more costly
and more difficult to obtain than similar products that are not type
approved. Finally, it places a burden on the Coast Guard to review and
approve this equipment without commensurate increases in safety.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend several approval and carriage
requirements in title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Specifically, we are proposing to remove current approval requirements
for first-aid kits in part 121 under subchapter K, part 160 under
subchapter Q, and part 184 under subchapter T, and to update those
requirements to industry standards. In addition, we propose removing
approval requirements for certain survival craft equipment and
provisions in part 160 under subchapter Q and in part 169 under
subchapter R, and updating those requirements to industry standards.
Finally, we are proposing to update the carriage requirements for
lifesaving systems on certain inspected vessels in part 199 under
subchapter W, by replacing some Coast Guard-specific standards with
voluntary consensus standards.
The proposed rule would add a new subpart 160.046 (Emergency
Provisions) to part 160 of title 46 of the CFR to consolidate and
update applicable standards, including making mandatory several
voluntary consensus standards consistent with the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113 (codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272). This rule would make mandatory three voluntary
consensus standards from the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO): ISO 18813:2006 ``Ships and marine technology--
Survival equipment for survival craft and rescue boats'' (referred to
as ISO 18813); ISO 17339:2018 ``Ships and marine technology--Sea
anchors for survival craft and rescue boats'' (referred to as ISO
17339); and ISO 25862:2009 ``Ships and marine technology--Marine
magnetic compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices'' (referred
to as ISO 25862).
While the International Maritime Organization (IMO) does specify
some standards for survival craft equipment affected by this proposed
rule, it does not stipulate that the affected survival craft equipment
be approved by the Administration. In some cases (such as first-aid
kits and drinking water), the LSA Code references ISO 18813 as an
acceptable standard for the equipment to meet, whereas in others (such
as fishing tackle), the LSA Code merely requires that the equipment be
carried aboard the specified survival craft.
Table 1 provides a list of the 12 types of survival craft equipment
that would be affected by this proposed rule, the proposed changes that
would be made to the corresponding regulations, and the affected CFR
subparts and sections. Table 2 presents the Coast Guard's baseline
matrix, which summarizes the proposed changes by CFR subpart and
section.
For a detailed explanation of the proposed amendments presented in
table 1, see the discussion that follows table 2.
[[Page 62844]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.006
[[Page 62845]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.007
[[Page 62846]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.008
[[Page 62847]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.009
[[Page 62848]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.010
[[Page 62849]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.011
[[Page 62850]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.012
[[Page 62851]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.013
[[Page 62852]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.014
[[Page 62853]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.015
Bilge Pump
Lifeboats that are not automatically self-bailing are currently
required to carry manual bilge pumps approved by the Coast Guard under
46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.044--Pumps, Bilge, Lifeboat, for Merchant
Vessels. This proposed rule would be the first substantive update to
the design requirements since 1951. In this proposed rule, the Coast
Guard would only require that bilge pumps comply with ISO 18813
paragraph 4.3. The rule would remove requirements for the Coast Guard
to issue a Certificate of Approval (COA) and replace it with the
requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment
meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. This would reduce the
administrative burden for the manufacturers currently required to have
a Coast Guard-issued COA for each bilge pump every 5 years. Subpart
160.044 would be removed and reserved, and the new requirements would
be listed in Sec. 199.175(b)(2).
The requirements in ISO 18813 and in subpart 160.044 are similar in
nature, with three key differences:
(1) The capacity requirements in ISO 18813 differ from those in
subpart 160.044. The Coast Guard proposes to incorporate by reference
the ISO 18813 capacity standards and remove the current requirements in
Sec. 199.175(b)(2). The Coast Guard believes that the pump capacity in
the ISO standard is more appropriate, given the current design of
modern lifeboats;
[[Page 62854]]
(2) Subpart 160.044 requires that the body of the bilge pump be
made of bronze, while ISO 18813 allows the bilge pump to be made of any
corrosion-resistant material; and
(3) The requirements outlined in ISO 18813 would allow
manufacturers more flexibility in the design and construction of bilge
pumps. Any Coast Guard-approved bilge pump on board before this
proposed rule becomes effective may remain on board if it remains in
good and serviceable condition.
Compass
Lifeboats and rescue boats are required to carry a compass approved
by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.014. The Coast Guard
currently approves compasses using the ``Guidelines for Approval of
Magnetic Compasses in Lifeboats/Liferafts,'' issued in December 2005,
which states that manufacturers must meet either the ``USCG
Specification for Compasses: Magnetic, Liquid Filled, Mariners,
Compensating, for lifeboats for Merchant Vessels,'' developed in 1944,
or a combination of ISO 613:2000 ``Ships and marine technology--
Magnetic compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices--Class B''
(referred to as ISO 613) and the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC)'s standard 60945:2002-08--``Maritime navigation and
radio communication equipment and systems--General requirements--
Methods of testing and required test results'' (referred to as IEC
60945).
This proposed rule would update the language in Sec. 199.175(b)(6)
to state that the compass in a survival craft must comply with ISO
25862 Annex H.
Additionally, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for
the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with the
requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment
meets the requirements outlined in ISO 25862. As a result, the Coast
Guard would no longer maintain separate design requirements in this
specification.
There would be no substantive change in requirements for the class
B magnetic compass because ISO 25862 supersedes and incorporates the
requirements in ISO 613. Similarly, the testing requirements for the
compasses would remain the same because ISO 25862 references the same
testing requirements in IEC 60945 that are currently required for Coast
Guard approval. This proposed rule would ensure that the compasses in
survival craft would meet the same standard as currently required;
however, the move to self-certification would lead to a reduction in
paperwork and a reduction in collected information.
Fire Extinguishers
The recent rule, ``Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection,
Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment'' (81 FR 48219, July 22, 2016),
updated the design and approval standards for fire extinguishing
equipment by changing the portable fire extinguisher ratings system
from a weight-based rating system to the Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
(UL) performance-based rating system. Under current survival craft
regulations, survival craft are required to carry fire extinguishers
based on the old weight-based rating system rather than the
performance-based rating system established by the aforementioned
Harmonization rule (81 FR 48219). This proposed rule would update the
requirements in Sec. 199.175(b)(9) to reflect the change in rating
system. As the Coast Guard noted in the Harmonization rule (see 81 FR
at 48230), the fire extinguishers approved under the old weight-based
system and the new performance-based system cost the same, so there is
no cost or cost savings associated with this change.
First-Aid Kit
The Coast Guard intends to change current first-aid kit
requirements by: (1) Accepting ISO 18813 as the one uniform Coast
Guard-approved standard for first-aid kits; (2) updating and
consolidating references to this one standard across multiple different
first-aid carriage requirements; and 3) grandfathering in all
preexisting first-aid kits that comply with the current Coast Guard
standards.\2\ Currently, all inspected small passenger vessels,
lifeboats, rescue boats, inflatable SOLAS liferafts, and inflatable
buoyant apparatuses are required to carry first-aid kits approved by
the Coast Guard. There are two different approval series for first-aid
kits, with different requirements: series 160.041, Lifeboat First-Aid
Kit, for lifeboats, rescue boats, and small passenger vessels; and
series 160.054, First-Aid Kit for Inflatable Liferafts, for liferafts.
The current requirements for first-aid kits are found in Sec. Sec.
160.041-4(b) and 160.054-4(b). First-aid kits approved to Sec.
160.041-4(b) are required to carry more packages of certain first-aid
items than first-aid kits approved to Sec. 160.054-4(b).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The grandfathering provision is proposed by this rulemaking
for all nine pieces of equipment. Please see the proposed Sec.
199.175(c).
\3\ For the item requirements for first-aid kits in lifeboats
and rescue boats, see the following link: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6053d1fa121cb42db8a54803ad6f08ea&mc=true&node=se46.6.160_1041_64&rgn=div8. For the item requirements for liferafts and buoyant
apparatuses, see the following link: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6053d1fa121cb42db8a54803ad6f08ea&mc=true&node=se46.6.160_1054_64&rgn=div8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would remove and reserve subparts 160.041 and
160.054 and move the requirements for first-aid kits from subparts
160.041 and 160.054 to Sec. 199.175(b)(10). The rule would require
that all first-aid kits, except those grandfathered under the proposed
Sec. 199.175(c), meet the requirements set forth in ISO 18813. This
standard requires a different set of items and a different number of
items in the first-aid kit. For a thorough description of the
differences in contents between the first-aid kits in subparts 160.041
and 160.054 and ISO 18813, see table 30 in the regulatory analysis
(RA). Finally, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the
Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with a requirement for
the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the
requirements of ISO 18813.
The Coast Guard also intends to update the references to the
standards for first-aid kits carriage requirements in Sec. 121.710 for
subchapter K-inspected small passenger vessels, Sec. 184.710 for
subchapter T-inspected small passenger vessels, subpart 160.010 for
buoyant apparatuses,\4\ and subpart 160.151 for liferafts. This
proposed rule would update the referenced first-aid kit requirements to
the consolidated requirements listed in Sec. 199.175(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Only required for ``open reversible liferafts'' Annex 11 to
IMO Res. MSC.97(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In current regulations, the medicine in first-aid kits is required
to conform to the latest standards of the U.S. Pharmacopoeia.\5\ These
proposed regulations do not change this requirement and would be
outlined in Sec. 199.175(b)(10).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Compendium of drug information for the United States
published annually by the United States Pharmacopeial Convention.
\6\ This replaces the U.S. requirement for first-aid kits to
contain ``Aspirin'' with the ISO requirement for ``Analgesic.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing Kit
Lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry a
fishing kit and tackle approved by the Coast Guard, as directed in 46
CFR part 160, subpart 160.061. This proposed rule would remove and
reserve subpart 160.061 and move the requirements for fishing kits from
subpart 160.061 to Sec. 199.175(b)(11). The proposed rule would make
two substantive changes to the requirements. First, the Coast Guard
would mandate that fishing kits meet the standards set forth in ISO
18813.
[[Page 62855]]
Second, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the Coast
Guard to issue a COA and replace it with the requirement for the
manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the
specifications outlined in Sec. 199.175(b)(11).
The requirements in subpart 160.061 were last substantively updated
in September 1965 and are very prescriptive (for example, pork bait is
no longer commercially available but is a listed requirement in fishing
kits). By contrast, ISO 18813 is much less prescriptive, and the Coast
Guard does not believe this loss in specificity decreases the
usefulness of fishing kits likely to be produced and sold. Instead,
this proposed rulemaking would align the Coast Guard requirements for
fishing kits with international requirements and would make it easier
for fishing kit manufacturers to meet Coast Guard requirements.
Hatchet
All lifeboats are required to carry hatchets approved by the Coast
Guard to the specifications found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.013.
This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.013 and move
the requirements for hatchets from subpart 160.013 to Sec.
199.175(b)(13). This proposed rule would make two substantive changes
to the current requirements. First, it would remove the requirement for
the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with the
requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment
meets the requirements outlined in Sec. 199.175(b)(13). Second, it
would remove some of the current testing requirements, because the
Coast Guard does not believe they increase safety. Specifically, the
requirements found in subpart 160.013 state that the hatchet must
comply with the Federal Specification GGG-A-926--Axes, which was
cancelled in 1999.\7\ The Coast Guard is proposing to retain pertinent
requirements from current regulations and remove outdated ones. For
example, we would retain the handle, lanyard, and sheath specifications
for a hatchet, because these specifications reflect the safety
requirements of a hatchet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards
Numerical Canceled Listing (APPENDIX) Part IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackknife
All lifeboats and SOLAS liferafts are required to carry a jackknife
approved by the Coast Guard, as specified in 46 CFR part 160, subpart
160.043. This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.043
and move the requirements from subpart 160.043 to Sec. 199.175(b)(16).
The proposed rule would make four changes to the current requirements.
First, this proposed rule would require that a jackknife must comply
with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.19, rather than the existing requirements in
subpart 160.043. Second, this proposed rule would update references to
the jackknife found in Sec. 199.175. Third, this proposed rule would
remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would
replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify
that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813.
Fourth, Table 1 to 199.175--Survival Craft Equipment would be updated
so that a jackknife could replace both a can opener and a knife when
they are required as specified in Sec. 199.175.
The standards set by ISO 18813 are broader and less specific than
those contained in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.043, but they would not
substantively alter the requirements for the design of jackknives. The
proposed standards allow the manufacturer additional options for the
materials used in the jackknife. There would also be a reduction in the
test requirements. ISO 18813 requires only the cutting test, while
subpart 160.043 requires three tests, including the same cutting test.
The additional tests required by subpart 160.043--the hardness test and
the bending and drop test--do not lead to an increase in safety nor an
improvement in equipment quality. The Coast Guard therefore proposes to
remove the requirements for these tests.
Knife
Buoyant apparatuses, inflatable liferafts, lifeboats, rigid
liferafts, and rescue boats are required to carry a knife. The proposed
rule would revise Sec. Sec. 160.010-3(a)(12)(ii) and 160.051-11(b) to
update the quantity of knives to be carried to match the LSA Code and
would add regulatory text allowing a knife to be replaced with a
jackknife meeting the requirements in Sec. 199.175(b)(16). If the
apparatus is permitted to accommodate 13 or more persons, the proposed
rule removes requirements for jackknives in Sec. 199.175(b)(17), which
may be substituted for a second non-folding knife, and, instead,
proposes they must meet the requirements in ISO 18813.
Mirror
All lifeboats and inflatable liferafts are required to carry a
signaling mirror approved by the Coast Guard under approval series
160.020, using the ``USCG Specification for Signaling Mirrors for
Merchant Vessels'' issued in October 1944. This proposed rule would
update Sec. 199.175(b)(19) and make two changes to the current
requirements. First, the Coast Guard proposes to change the standard
for signaling mirrors to the requirements in ISO 18813 paragraph 4.23.
Second, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the Coast
Guard to issue a COA and replace it with the requirement for the
manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the
requirements outlined in ISO 18813. The requirements in ISO 18813
provide the same safety standards as the 1944 Coast Guard
specification, but would allow for more flexibility in meeting the
requirements. The 1944 Coast Guard specification requires the mirror to
be rectangular; ISO 18813 allows the mirror to be any shape provided
the reflective surface meets the minimum area requirements.
Provisions
All lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry
provisions approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.046,
using the ``Guidelines for Approval of Emergency Provisions for
Lifeboats and Liferafts'' issued in August 1997. This proposed rule
would create a new subpart 160.046 that outlines the requirements for
emergency provisions that must comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.31.
The design and test requirements found in ISO 18813 are the same as
those found in the aforementioned Coast Guard guidelines for approval.
This proposed rule would formalize those requirements into regulation,
while maintaining the current level of safety. Manufacturers would be
required to continue to maintain a valid COA under approval number
160.046 and prove compliance with the referenced standards. Unlike the
changes regarding the other survival craft equipment described in this
proposed rule, there will be no costs or cost savings associated with
these provisions as manufacturers will still need a COA under approval
number 160.046. The proposed change only formalizes preexisting agency
policy, which will lead to no reduction in burden. The Coast Guard is
retaining the requirement for a valid COA for provisions because we
recognized that provisions is a critical part of lifesaving equipment.
We know that manufacturers also produce emergency provisions for other
outdoor-related industries.Validating the performance of the provision
can only be done by independent laboratory testing rather than by
physical inspection. We want to maintain the
[[Page 62856]]
current level of quality and nutritional value that is necessary
specific to the maritime industry and environment.
Sea Anchor
All lifeboats, rescue boats, and rigid liferafts are required to
carry a sea anchor approved by the Coast Guard under approval series
160.019. Inflatable liferafts and buoyant apparatuses are also required
to carry sea anchors, but those sea anchors are not required to be
Coast Guard-approved. The Coast Guard approves sea anchors using either
the ``USCG Specification for Sea Anchors,'' revised in August 1944, or
ISO 17339. This proposed rule would update Sec. 199.175(b)(27) and
state that the sea anchor must comply with ISO 17339. The Coast Guard
also proposes to remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a
COA and replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-
certify that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO
17339. This proposed rule would result in a reduction in paperwork and
information collection and a reduction in the overall administrative
burden to the manufacturers of sea anchors from no longer requiring a
COA.
Water
All lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry
emergency drinking water approved by the Coast Guard under approval
series 160.026. Subpart 160.026--Water, Emergency Drinking (In
Hermetically Sealed Containers), for Merchant Vessels, contains the
regulations for Coast Guard approval of emergency drinking water. The
last substantive update to subpart 160.026 occurred on September 8,
1965 (30 FR 11466). In November 1981, the Coast Guard issued a policy
letter, ``Guidelines for Approval of Emergency Drinking Water for
Lifeboats and Liferafts,'' outlining alternative requirements for the
approval of emergency drinking water.
This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.026 and
move the requirements for drinking water from subpart 160.026 to Sec.
199.175(b)(40). The proposed rule would make three changes to the
current requirements. First, the emergency drinking water would be
required to comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.46 rather than the
existing requirements in subpart 160.026. Second, the rule would remove
the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and replace it with
the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their water
meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. Third, water quality
would be required to be verified by the local municipality or an
independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard.
Current Coast Guard regulations in subpart 160.026 only allow for
the use of cans as water receptacles, while ISO 18813 allows for the
use of different types of water receptacles. The 1981 Coast Guard
Guidelines allow for the use of flexible material in the water
receptacle. ISO 18813 and the Coast Guard Guidelines have the same
requirements for the flexible material, and there are no changes in the
testing requirements between the Coast Guard Guidelines and ISO 18813.
Incorporating ISO 18813 would update regulations to allow flexible
material for water receptacles in addition to cans, in accordance with
1981 Coast Guard guidelines.
Sailing School Vessels
In addition to the types of equipment discussed above, this
proposed rule would also update the survival craft requirements for
sailing school vessels found in Sec. Sec. 169.525 through 169.529. We
propose to reference the equipment requirements in Sec. 199.175. This
would eliminate the unique requirements for survival craft equipment on
sailing school vessels, such as a lantern, matches, illuminating oil,
and storm oil.\8\ This proposed change would align outdated
requirements with the modern standards in Sec. 199.175 that are
applicable to other vessels in commercial service. As a result of these
proposed changes, equipment manufacturers would be able to manufacture
one piece of equipment that is acceptable on all types of U.S.-flagged
vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For the full set of requirements being modified and
eliminated, refer to table 39 in the RA. None of these changes will
result in costs or costs savings, which is explained in table 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Incorporation by Reference
Material proposed for incorporation by reference is currently
listed in Sec. 199.05 and would also be added to the new Sec.
160.046-3. The substance of the individual standards is described in
section V. of this preamble, and we have also summarized them in
section VII.L. Copies of the material are available to purchase from
the publishers at the addresses listed in Sec. Sec. 160.046-3 and
199.05. Information about purchasing these standards is also available
online (via the internet). Before publishing a binding rule, we will
submit this material to the Director of the Federal Register for
approval of the incorporation by reference.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.
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 costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory
costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation issued, at least
two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost
of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS
considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action.\9\ A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See the OMB Memorandum titled ``Guidance Implementing
Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section V of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard
would remove the requirement for nine types of survival craft equipment
to be approved by the Coast Guard from 46 CFR part 160 in subchapter Q
(Equipment, Construction, and Materials: Specifications and Approval)
and from Sec. 199.175 (Survival Craft and Rescue Boat Equipment). The
requirement for COAs on these nine types of equipment (bilge pumps,
compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives, mirrors,
sea anchors, and water) would be replaced by a self-certification
requirement, in order to comply with the LSA Code. For those types of
equipment that still require a COA, provisions and fire extinguishers,
we do not estimate any
[[Page 62857]]
changes in costs or cost savings.\10\ Finally, this proposed rule would
update the survival craft requirements for sailing school vessels found
in Sec. Sec. 169.525 through 169.529, eliminating the unique
requirements for survival craft equipment on sailing school vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Knives are not required to be Coast Guard approved, however
they must meet the requirements in the LSA Code. This is an
administrative change that will lead to no cost or cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 provides a summary of the affected population, costs, cost
savings, and benefits of this proposed rule. The affected population
includes the manufacturers of the survival craft equipment and the
vessels equipped with survival craft. Additionally, we estimate the
potential cost savings to manufacturers by reducing reporting,
recordkeeping, and production requirements of this survival craft
equipment. We estimate the potential cost savings to vessel owners and
operators by the price reductions in survival craft equipment, and we
estimate the potential cost savings for the Government for reducing the
review necessary for certain equipment. We estimate an annualized cost
savings to industry of $335,733 (with a 7-percent discount rate) and an
annualized cost savings to Government of $9,142 (with a 7-percent
discount rate) for a total annualized cost savings of $344,875. Using a
perpetual period of analysis, we estimate the total annualized cost
savings of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to be $241,000 in
2016 dollars and discounted back to 2016 using a 7-percent discount
rate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This analysis assumes the implementation year for this rule
would be 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62858]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.016
Affected Population
This proposed rule would impact four separate affected populations.
First, this proposed rule would impact manufacturers of Coast Guard-
approved equipment because it changes the standards and approval
process for nine types of survival craft equipment. Second, this
proposed rule would impact any new and existing U.S.-flagged vessels
that carry survival craft because it would reduce the cost of buying
and replacing survival craft equipment. Third, this proposed rule would
impact small passenger vessels inspected under subchapter K or T
because they are required to maintain a separate first-aid kit onboard,
and this rule reduces the cost of replacing first-aid kits. Fourth,
this proposed rule would impact sailing school vessels, but
[[Page 62859]]
we do not estimate any costs, cost savings, or benefits to these
vessels. This proposed rule would remove table 169.527 from part 169
and it would remove the requirements for equipment outlined in Sec.
169.529(a) through (mm) as these requirements are outdated and the
Coast Guard is moving the reference to these pieces of equipment to
part 199.
Data on manufacturers comes from the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime
Information Exchange (CGMIX),\12\ which is a public-facing version of
the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database,
unless otherwise specified. For each subchapter of inspected vessels
that are required to carry survival craft, we looked at annual data
(2008-2017) \13\ from the MISLE database to estimate the number of
vessels that would be affected by this proposed rule. We used this
timeframe of vessel data from MISLE to obtain the average number of
vessels, survival craft, and survival craft equipment presented in the
vessel populations in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://cgmix.uscg.mil/
\13\ The Coast Guard used 10 years of MISLE data for a robust
data set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers of Coast Guard Approved Equipment
The Coast Guard is proposing to modify approval requirements for
nine types of survival craft equipment, discussed in detail in section
V of this proposed rule. These nine types of equipment include: (1)
Bilge pumps; (2) compasses; (3) first-aid kits for lifeboats and for
liferafts; (4) fishing kits; (5) hatchets; (6) jackknives; (7)
signaling mirrors; (8) sea anchors; and (9) emergency drinking water.
For these nine types of survival equipment, there are 27 unique Coast
Guard type-approved products.\14\ This proposed rule would impact
products currently on the market as well as newly approved products.
Those products affected by this NPRM that are currently on survival
craft would remain acceptable for the purpose of carriage after this
rule's implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Type Approval is the primary process for equipment and
materials to receive Coast Guard approval. The certificate is valid
for 5 years, and the approval will be listed on the CGMIX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2018 collection of information, ``Supporting Statement for
Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and
Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation
Devices (33 CFR part 159)'' (OMB Control Number: 1625-0035) estimates
that companies would seek Coast Guard approval for 3 percent of the
number of survival craft equipment products on the market each year.
The Coast Guard estimates that each new product approval replaces a
preexisting product approval, such that the total number of approved
products would not change each year, as the number of newly approved
products has been historically small. Table 4 presents the annual
average of new products each year for the nine types of survival craft
equipment. To calculate the annual average of new products, we
multiplied the values in the ``Number of Approved Products'' column
(table 4), which contains the number of existing approved products for
each type of survival craft equipment, by 3 percent (``Percentage of
New Approvals Each Year'' column).
[[Page 62860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.017
U.S.-Flagged Vessels That Carry Coast Guard-Approved Equipment
This proposed rule would impact a total of 14,666 existing vessels.
Of these vessels, we estimate the total amount of survival craft
maintained by the affected population to be 34,456. Table 5 shows the
breakdown of the survival craft population as follows: 2,142 inflatable
buoyant apparatuses (IBAs), 25,910 liferafts, 3,472 lifeboats, and
2,932 rescue boats. These vessels, which are categorized by subchapter,
are required to carry survival craft in accordance with the applicable
regulations.
[[Page 62861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.018
Table 6 presents vessels by the subchapter to which they are
inspected in title 46 of the CFR. ``Other vessels'' includes public and
recreational vessels not subject to inspection. The owners and
operators of the 14,666 identified vessels would experience cost
savings from the lower estimated cost of replacing equipment after this
proposed regulation takes effect. We used this existing vessel
population data from MISLE and multiplied it by the average number of
IBAs, liferafts, lifeboats, and rescue boats per vessel, which we also
retrieved from MISLE, to obtain our estimated survival craft
population. This is the existing population of survival craft.
Regarding those pieces of survival craft equipment that are non-durable
and will be replaced within 10 years, this is the population that
provides the number of survival craft that will need to replace Coast
Guard-approved equipment with presumably less expensive equipment,
because the replacement equipment would not need Coast Guard approval.
Those vessels with previously approved survival craft equipment would
not be required to replace their survival craft equipment
[[Page 62862]]
until it expires or becomes unserviceable.
After establishing the existing number of current survival craft,
we then estimate the growth in the number of survival craft each year
in order to project out our affected population for the next ten years.
To calculate the number of new survival craft each year, we multiply
the ``Number of New Vessels per Year'' by each ``Average per Vessel''
column in table 6 to obtain our annual totals for each new survival
craft type.\15\ We estimate that 14 new IBAs, 278 new liferafts, 46 new
lifeboats, and 41 new rescue boats would be outfitted with equipment
subject to this proposed rule each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``The Number of New Vessels per Year'' column was
calculated by taking the total number of new vessels by subchapter
by year from the MISLE database. The Coast Guard calculated the
``Average per Vessel'' column by dividing column (b) by column (a)
in table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We then sum the totals for each survival craft type across each
affected subchapter to obtain our estimated population of new survival
craft each year for this NPRM. This annual growth in the survival craft
population provides an estimate of the number of new survival craft
that will enter the market each year. The vessel owners and operators
of these craft would experience cost savings from buying some
equipment, as discussed in this NPRM, which will no longer need Coast
Guard approval. Table 6 presents the estimated total number of new
survival craft each year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.019
[[Page 62863]]
Subchapter K and Subchapter T Vessels
This proposed rule would also affect all U.S.-flagged vessel
operators regulated under subchapters K and T, as these vessel
operators are required to maintain a Coast Guard-approved first-aid kit
onboard their vessels, in addition to any first-aid kits carried in the
survival craft. The owners and operators of these small passenger
vessels would no longer be required to maintain Coast Guard-approved
first-aid kits aboard the vessels themselves. Using MISLE data, we
estimate there to be 2,069 existing small passenger vessels, with 101
new vessels being built on an annual basis. This number includes all
small passenger vessels defined in subchapters K and T, found in
Sec. Sec. 121.710 and 184.710, respectively, regardless of what type
of survival craft they have onboard. Therefore, this count may include
vessels that do not have an IBA, lifeboat, liferaft, or rescue boats
onboard.
Equipment Type for Each Survival Craft
The type of equipment each survival craft is required to carry
varies depending on the distance a vessel is traveling. Inspected
vessels must carry an equipment pack for an international voyage, with
the exception of lifeboats on sailing school vessels, which, if they
are equipped with lifeboats, must carry the equipment required in
Sec. Sec. 169.527 and 169.529. Currently, based on MISLE data, none of
the seven U.S.-flagged sailing school vessels are equipped with
lifeboats. Table 7 contains the equipment required by pack and type of
survival craft.
[[Page 62864]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.020
[[Page 62865]]
Equipment Pack Types for Commercial Fishing Vessels
Commercial fishing vessels must be equipped with either a Coastal
Service pack, a SOLAS A pack, or a SOLAS B pack depending on vessel
size, distance traveled, whether the ocean route is designated as a
cold-water route or warm-water route, and the number of persons
onboard. Table 8 provides a brief description of the packs that can be
carried by lifeboats and liferafts.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Readers can find more information on Inflatable Liferafts
for domestic service in the following link: https://ecfr.io/Title-46/sp46.6.160.160_1051.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.021
Equipment Pack types for Survival Craft
We used vessel route types from MISLE to estimate the percentage of
vessels with a SOLAS A pack compared to a SOLAS B pack. All vessels
with ``ocean'' listed as a route type are presumed to carry survival
craft with SOLAS A packs. We estimate the remaining route types, not
listed as ``ocean,'' would have SOLAS B packs. Using commercial fishing
vessel data from MISLE and knowledge from subject matter experts from
the Coast Guard's Life Saving & Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), who
specialize in survival craft data, we estimate that 50 percent of non-
ocean going fishing vessels will have Coastal Service packs and 50
percent of non-ocean going fishing vessels will have SOLAS B packs.
We created a distribution of SOLAS A, SOLAS B, and Coastal Service
packs by pulling all U.S.-flagged vessels by the inspection subchapter
and then pulling these vessels by route type from the MISLE database.
We excluded any vessels that did not have survival craft or had an
unknown field for survival craft in the MISLE database. The route-type
designation included ``Ocean'' for ocean-going vessels in MISLE,\17\
which we designated as SOLAS A vessels, and the remainder were
therefore SOLAS B vessels.\18\ We then calculated the number of SOLAS A
packs by dividing the population of our vessels (by subchapter) by the
sum of vessels that had ``Ocean'' routes and dividing that sum by the
sum of vessels in that given subchapter. To calculate the percentage of
SOLAS B packs, we simply subtracted the number of SOLAS A packs from
100 percent. This data pull provided the total number of inflatable
liferafts and lifeboats, respectively, and the percentage of each
survival craft pack type by subchapter, which is presented in table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The ``Ocean'' designation in MISLE specifically refers to
those vessels with SOLAS certificates that designates them as SOLAS
A vessels. The MISLE data being pulled is from 2007-2017.
\18\ The sole exception was Commercial Fishing Vessels, which we
broke out the Coastal routes and short international routes by
vessel because Commercial Fishing Vessels are the only type of
vessels in our affected population that would carry Coastal Service
packs instead of only having SOLAS B packs for short international
shipping routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62866]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.022
[[Page 62867]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.023
We then estimated the number of liferafts and lifeboats by
equipment pack type for existing and new vessels by looking at the
total number of packs carried by lifeboats and liferafts. Table 10
presents the number of SOLAS A, SOLAS B, and Coastal Service packs by
liferaft and lifeboat for each subchapter of vessels. The total number
of inflatable liferafts with Coastal Service Packs (Column (a)) in
table 10 is calculated by multiplying the percentage of Coastal Service
Packs in liferafts and lifeboats (column (c) in table 9) by the total
number of inflatable liferafts by subchapter (column c) in table 5).
Column (b) in table 10, `Short Internatonal/SOLAS B packs for
inflatable liferafts', is calculated by multiplying column (d) in table
9, which is the percentage of Short International/SOLAS B packs by
vessel subchapter, by column (c) in table 5, which is the total number
of inflatable liferafts by subchapter. Column (c) in table 10,
`International/Solas A packs for liferafts', is calculated by
multiplying column (e) in table 9, which is hte percentage of
International/SOLAS A packs by vessel subchapter, by column (c) in
table 5, which is the total number of inflatable liferafts by
subchapter. Column (e) in table 10, `Short Interntaional/Solas B packs
for lifeboats', is calculated by taking the sum of multiplying columns
(c) and (d), the percentages of Coastal Packs and Short Intertanional/
SOLAS B packs in table 9 by column (e) in table 5, which is the total
number of lifeboats by subchapter. Column (f) in table 10,
`Interntaional/Solas A packs for lifeboats' is calculated by
multiplying column (e) from table 9, which is the percentage of
International Packs/SOLAS A, by column (e) in table 5, which is the
total number of lifeboats by subchapter.
[[Page 62868]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.024
[[Page 62869]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.025
Table 11 presents the total number of new packs needed each year
for new survival craft. This table is calculated by taking the number
of new lifeboats and liferafts presented in table 6 and multiplying
that figure by the distribution in table 9 to obtain the number of new
packs needed for the new liferafts and lifeboats on vessels each year.
[[Page 62870]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.026
[[Page 62871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.027
Cost Savings
We anticipate that this proposed rule would generate a cost savings
to: (1) Vessel owners and operators from having the option to purchase
less expensive survival craft equipment; (2) equipment manufacturers
from reducing reporting, record keeping, and production requirements of
survival craft equipment; and (3) the Federal Government from reducing
record keeping requirements. The details and calculations of the cost
savings are discussed later in this NPRM.
Wages
This proposed rule would reduce the burden of review that is
required by both industry and the Federal Government. This review
includes preparing COA application renewals, and product instructions
by certain manufacturers. We presume clerical employees would be
responsible for all the manufacturer's recordkeeping activities, and
production employees would be responsible for marking equipment and
packing instructions. Federal Government employees who possess the
technical knowledge of survival craft to review submissions to ensure
safety standards would be senior engineers at the GS-14 grade. These
employees would be responsible for the review of all the submitted
information.
We calculate the costs for each activity by estimating the labor
hours required in each labor category and then multiplying those
burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. For this analysis, we
calculated private sector wages using 2018 wage data from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) for the miscellaneous manufacturing sector (North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) 339000).\19\ We added a load
factor to the industry wages using December 2018 wage and total
compensation data from the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
(ECEC) survey, which accounts for employee benefits. This load factor
represents the total benefits as a percentage of total salary.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/naics3_339000.htm
\20\ A loaded labor rate is what a company pays per hour to
employ a personbeyond the hourly wage. Instead, the loaded labor
rate includes the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation,
etc.). We calculate the load factor for wages by dividing total
compensation by wages and salaries. For this analysis, we used BLS'
Employer Cost for Employee Compensation/Manufacturing Occupations,
Private Industry report (Series IDs, CMU2013000000000D and
CMU2023000000000D for all workers using the multi-screen data
search). Using 2018 Q4 (Quarter 4) Manufacturing data, we divided
the total compensation amount of $39.09 by the wage and salary
amount of $25.59 to get the load factor of 1.53 ($39.09 divided by
$25.59). This data is found in table 10 of the Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation December 2018 News Release available at
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03192019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62872]]
For Federal Government employees, Commandant Instruction 7310.1T,
Reimbursable Standard Rates \21\ provides fully loaded wages for both
Coast Guard military and civilian employees and lists the loaded hourly
wage rate for a GS-14 senior engineer as $105. Table 12 summarizes the
loaded wage rates for industry used in this RA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ On page 2 of Enclosure 2 of the following link, the reader
can access the in-government wage rates for USCG personnel: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/12/2002071837/-1/-1/0/CI_7310_1T.PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62873]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.028
[[Page 62874]]
Cost Savings to Equipment Manufacturers
We estimate that manufacturers of Coast Guard-approved equipment
would have a cost savings associated with no longer having to complete
COA applications and renewals to obtain and maintain Coast Guard
approval. In addition, this proposed rule would remove recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, and reduce testing requirements for some
pieces of survival equipment.
Number of Survival Craft Products
This proposed rule would modify the approval requirements for nine
types of survival craft equipment. For each type of equipment,
companies manufacture unique products. In total, there are 27 products
for these 9 types of survival craft equipment. These pieces of
equipment are the specific items that vessel owners and operators
purchase to be in compliance with the vessel carriage regulations found
in 46 CFR subchapters C, T, K, and W.\22\ These pieces of equipment
also account for the total items that must be stowed aboard survival
craft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Refer to the appendix titled ``Appendix C: Carriage
Requirements for all the Survival Craft Equipment'' in the docket
folder for more information on carriage requirements for all vessels
affected by this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To comply with the lifesaving equipment regulations in 46 CFR
subchapter Q, manufacturers submit these products to the Coast Guard
for review and approval. Once approved, the manufacturer of each piece
of equipment must mark it (or stamp it) with its COA number. Table 13
presents the total number of pieces of survival craft equipment
manufactured on an annual basis.
There are two types of survival craft equipment: (1) Items that are
durable and need not be replaced or serviced frequently, such as bilge
pumps, compasses, fishing kits,\23\ jackknives, signaling mirrors,
hatchets, and sea anchors; and (2) items that are not durable, expire,
and must be replaced, such as first-aid kits and water. We used the
annual number of pieces of survival craft equipment needed to stock new
survival craft in order to estimate the number of new pieces of
equipment manufactured and stamped on an annual basis. We estimate
that, in the long term, the supply of new survival equipment would
equal the demand of new survival craft equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ There is one Coast Guard-approved fishing kit on CG-MIX
currently. The only non-durable aspect of the fishing kit, the bait,
is made of synthetic resin, plastisol, a form of rubber which, if
stored properly, has an indefinite shelf life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard does not have substantive data on how long these
durable goods last, and we estimate that these goods would last as long
as the survival craft themselves. We request comments from the general
public and interested stakeholders regarding the length of time bilge
pumps, compasses, fishing kits, jackknives, signaling mirrors,
hatchets, and sea anchors last, and whether they last as long as the
survival craft they equip.
We discuss the renewal rate of non-durable goods, first-aid kits,
and water later in this analysis.\24\ Table 13 lists the estimated
number of pieces of survival craft equipment manufactured on an annual
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Refer to the sections titled First Aid Kits, First Aid Kits
for Liferafts and IBA, and Emergency Water further in the regulatory
analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.029
Equipment Approval and Markings
In the current regulations, manufacturers seeking Coast Guard
approval must submit a COA application with information such as
technical plans, drawings, specifications, instructional materials, and
test reports. In addition to the initial application, manufacturers of
Coast Guard approved equipment must also submit application renewals
every 5 years to maintain their approval status. Table 4 presents the
estimated number of new COA applications for each equipment type, as
the annual average number of new products each year.
[[Page 62875]]
Table 14 presents the estimated number of application renewals for
each equipment type. Since the Coast Guard estimates that one of every
five applications will be renewed on an annual basis, the number of
renewal applications is equal to 20 percent of the total number of
products. Once a product has been approved, the manufacturer must stamp
each individual piece of survival craft equipment with the Coast Guard
approval number and other information.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.030
[[Page 62876]]
We estimate that it would take the technical staff 2 hours \25\ to
prepare a new application, and the clerical staff would spend 0.17
hours per application on recordkeeping, for a total cost of $135 per
new application [(2 technical hours x $65) + (0.17 clerical hours x
$29) = $135]. For renewal applications, we estimate a burden of 0.5
technical hours and 0.17 clerical hours, for a total cost of $37 [(0.5
technical hours x $65) + (0.17 clerical hours x $29) = $37]. Under this
proposed rule, the Coast Guard would no longer require COA applications
for any new survival craft equipment. As shown in table 15, we estimate
this would result in a cost saving to industry of approximately $108
per year for new applications and approximately $200 per year for
renewal applications. This results in a total annual cost savings of
about $308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Based on information from the subchapter Q ICR.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.031
The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the requirements that
equipment must be marked with a Coast Guard approval number. With the
exception of compasses and hatchets, equipment only needs to be marked
to indicate that it meets standards set in ISO 18813. Compasses would
no longer need to be marked with their Coast Guard approval number, but
would still need to be marked to indicate they meet ISO 25862, as is
currently required by the Coast Guard approval guidelines for magnetic
compasses in lifeboats and rescue boats. The Coast Guard is proposing
that hatchets would not need to be marked at all, as they do not have
to meet any consensus standard.
The Coast Guard assumes the burden to mark the equipment is the
same whether it is being marked with a Coast Guard approval number or
whether it is marked indicating that it meets the ISO standard;
therefore, this proposed change would only result in a cost savings to
the manufacturers of hatchets. The Coast Guard estimates that
[[Page 62877]]
it takes industry 0.06 hours of production labor time \26\ to mark each
individual piece of equipment at a cost of $1.44 (0.06 hours x $24 =
$1.44) per piece of equipment. We estimate that 92 hatchets would be
marked each year (see table 13), for a total cost savings of
approximately $132 ($1.44 x 92).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ This is based on information from the subchapter Q
information collection request (ICR).
\27\ This value is incorporated in column (a) of table 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions
The Coast Guard currently requires that equipment manufacturers
provide instruction material with certain types of equipment to ensure
that crew members have access to information on the proper use of the
equipment. We currently require instructions for five of the nine types
of equipment subject to this proposed rulemaking: Compasses, first-aid
kits, mirrors, fishing kits and jackknives. ISO 18813 requires
instructions for three types of equipment: First-aid kits, mirrors, and
fishing kits. ISO 18813 does not state that instructions need to be
provided for compasses and jackknives; therefore, the manufacturers of
compasses and jackknives would no longer have to develop, maintain, and
pack instructions for their products under this proposed rule.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard requires that instructions be updated
and submitted with application renewals. Since manufacturers of this
equipment would no longer have to submit renewal applications, we
estimate that manufacturers would no longer update their instructions,
resulting in a cost savings for manufacturers for all five types of
equipment. In addition to these cost savings, there is a cost savings
associated with removing the need to pack the instructions with the
equipment. Using the same methodology to estimate the number of pieces
of equipment that need to be marked annually, we estimate that the same
number of instructions required to be packed for pieces of equipment
would be the same as the number of pieces of equipment required to be
marked. Table 16 presents the number of instructions developed and
renewed each year under the baseline presented in the subchapter Q
ICR.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ To access the subchapter Q ICR follow this link: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201811-1625-005. Select
``All'' in the first box titled, ``Display additional information by
clicking on the following'' and scroll down to the ``Number of
Information Collection (IC) in this ICR: 5''. In this section, you
will be able to access Approvals, Instruction Materials, Production
Tests and Laboratory Inspections, Markings, and the Independent and
Recognized Labs forms.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.032
Based on information in the current subchapter Q ICR, we estimate
that it takes 8 hours of technical time, costing $520 (8 hours x $65)
to prepare a new set of instructions. Similarly, we estimate that it
takes 2 hours of technical time, costing $130 (2 hours x $65) to
prepare instructions for renewal submissions. The Coast Guard estimates
that packing each set of instructions would incur the same burden
(amount of time) as marking each piece of equipment, or 0.06 hours of
production. We estimate the cost of marking each piece of equipment to
be $1.44 [0.06 hours x $24 (production staff time)].
In tables 17, 18 and 19, we present the total annual industry cost
savings for no longer having to develop new instructions for some types
of new survival craft equipment, for no longer having to update
instructions for renewal applications, and for packing fewer
instructions. Table 18 presents the cost savings to develop new
instructions for those types of survival craft equipment requiring
instructions, which leads to a total annual cost savings of
approximately $63. The total cost in columns (b) and (d), $520, is the
loaded wage of a safety engineer and inspector, $65, multiplied by the
estimated burden of work, 8 hours, for preparing a set of new
instructions. This table presents the baseline scenario burden, the
proposed post-regulatory scenario burden, and the difference between
the two as cost savings.
[[Page 62878]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.033
Table 18 presents the cost savings of no longer having to update
instructions for renewal applications, which leads to a total cost
savings of about $416 annually. The total cost in columns (b) and (d)
is the loaded wage of a safety engineer and inspector, $65, multiplied
by the estimated burden of work, 2 hours, for preparing instructions
for renewal submissions. This table presents the baseline scenario
burden, the proposed post-regulatory scenario burden, and the
difference between the two as cost savings.
[[Page 62879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.034
Table 19 presents the cost savings of having to pack fewer
instructions, which leads to a total annual cost savings of
approximately $2,218. The total cost in columns (b) and (d) is the
loaded wage of a production employee or assembler, $24, multiplied by
the estimated burden of work, 0.06 hours, for packing instructions.
Table 19 presents the baseline scenario burden, the proposed post-
regulatory scenario burden, and the difference between the two as cost
savings.
[[Page 62880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.035
Laboratory Testing and Recordkeeping
As current regulations stand, the Coast Guard requires product
testing and recordkeeping for some lifesaving equipment to ensure the
equipment meets minimum performance requirements. Table 20 presents a
comparison of the current Coast Guard testing requirements and the
testing requirements stated in ISO 18813 and ISO 25862 (for compasses).
This table also contains a qualitative description of the change in
costs associated with modifying the current testing requirements. We
were unable to obtain any cost data from the Coast Guard-approved labs
that conduct the testing of this equipment.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ We contacted four Coast Guard approved laboratories to
obtain cost estimates for the current and proposed testing
requirements; however, the labs were unable to provide any cost
information. The Coast Guard would appreciate any public comments on
the costs associated with the current or proposed testing
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62881]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.036
[[Page 62882]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.037
Based on the information from the current subchapter Q ICR, we
estimate that record-keeping takes 2 hours of clerical time per year
and costs $58 (2 hours x $29 clerical staff loaded hourly wage rate).
The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the requirements for testing
records for seven types of equipment listed in this NPRM, as these
manufacturers would no longer need these records to document that their
product meet the requirements of the ISO 18813. Table 21 presents the
total cost savings of about $1,392 to industry from removing
requirements to keep records of laboratory testing. The total cost in
columns (b) and (d), $58, is the loaded hourly wage of a record clerk,
$29, multiplied by the estimated burden of work, 2hours, for fulfilling
recordkeeping requirements. This table presents the baseline scenario
burden and the post regulatory scenario burden and then presents the
difference of the two burdens as cost savings.
[[Page 62883]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.038
Laboratory Inspections
The Coast Guard currently requires inspectors to examine the
manufacturing process in order to ensure that quality control is
maintained throughout. This proposed rule would remove these
requirements; however, the Coast Guard is unable to determine if this
removal would generate any cost savings to industry. Manufacturers are
likely to still have their production line inspected to ensure quality
as part of best industry practices. Moreover, manufacturers may
continue third-party testing to maintain certifications, such as the
ISO 9001 standard, or to meet international regulatory obligations. At
the time of this NPRM, the Coast Guard does not have enough information
to quantify any potential changes in cost resulting from the changes in
inspection requirements.
Additionally, the Coast Guard requires inspecting entities to issue
annual reports to enable a comparison between the production line and
the prototype tested by the Coast Guard.\30\ We were able to estimate a
cost savings that resulted from the removal of this reporting
requirement using information from the subchapter Q ICR, which
estimated that this recordkeeping takes 24 hours of clerical time per
year on average and costs $696 (24 hours x $29 clerical wage rate). The
Coast Guard proposes to remove this reporting requirement for all types
of survival craft equipment. As shown in table 22, we estimate a total
annual cost savings of approximately $16,008. This table presents the
baseline scenario burden, the proposed post regulatory scenario burden,
and the difference between the two as cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ While the Coast Guard currently requires testing for
jackknives, it does not require laboratory inspections. Therefore,
there are no cost savings to jackknives manufacturers for this
proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62884]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.039
Total Cost Savings to Manufacturers
Table 23 presents the annual total cost savings to equipment
manufacturers. We estimate that manufacturers of Coast Guard-approved
bilge pumps, lifeboats, compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits,
hatchets, jackknives, signaling mirrors, sea anchors, and emergency
water would save approximately $20,537 per year.
[[Page 62885]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.040
Cost Savings to Vessel Owners or Operators
After gathering price data from a variety of sources, we estimate
that removing approval requirements would allow owners and operators of
vessels to purchase less expensive equipment.\31\ While there are
several companies selling Coast Guard-approved equipment, online
information generally does not specify whether the equipment meets ISO
18813 or similar standards. As a result, we had difficulty finding
price data for survival craft equipment products clearly stating they
met ISO 18813 standards. However, we were able to identify prices for
two products--emergency provisions and emergency water--that the
manufacturer or advertiser explicitly stated met the requirements of
the ISO 18813 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ To assess price data, we looked at online retailers of
survival craft equipment. A search of online retailers revealed that
equipment that was not type approved was less expensive than similar
equipment that was type approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We then applied percentage price difference between emergency water
products and emergency provisions, which had both Coast Guard approval
and met the requirements of ISO 18813, and those emergency provisions
and water products that only met the requirements of ISO 18813.\32\ On
average, products without Coast Guard approval were approximately 28
percent \33\ less expensive than products with Coast Guard approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Although provisions are not subject to changes in this
NPRM, we still examined them for the purposes of price comparison as
it provided a depth of data allowing us to comprise a more robust
ratio.
\33\ We calculated this 28 percent by finding the price
differential for those products that were Coast Guard-type approved
and those products that were not Coast Guard-approved, but met ISO
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We applied this 28-percent price decrease to all the products
affected by this proposed rule, with the exception of first-aid kits,
because the kit content requirements differ between the ISO standard
and current Coast Guard standards, and we estimate the change in price
for first-aid kits by the difference in replacement costs for first-aid
kits. These differences are explained in further detail in the section,
First-Aid Kits, in this RA. For this analysis, we quantified the cost
savings to new vessels from being able to purchase less expensive
equipment, and the cost
[[Page 62886]]
savings to existing vessels of replacing expired items with less costly
items. For durable items, without data to estimate how frequently these
items are replaced, we are not able to estimate the cost savings to the
owners and operators of existing vessels for purchasing replacement
equipment that we estimate would be 28 percent cheaper. However, since
emergency water and first-aid kits expire, we estimate the cost savings
for purchasing replacement equipment for the owners and operators of
both new and existing vessels based on how frequently this non-durable
equipment must be replaced. This information is presented later in this
analysis.
Durable Equipment: Bilge Pumps, Compasses, Fishing Kits, Hatchets,
Jackknives, Mirrors, and Sea Anchors
As discussed in the previous paragraph, we estimate that only new
vessels will purchase bilge pumps, compasses, fishing kits, hatchets,
jackknives, mirrors, and sea anchors for their survival craft. Based on
population estimates (presented in table 5), 14 new IBAs, 278 new
liferafts, 46 new lifeboats, and 41 new rescue boats would be subject
to this proposed rule each year. Table 7 lists the survival equipment
that lifeboats, liferafts, rescues boats, and IBAs are required to
carry. We multiply the populations in table 5 by the carriage
requirements in table 7 to yield the total number of items purchased
for new survival craft in table 25 below. For example, the Coast Guard
requires new lifeboats to be equipped with bilge pumps, and there were
46 new lifeboats recorded in table 5, meaning there will be 46
purchases of new bilge pumps per year. \34\ Only the new lifeboats with
equipment packs for international voyages would require fishing kits
(see table 7) and all new lifeboats and rescue boats would be equipped
with compasses, for a total of 87 purchases of compasses each year. All
338 new IBAs, liferafts, and lifeboats are required to be equipped with
mirrors. Finally, 271 liferafts with a SOLAS A or SOLAS B pack would be
equipped with two sea anchors each. This proposed rule would require
that 108 IBAs, lifeboats, rescue boats, and liferafts with coastal
service packs each have one sea anchor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The Coast Guard requires all non-self-bailing lifeboats and
rescue boats to have bilge pumps. Based on discussions with subject
matter experts in the Coast Guard Office of Design and Engineering
Standards, Lifesaving & Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), the Coast
Guard estimates that all new lifeboats will be non-self-bailing and
will therefore require bilge pumps, and all new rescue boats that
are not also lifeboats will be self-bailing, and therefore will not
require bilge pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 24 presents the annual cost savings from new vessels removing
Coast Guard approval for bilge pumps, compasses, fishing kits,
hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, and sea anchors. In total, we estimate
an annual cost savings of approximately $99,696 for U.S.-flagged
vessels by removing the type approvals for these seven types of
survival craft equipment.
[[Page 62887]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.041
Jackknives as a Replacement for Can Openers
As specified in Sec. 199.175(b)(5), the Coast Guard allows
jackknives to meet the requirements of a can opener, thereby permitting
jackknives to fulfill two requirements. In Sec. 199.175, Table 1 to
Sec. 199-175 states that only lifeboats and rigid liferafts with SOLAS
A packs require can openers, and only lifeboats may carry jackknives.
This means that rigid liferafts with SOLAS A packs are currently
carrying both knives and can openers. The proposed rule would allow
these vessels to replace their knives with jackknives, resulting in a
cost savings to vessel owners from being able to purchase only a
jackknife instead of both a knife and a can opener. We estimate that
there are a total of 179 new liferafts each year that carry SOLAS A
packs and, further, assume that these vessel owners and operators would
choose to replace a knife with a jackknife, thus forgoing the need to
purchase a can opener.\35\ We estimate the price of a can opener
meeting the requirements of ISO 18813 to be $6.\36\ Therefore, we
estimate that vessel owners and operators would save $1,074 (179 SOLAS
A liferafts x $6 per can opener) for no longer needing can openers
because of meeting the jackknife requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ We estimate the cost savings for only one can opener
because the use of a jackknife will only fulfill the replacement
requirement for one can opener.
\36\ We calculated this by taking the average of 10 can opener
products on the market that meet ISO 18813 requirements. The Coast
Guard is proposing that can openers now meet the requirements of ISO
18813.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Water
The Coast Guard requires survival craft with SOLAS A packs be
stocked with 3 liters of water per person, and that lifeboats with
SOLAS B packs be stocked with 1.5 liters of water per person. We
estimate the average cost of Coast Guard-approved water to be $4 per
liter,\37\ while the cost of 1 liter of emergency water that meets the
ISO 18813 standard to be $3.\38\ The price difference between the Coast
Guard and ISO water is $1 per liter.\39\ This is the estimated
additional cost of Coast Guard approval, which is counted as cost
savings. Emergency water expires and will need to be replaced every 5
years; therefore, the Coast Guard estimates that 20 percent of existing
survival craft and 100 percent of new survival craft will need to
purchase emergency water annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ We calculated this by taking the average of 14 emergency
drinking water products on the market that were Coast Guard
approved.
\38\ We calculated this by taking the average of 14 available
emergency drinking water products on the market that were compliant
with ISO 18813 only.
\39\ To calculate this, we took the average of emergency
drinking water prices that were Coast Guard approved and subtracted
them from emergency drinking water prices that need only meet the
ISO standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that industry would save a total of $183,939 on an
annual basis
[[Page 62888]]
(3,227 survival craft x 19 people per survival craft x 3 liters of
water x -$1 cost savings) for survival craft with SOLAS A packs during
Years 1 through 5 of implementation.\40\ To calculate this cost
savings, we took the 12,306 existing liferafts with SOLAS A packs and
2,744 lifeboats with international voyage packs (see table 10) for a
total of 15,050 existing survival craft that are required to stock
emergency water. We then estimated that 20 percent (100 percent of
these survival craft / 5 years) or 3,010 survival craft [(12,306
liferafts x 20 percent) + (2,744 lifeboats x 20 percent)] will replace
their emergency water annually. Additionally, all 38 new lifeboats with
international packs and 179 new liferafts with SOLAS A packs (see table
11) are required to buy emergency water. We summed these totals to get
3,227 survival craft that will need to purchase emergency water on an
annual basis (3,010 existing survival craft + 38 new lifeboats + 179
new liferafts). Table 25 presents these cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ We calculated this by taking the average of the survival
craft capacity for all survival craft. We retrieved this data from
the MISLE database on November 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Years 6 through 10, there would be more cost savings because
vessels will have entirely replaced their survival craft by Year 6, as
described earlier in this proposed rule, therefore we estimate an
annual cost savings of about $196,308 [3,444 survival craft (3227 + 217
new craft) x 19 people x 3 liters of water x -$1 cost savings] for
survival craft with SOLAS A packs. Table 26 presents these cost
savings.
[[Page 62889]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.042
We used the same methodology when calculating the number of SOLAS A
packs in Years 1 through 10 of implementation in order estimate the
total costs savings for survival craft with SOLAS B packs. There are a
total of 728 existing liferafts with SOLAS B packs (see table 10). We
estimate that 20 percent of these survival craft or 146 survival craft
(728 lifeboats x 20 percent) will replace their emergency water
annually. Additionally, all 8 new lifeboats with SOLAS B packs are
required to buy emergency water, for a total of 154 survival craft (146
lifeboats + 8 new lifeboats) purchasing emergency water in Years 1
through 5. In Years 6 through 10, the number of existing lifeboats will
increase by eight to account for the new vessels that will be built in
Years 1 through 5 (154) for a total of 162 survival craft (154 existing
survival craft + 8 new lifeboats).
The cost savings for survival craft with SOLAS B packs purchasing
emergency water would be approximately $4,389 (154 survival craft
[[Page 62890]]
x 19 people x 1.5 liters of water x -$1 cost savings) in Years 1
through 5 and approximately $4,617 (162 survival craft x 19 people x
1.5 liters of water x -$1 cost savings) in Years 6 through 10. Table 27
presents these cost savings in Years 1 through 5 of implementation, and
table 28 presents these cost savings in Years 6 through 10 of
implementation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.043
Table 29 presents the total annualized cost savings to vessel
owners and operators from removing Coast Guard approval requirements
for emergency water. The Coast Guard estimates an annualized cost
savings of about $193,571 with a 7-percent discount rate ($194,162 with
3-percent discount rate).
[[Page 62891]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.044
First-Aid Kits
The Coast Guard is proposing to modify the requirements for first-
aid kits so that all survival craft would need to meet the standards
outlined in ISO 18813. In addition to removing the testing requirements
for the kits, this proposed change would modify the required contents
of first-aid kits, by removing the requirements for some items, adding
additional items, or changing the number of mandatory items. Since
items within the kits expire and need to be replaced, the proposed
change would impact both new and existing vessels including small
passenger vessels described in the section Subchapter K and Subchapter
T in this preamble. Table 30 highlights these differences in the first-
aid kit requirement. Due to the differences in the first-aid kits, we
estimated the cost of purchasing each of the individual items in the
kit.
[[Page 62892]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.045
First-Aid Kits for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats
We estimate that new vessels with lifeboats or rescue boats will
have a cost savings as a result of the proposed changes to first-aid
kits because we estimate that first-aid kits that meet the proposed
standard are $40 less expensive than Coast Guard-approved kits under
approval series 160.041. We estimate that a total of 87 new lifeboats
and rescue boats will purchase a first-aid kit each year for a total
costs savings of approximately $3,480 (87 survival craft x -$40 cost
savings).
The Coast Guard is not requiring existing vessels to replace their
current kits; however, existing vessels must replace medication and
ointments within the kits by their expiration date. Currently, vessels
must replace their iodine swabs, pain relief medication, and eye
ointment, which we estimate costs about $19 per kit.\41\ We calculated
the cost per kit by taking the average price for 10 different iodine
swab products, 12 different pain relief medication, and 8 different eye
ointments. Under the proposed rule, these vessels would no longer have
to replace eye ointment, and would need to replace fewer doses of pain
relief medication. Additionally, vessel operators would be able to
replace iodine swabs with less expensive antiseptic preparation.
However, under this proposed rule, vessels would incur an additional
cost from replacing the burn cream in the kits, as required by ISO
18813 shown above in table 30. We estimate the cost of replacing these
items to be $19, meaning the proposed change is cost neutral to
existing vessels with lifeboat first-aid kits.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ISO 18813 uses the specific language of Analgesic and
Ophthalmic when describing the medication in the first-aid kits.
Refer to the appendix titled ``Appendix B: Product Prices'' in the
docket folder for more information on product prices for these items
that comprise the first-aid kit.
\42\ The Coast Guard used the same price estimation for the
average cost of these items as the cost it would take to replace
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-Aid Kits for Liferafts and IBAs
We estimate that first-aid kits that meet the requirements of ISO
18813 will be, on average, $1 less expensive than the Coast Guard-
approved kits for liferafts and IBAs.\43\ All 271 new liferafts and all
14 new IBAs would need to be equipped with the kits each year for an
annual cost savings of $285 (285 survival craft x-$1 cost saving).\44\
Liferaft first-aid kits are sealed in plastic bags, and most drugs
expire within a 2- to 3-year timeframe. Vessel owners and operators
have to replace the entire first-aid kit with a brand new kit after
using even one item. Once the packaging for the kit is opened, the
majority of items in it will have the same expiration date, not just
the individual item.\45\ Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates that
vessels will replace the items in their first-aid kits once they have
expired, every 2.5 years (average of 2 and 3 years), and this process
occurs during the annual servicing at an approved servicing facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The Coast Guard took the average price of six Coast Guard
approved first-aid kits and subtracted it from an average of six
first-aid kits that met ISO standards.
\44\ There are 278 liferafts affected by this rule, but those
requiring SOLAS A and B packs (271 liferafts) will be required to
have first-aid kits.
\45\ We contacted a liferaft servicing firm to determine how the
expired items in liferaft and lifeboat first-aid kits are replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculate that 40 percent (one replacement every 2.5 years) of
vessels would replace these items annually. Forty percent of all
existing 2,142 IBAs and 24,097 liferafts [table 10 (sum of the totals
for SOLAS A and SOLAS B for
[[Page 62893]]
inflatable liferafts columns)] would be 10,496 survival craft [(2,142
IBAs x 40 percent) + (24,097 liferafts x 40 percent)]. Beginning in
Year 3, the new survival craft from Year 1 would need to replace their
kits for a total of 10,781 survival craft (10,496 existing survival
craft + 285 survival craft built in Year 1). In Year 4, the new
survival craft from Year 2 would need to replace their kits, but those
from Year 1 would not need to do this since they would have replaced
their aid kits in the prior year. Therefore, the total needing to
replace first-aid kits would still be 10,781 survival craft (10,496
existing survival craft + 285 survival craft built in Year 2). In Year
5, the survival craft built in Year 1 and Year 3 would replace their
kits for a total of 11,066 survival craft (10,496 existing survival
craft + 285 survival craft built in Year 1 + 285 survival craft built
in Year 3). This pattern continues over the 10-year analysis period. In
conclusion, we estimate the total annualized cost savings from removing
Coast Guard approval for liferaft first-aid kits would be $9,283 with a
7-percent discount rate as shown in table 31.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.046
First-Aid Kits for Small Passenger Vessels (Subchapters K and T)
This NPRM would also remove Coast Guard approval requirements for
first-aid kits aboard small passenger vessels, which the Coast Guard
regulates under subchapters K and T. Small passenger vessels are
currently required to have first-aid kits approved under approval
series 160.041; therefore, we used the same cost savings estimates for
replacing first-aid kits in the section titled First-Aid Kits for
Lifeboats and Rescue Boats. This comes to $41 per first-aid kit. The
Coast Guard applied these estimates to small passenger vessels which
will no longer need Coast Guard approval for the first-aid kits aboard
the vessels themselves. Using data from MISLE, we estimate there would
be 101 new small passenger vessels every year. All of the 101 new
passenger vessels will need to be equipped with first-aid kits each
year for an annual cost savings of $4,141.
[[Page 62894]]
Total Cost Savings to Vessel Owners and Operators
Table 32 presents the annual undiscounted total cost savings to
vessel owners and operators by equipment type, and table 33 presents
the total annualized cost savings. We estimate the total undiscounted
costs savings to vessel owners and operators at $3.16 million over a
10-year period of analysis, with an annualized total cost savings of
about $315,196 discounted at 7 percent ($315,829 with a 3-percent
discount rate).
[[Page 62895]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.047
[[Page 62896]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.048
Total Cost Savings to Industry
Table 34 presents the total annualized costs savings to industry
over the 10-year period. At a 7-percent discount rate ($336,367 cost
savings with a 3-percent discount rate), the cost savings is
approximately $335,733.
[[Page 62897]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.049
Federal Government Cost Savings
We estimate that this proposed rule would reduce costs to the
Federal Government, since the Coast Guard would no longer review COA
applications, application renewals, or inspection reports for the
equipment that is subject to this proposed rule. The Coast Guard does
not anticipate that this proposed rule would generate any cost savings
from vessels inspections, as the proposed rule does not modify any
inspection requirements.
Equipment Approval
In addition to generating a cost savings to industry by removing
COA application requirements, this proposed rule would also create a
cost savings to the Federal Government, as Coast Guard staff will no
longer review new COA applications and renewals. The 2018 Commandant
Instruction 7310.1T estimates that it takes 24 hours of a GS-14's time
to review each new application and 4 hours to review each renewal.\46\
We estimate the cost of reviewing a new application at $2,520 per
applicant (24 hours x $105) and the cost for reviewing a renewal
application at $420 per renewal (4 hours x $105). In table 36, the cost
of reviewing a new application is captured in column (b) and the cost
of a renewal application is captured in column (d). In total, we
estimate the Federal Government will save $4,312 each year due to this
proposed rule removing the requirements of having to review COA
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ To see the hourly government rates for personnel, please
reference the ``Hourly Rates For Personnel ($)'' table on page 2 of
enclosure (2): https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/docs/7310/Cl_7310_1T.pdf?ver=2019-01-28-080829-207
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62898]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.050
Laboratory Inspections
The Coast Guard currently requires manufacturers to submit an
annual report with the results of laboratory inspections, allowing the
Coast Guard to ensure the production stock of the equipment will be
identical to those originally tested and approved by the Coast Guard.
This NPRM would remove this reporting requirement for the equipment
subject to the proposed rule, removing the need for the Coast Guard to
review these reports. We were unable to obtain data about the costs
related to laboratory inspections. We request information and comments
from the general public and interested stakeholders regarding
information on data related to laboratory inspection costs.
[[Page 62899]]
We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours of a GS-14 senior
engineer's time to review each report, costing $210 (2 hours x $105).
Table 36 presents the total annual cost saving to the Federal
Government for no longer having to review laboratory inspection
reports. We estimate these costs would be $4,830 per year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.051
Total Federal Government Savings
Table 37 presents the total annual cost savings to the Federal
Government. In total, the Coast Guard estimates this proposed rule to
generate a cost savings of approximately $9,142 per year.
[[Page 62900]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.052
Change in Safety
Many of the current requirements for survival craft equipment were
developed in the 1950s and 1960s and have not been significantly
updated since they were initially published. Upon a thorough review of
these requirements, Coast Guard enforcement procedures, current
maritime industry practice, and the availability of new international
standards, we have determined that the additional scrutiny of the Coast
Guard type approval does not increase or decrease the safety for the
equipment subject to this proposed rule. For these nine types of
survival craft equipment, the current Coast Guard type approval
requirements are outdated and overly prescriptive. Therefore, the Coast
Guard anticipates that by having equipment meet international
standards, as opposed to Coast Guard standards, there would be no
decrease in the level of safety in the maritime environment.
Benefits
There are non-monetary benefits to owners and operators of vessels
with survival craft in having a larger selection of equipment to choose
from allowing for potential operational flexibility.
No Cost Changes
This proposed rule would also implement several changes with no
cost impacts. The vast majority of these changes are the result of
modifying the current lifeboat equipment requirements for sailing
school vessels as stated in Sec. 169.527 to align them with the
requirements stated in Sec. 199.175. Table 38 summarizes these
changes.
[[Page 62901]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.054
[[Page 62902]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.053
[[Page 62903]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.055
[[Page 62904]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.056
[[Page 62905]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.057
[[Page 62906]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.058
[[Page 62907]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.059
[[Page 62908]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.060
[[Page 62909]]
Total Cost Savings
Table 39 presents the total annualized cost savings of this NPRM to
both industry and the Federal Government for the 10-year period of
analysis. The Coast Guard estimates an annualized cost savings of
approximately $345,509 with a 3-percent discount rate and $344,875 with
a 7-percent discount rate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.061
Discussion of Alternatives
When creating this proposed rule, the Coast Guard considered three
alternatives. In this section, we examine how the cost of the proposal
would change with each alternative.
Alternative 1:
No Action
Using this alternative, the Coast Guard would accept the status quo
and not replace the current approval requirements with an international
consensus standard. This alternative would not harmonize with
international standards, nor reduce the burden to industry. This would
incur approximately $345,000 in annual costs, with no estimated
benefits.
Alternative 2:
Preferred Alternative-- Remove the Need for Coast Guard Approval
Using this alternative, the Coast Guard would implement the
proposed changes in table 1 regarding the removal of Coast Guard
approval standards. This would lead to an estimated $345,000 in annual
cost savings without any estimated reduction in benefits, as this
analysis shows.
Alternative 3:
Remove the Need for Coast Guard Approval and Marking Requirements
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would still implement the
changes proposed in the preferred alternative, but would, in addition,
remove the requirement that equipment be marked to indicate it meets
ISO 25862, ISO 17339, or ISO 18813. This would lead to an additional
annual cost savings of approximately $366,862. We estimate this by
multiplying 254,765 pieces of equipment by $1.62 (allowing 0.06 hours x
$27 clerical rate per hour for the time and cost to mark each piece of
equipment). This would lead to a total cost savings of $711,737, which
we calculated by adding the additional savings from no markings
($366,862) to the total estimated cost savings of this proposed rule,
as shown in alternative 2 ($345,000).
We reject this alternative for the preferred alternative, since
eliminating the markings would make it impossible for the Coast Guard
to verify if equipment is in compliance with regulations. This
alternative could potentially lead to a decrease in safety, if vessel
owners and operators purchased ISO non-compliant products that were not
sufficiently safe or reliable
[[Page 62910]]
for usage onboard a survival craft. The potential for the additional
burden on the Coast Guard to research and ascertain the compliance
status of a piece of survival craft equipment could lead to much more
significant costs than the current additional cost of $366,862 from
marking equipment.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard expects that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on small entities. We expect this proposed
rule to result in net cost savings to regulated entities.
We estimate there to be 11,139 unique vessel operators and 16
equipment manufacturers affected by this proposed rule. For this
analysis, we presumed any company for which we were not able to find
Small Business Administration (SBA) size data to be a small entity. An
estimated 94 percent of the regulated entities (including the companies
without SBA size data) are considered to be small by SBA industry size
standards. Using MISLE data, the Coast Guard estimates there to be
11,155 unique companies affected in this proposed rule. We estimate
that the average costs to equipment manufacturers would be reduced by
$1,445 per year, and the average costs to vessel owners and operators
would be reduced by $37.14 per year as a result of removing Coast Guard
approval for the equipment subject to the proposed rulemaking. We
calculate that 100 percent of the 10,487 (0.94 x 11,155) small vessel
operators and 100 percent of small equipment manufacturers impacted by
this proposed rule would have a cost savings less than 1 percent of
their annual revenue. No small governmental jurisdictions would be
impacted by this proposed rule.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment, explain why you
think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would
economically affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question
or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a revision to an approved
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 title and description of the
information collections, a description of those who must collect the
information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The
estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection.
Title: Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical,
Engineering and Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials &
Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR 159).
OMB Control Number: 1625-0035.
Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard currently
collects information from lifesaving equipment manufacturers under 46
CFR subchapter Q. The current information collection request (ICR),
201811-1625-005 (OMB Control Number 1625-0035), accounts for the
following collections of information: New Approval Applications,
Renewal Approval Applications, Manufacturer Recordkeeping, Servicing
Facility Recordkeeping, Servicing Facility Problem Reports, Instruction
Materials, Markings, Production Tests and Laboratory Inspections, and
Independent Laboratory Applications and Recognized Laboratory
Applications.
Need for Information: The Coast Guard needs this information to
ensure that the manufactured safety equipment meets minimum levels of
performance safety and helps prevent death, injuries, and property
damage associated with commercial maritime operations.
Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses the technical
plans, drawings, specifications, instruction materials, and markings to
determine compliance with the technical regulatory requirements for
each piece of equipment. Independent laboratory reports ensure that
product and material testing complies with the applicable Coast Guard
regulations. Production testing reports ensure that the production
stock of the equipment is identical to the stock that was originally
tested and approved by the Coast Guard. Independent and recognized
laboratory applications ensure that the laboratories have the technical
capabilities to conduct the required testing and are independent for
the organizations whose products they will test.
Description of the Respondents: The respondents are manufacturers
of the safety equipment subject to Coast Guard approval, independent
and recognized laboratories that conduct testing of the equipment, and
liferaft servicing facilities.
Number of Respondents: The Coast Guard estimates there to be 856
respondents, comprised of 480 equipment manufacturers, 233 liferaft
servicing facilities, 139 accepted independent laboratories, and 4
recognized independent laboratories. The proposed rule would impact 16
of these respondents. We do not expect it to reduce the total number of
respondents because equipment manufacturers may still manufacture other
Coast Guard-approved lifesaving equipment that is not subject to the
proposed rule.
Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year will vary
by requirement. New application materials,
[[Page 62911]]
instructions, and markings are required with the initial COA
application, and renewal application materials, instructions, and
markings are required 5 years after the initial application. Production
test records and laboratory inspection records are required to be kept
annually. The Coast Guard estimates the proposed rule would reduce the
number of responses for the following collections of information,
presented in table 40, along with the current estimated time to
complete each collection.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.062
In table 41, we estimate the reduction in the number of annual
responses based on application type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.088
[[Page 62912]]
Burden of Response: The proposed rule would not modify the burden
of response for any other existing collections of information.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The current ICR estimates the
total annual burden to be 114,586 hours. As a result of the proposed
rule, we estimate the annual burden would be 86,430 hours, for an
annual reduction of 28,156 hours. We adjusted the burden to account for
errors in Appendix A of the current ICR, which added 253 hours to the
estimated annual burden. Together, these changes account for a total
annual reduction in burden of 27,903 hours. These changes are
summarized in table 42.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.063
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine, among other things--
How useful the information is;
Whether the information can help us perform our functions
better;
How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of
the information;
Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
How valid our methods are for determining the burden of
collection; and
How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them by the date listed in the DATES section of this preamble to both
the OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to
collect this information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 proposed rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved by Congress for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well
settled that all of the categories regulated under 46 U.S.C. 2103,
3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4502, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction,
alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel
qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as 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 Supreme Court's decision in United States v.
Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). This
proposed rule involves the design, maintenance, and equipping of
vessels, specifically, certain survival craft equipment that is
required to be carried in survival craft and rescue boats on certain,
specified U.S.-flagged vessels. Therefore, because the States may not
regulate within these categories, this rule is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the
rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have
implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or
email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this preamble.
F. Unfunded Mandates
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 million (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
[[Page 62913]]
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference
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 proposed rule uses technical standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards bodies to meet the stringent equipment requirements
for survival craft and rescue boats onboard U.S.-flagged vessels. These
standards provide internationally accepted and recognized parameters
which the equipment must meet in order to ensure its safety, proper
usage, and preservation on the seas. The standards being incorporated
were developed by either the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) or the ISO, which are voluntary consensus standard-setting
organizations. The sections that reference these standards and the
locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR
parts 160 and 199.
Two ASTM standards would be updated and incorporated by reference
in this rulemaking: (1) ASTM F 1003-02 ``Standard Specification for
Searchlights on Motor Lifeboats'' (2007); and (2) ASTM F 1014-02
``Standard Specification for Flashlights on Vessels'' (2002). These
ASTM standards specify requirements for construction, including
materials, dimensions, performance and/or capability. The newer
versions are not materially different from the previous versions. We do
not propose to update the third ASTM standard already incorporated in
Sec. 199.05, ASTM 93-97, ``Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by
Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.''
The following three ISO standards listed here would be incorporated
by reference in this rulemaking:
1. ISO 18813, Ships and marine technology--Survival equipment for
survival craft and rescue boats.
This standard specifies design, performance, and use of various
items of survival equipment carried in survival craft and rescue boats
complying with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea (SOLAS), 1974 (as amended), and the International Maritime
Organization Life-Saving Appliance Code (LSA Code). It also includes
guidelines for maintenance and periodic inspections for many items.
2. ISO 25862, Ships and marine technology--Marine magnetic
compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices.
This standard gives requirements regarding construction and
performance of marine magnetic compasses for navigation and steering
purposes, binnacles and azimuth reading devices.
3. ISO 17339, Ships and marine technology--Life saving and fire
protection--Sea anchors for survival craft and rescue boats.
This standard specifies requirements for the design, performance
and prototype testing of sea anchors for survival craft (liferafts and
lifeboats) and rescue boats in accordance with the LSA Code.
With this rulemaking, we also propose to update our incorporation
by reference of Resolution MSC.4(48) International Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in
Bulk (IBC Code), 1994, and the International Code for the Construction
and Equipment of Ships carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, (IGC Code),
1993, to reflect the updated editions. No changes to the specific
referenced material have been made between those older editions and the
2016 editions. The IBC Code provides an international standard for the
safe transport by sea of dangerous and noxious liquid chemicals in
bulk. The purpose of the IGC Code is to provide an international
standard for the safe transport by sea in bulk of liquefied gases and
certain other substances.
Consistent with 1 CFR part 51 incorporation by reference
provisions, this material is reasonably available. Interested persons
have access to it through their normal course of business, may purchase
it from the organization identified in 46 CFR 160.046-3, 169.115 or
199.05 or online (via the internet), or may view a copy by means we
have identified in those sections. Members and representatives of the
regulated industries are also participants in the standards development
organizations.
If you disagree with our analysis of these standards or are aware
of standards that might apply but are not listed, please send a comment
explaining your disagreement or identifying additional standards to the
docket using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under
paragraphs L52, L57, and L58 of Table 1 in Appendix A of DHS Directive
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. CATEX L52 pertains to regulations concerning
vessel and operation safety standards. Paragraph L57 pertains to
regulations concerning manning, documentation, admeasurements,
inspection, and equipping of vessels. Paragraph L58
[[Page 62914]]
pertains to regulations concerning equipment approval and carriage
requirements.
This proposed rule is intended to remove the Coast Guard type
approval requirement for some survival craft equipment, and replace it
with the requirement that the manufacturer self-certify that their
equipment complies with a consensus standard. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 121
Communications equipment, Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Passenger vessels.
46 CFR Part 160
Incorporation by reference, Lifesaving equipment, Marine safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 169
Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 184
Communications equipment, Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 199
Cargo vessels, Incorporation by reference, Lifesaving systems for
certain inspected vessels, Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration,
Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 46 CFR parts 121, 160, 169, 184, and 199 as follows:
PART 121--VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR,
1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 121.710 to read as follows:
Sec. 121.710 First-aid kits.
A vessel must carry either a first-aid kit that meets the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with equivalent contents
and instructions. For equivalent kits, the contents must be stowed in a
suitable, watertight container that is marked ``First-Aid Kit''. A
first-aid kit must be easily visible and readily available to the crew.
PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT
0
3. The authority citation for part 160 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4302, and
4502 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1,
para. II, (92)(b).
0
4. Revise Sec. 160.010-3(a)(12)(ii) and (e)(7)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 160.010-3 Inflatable buoyant apparatus.
(a) * * *
(12) * * *
(ii) Knives. One knife, of a type designed to minimize the chance
of damage to the inflatable buoyant apparatus and secured with a
lanyard ready for use near the painter attachment. Any knife may be
replaced with a jackknife meeting the requirements in 46 CFR
199.175(b)(16). In addition, an inflatable buoyant apparatus which is
permitted to accommodate 13 persons or more must be provided with a
second knife that is of the non-folding type;
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) First-aid kit. A first-aid kit as described in 46 CFR
199.175(b)(10);
* * * * *
Subpart 160.013--[Removed and Reserved]
0
5. Remove and reserve subpart 160.013.
Subpart 160.026--[Removed and Reserved]
0
6. Remove and reserve subpart 160.026.
Subpart 160.041--[Removed and Reserved]
0
7. Remove and reserve subpart 160.041.
Subpart 160.043--[Removed and Reserved]
0
8. Remove and reserve subpart 160.043.
Subpart 160.044--[Removed and Reserved]
0
9. Remove and reserve subpart 160.044.
0
10. Add subpart 160.046 to read as follows:
Subpart 160.046--Emergency Provisions
Sec.
160.046-1 Scope.
160.046-3 Incorporation by reference.
160.046-5 General requirements for emergency provisions.
160.046-7 Independent laboratory.
160.046-9 Manufacturer certification and labeling.
160.046-11 Manufacturer notification.
Sec. 160.046 -1 Scope.
Emergency provisions approved to be carried in lifeboats and
liferafts.
Sec. 160.046-3 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for
inspection at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-
4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20593-7501, telephone 202-372-1426, email
[email protected]. It is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected],
or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. All
approved material is available from the sources listed in this section.
(b) International Standard Organization (ISO), BIBC II, Chemin de
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, https://www.iso.org, telephone +41 22 749 01 11, email [email protected].
(1) ISO 18813:2006 Ships and marine technology--Survival equipment
for survival craft and rescue boats, 2006, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
160.046-5, 160.046-7, and 160.046-11.
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 160.046-5 General requirements for emergency provisions.
Emergency provisions must meet the requirements found in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
160.046-3).
Sec. 160.046-7 Independent laboratory.
Unless the Commandant directs otherwise, an independent laboratory
accepted by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 159.010 must perform or
witness, as appropriate, inspections, tests, and oversight required by
ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
160.046-3). Approval and production tests of emergency provisions must
be carried out in accordance with the procedures for
[[Page 62915]]
independent laboratory inspections in 46 CFR 159.007 and in this
section unless the Commandant authorizes alternative tests and
inspections. The Commandant may prescribe additional production tests
and inspections necessary to maintain quality control and to monitor
compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 160.046-9 Manufacturer certification and labeling.
(a) Each emergency provision must be certified by the manufacturer
as complying with the requirements of this subpart.
(b) The container should be clearly and permanently marked with:
(1) The name and address of the approval holder;
(2) The U.S. Coast Guard Approval number;
(3) The total food energy value of provisions in the container in
Calories and kiloJoules;
(4) The lot number;
(5) The month and year the provision was packed; and
(6) The month and year of expiration (5 years after the date of
packing).
(c) The emergency provision must include waterproof instructions
for use, assuming consumption of 3350 kiloJoules per person per day.
Sec. 160.046-11 Manufacturer notification.
Each manufacturer of emergency provisions approved in accordance
with the specifications of this subpart must send a test report
required by ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.31.2 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 160.046-3) to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), U.S. Coast Guard
Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-
7509 or email [email protected]:
(a) With the application for approval;
(b) Every year as long as the manufacturer continues to produce
provisions; and
(c) Each time the contents of the emergency provisions change.
0
11. Revise Sec. 160.051-11(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 160.051-11 Equipment required for Coastal Service inflatable
liferafts.
* * * * *
(b) Knife. One knife, of a type designed to minimize the chance of
damage to the inflatable liferaft and secured with a lanyard. In
addition, an inflatable liferaft which is permitted to accommodate 13
persons or more must be provided with a second knife that is of the
non-folding type. Any knife may be replaced with a jackknife meeting
the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(16).
* * * * *
Subpart 160.054--[Removed and Reserved]
0
12. Remove and reserve subpart 160.054.
Subpart 160.061--[Removed and Reserved]
0
13. Remove and reserve subpart 160.061.
0
14. Revise Sec. 160.135-7(b)(23) to read as follows:
Sec. 160.135-7 Design, construction, and performance of lifeboats.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(23) Bilge pump. Each lifeboat that is not automatically self-
bailing must be fitted with a manual bilge pump that meets the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(2). Each such lifeboat with a
capacity of 100 persons or more must carry an additional manual bilge
pump or an engine-powered bilge pump.
* * * * *
0
15. Revise Sec. 160.151-21(b), (h), (o), and (q) through (s) to read
as follows:
Sec. 160.151-21 Equipment required for SOLAS A and SOLAS B
inflatable liferafts.
* * * * *
(b) Jackknife (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87),
Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.2). Each folding knife must be a jackknife meeting
the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(16).
* * * * *
(h) First-aid kit (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.8). Each first-aid kit must meet the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10).
* * * * *
(o) Signalling mirror (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.15). Each signalling mirror must meet
the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(19).
* * * * *
(q) Fishing tackle (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.17). The fishing tackle must meet the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(11).
(r) Food rations (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.18). The food rations must meet the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(22).
(s) Drinking water (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.19). Emergency drinking water must meet
the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(40). The desalting apparatus or
reverse osmosis desalinator must be approved by the Commandant under
subpart 160.058 of this part.
* * * * *
0
16. Revise Sec. 160.156-7(b)(22) to read as follows:
Sec. 160.156-7 Design, construction and performance of rescue boats
and fast rescue boats.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(22) Manual bilge pump. Each rescue boat that is not automatically
self-bailing must be fitted with a manual bilge pump that meets the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(2), or an engine-powered bilge pump.
* * * * *
PART 169--SAILING SCHOOL VESSELS
0
17. The authority citation for part 169 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101; 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
18. Revise Sec. 169.527 to read as follows:
Sec. 169.527 Required equipment for lifeboats.
(a) All lifeboats must be equipped in accordance with Table 1 to
Sec. 199.175 of this chapter except as provided in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section.
(b) The following equipment must be carried in addition to the
equipment required under Sec. 199.175 of this chapter:
(1) Cover;
(2) Ditty bag; and
(3) Mast and sail.
(c) If operating on protected waters, lifeboat equipment need only
to consist of the following:
(1) Boathook--(1);
(2) Bucket--(1);
(3) Fire extinguisher--(2) U.S Coast Guard approved Type B-C (motor
propelled lifeboats only);
(4) Hatch--(1);
(5) Lifeline--(1);
(6) Oar unit--(1);
(7) Painter--(1);
(8) Plug--(1);
(9) Oarlock unit--(1); and
(10) Toolkit (motor propelled lifeboats only).
0
19. Revise Sec. 169.529 to read as follows:
Sec. 169.529 Description of lifeboat equipment.
(a) All lifeboat equipment must meet the requirements under Sec.
199.175 of this chapter, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section.
[[Page 62916]]
(b) The following equipment, carried in addition to the equipment
required under Sec. 199.175 of this chapter, must meet the following
requirements:
(1) Cover, protecting. The cover must be of highly visible color
and capable of protecting the occupants against exposure. A cover is
not required for fully enclosed lifeboats.
(2) Ditty bag. The ditty bag must consist of a canvas bag or
equivalent and must contain a sailmaker's palm, needles, sail twine,
marline, and marlin spike, except that motor-propelled lifeboats need
not carry a ditty bag.
(3) Mast and sail. A unit, consisting of a standing lug sail
together with the necessary spars and rigging, must be provided in
accordance with Table 1 to this section, except that motor-propelled
lifeboats need not carry a mast or sails. The sails must be of good
quality canvas, or other material acceptable to the Commandant, colored
Indian Orange (Cable No. 70072, Standard Color Card of America).
Rigging must consist of galvanized wire rope not less than three-
sixteenths inch in diameter. The mast and sail must be protected by a
suitable cover.
[[Page 62917]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.064
[[Page 62918]]
PART 184--VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
0
20. The authority citation for part 184 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3
CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
0
21. Revise Sec. 184.710 to read as follows:
Sec. 184.710 First-aid kits.
A vessel must carry either a first-aid kit that meets the
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with equivalent contents
and instructions. For equivalent kits, the contents must be stowed in a
suitable, watertight container that is marked ``First-Aid Kit''. A
first-aid kit must be easily visible and readily available to the crew.
PART 199--LIFESAVING SYSTEMS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTED VESSELS
0
22. The authority citation for part 199 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b).
0
23. Revise Sec. 199.05 to read as follows:
Sec. 199.05 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference in this part with
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for
inspection at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-
4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20593-7501, telephone 202-372-1426 or email
[email protected]. It is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected],
or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. All
approved material is available from the sources indicated in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference (IBR) in
this part and the sections affected are as follows:
(1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500, https://www.astm.org, telephone +1 610 832 9500, email [email protected].
(i) ASTM D 93-97, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-
Martens Closed Cup Tester, 1997, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 199.261
and 199.290.
(ii) ASTM F 1003-02, Standard Specification for Searchlights on
Motor Lifeboats, 2007, IBR approved for Sec. 199.175.
(iii) ASTM F 1014-02, Standard Specification for Flashlights on
Vessels, 2002, IBR approved for Sec. 199.175.
(2) International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications
Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, https://www.imo.org, telephone +44 (0)20 7735 7611, email [email protected].
(i) MSC Circular 699, Revised Guidelines for Passenger Safety
Instructions, 17 July 1995, IBR approved for Sec. 199.217.
(ii) Resolution A.520(13), Code of Practice for the Evaluation,
Testing and Acceptance of Prototype Novel Life-saving Appliances and
Arrangements, 17 November 1983, IBR approved for Sec. 199.40.
(iii) Resolution A.657(16), Instructions for Action in Survival
Craft, 19 November 1989, IBR approved for Sec. 199.175.
(iv) Resolution A.658(16), Use and Fitting of Retro-reflective
Materials on Life-saving Appliances, 20 November 1989, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 199.70 and 199.176.
(v) Resolution A.760(18), Symbols Related to Life-saving Appliances
and Arrangements, 17 November 1993, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 199.70
and 199.90.
(vi) International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code), 2016, Chapter 17, IBR
approved for Sec. 199.30 and Chapter 2 approved for Sec. 199.280.
(vii) International Code for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, (IGC Code), 2016, Chapter 19,
IBR approved for Sec. 199.30, and Chapter 2, IBR approved for Sec.
199.280.
(3) International Standard Organization (ISO), BIBC II, Chemin de
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, https://www.iso.org/, telephone +41 22 749 01 11, email [email protected].
(i) ISO 18813:2006 Ships and marine technology--Survival equipment
for survival craft and rescue boats, 2006, IBR approved for Sec.
199.175.
(ii) ISO 25862:2009 Ships and marine technology--Marine magnetic
compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices, 2009, IBR approved
for Sec. 199.175.
(iii) ISO 17339:2018 Ships and marine technology--Life saving and
fire protection-- Sea anchors for survival craft and rescue boats,
2018, IBR approved for Sec. 199.175.
0
24. Amend Sec. 199.175 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(4);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(5) as paragraph (a)(6);
0
c. Add a new paragraph (a)(5);
0
d. Revise paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(2), (5), (6), (9),
(10), (11), (13), and (16) and (b)(17)(i) and (ii);
0
e. Adding paragraph (b)(17)(iii);
0
f. Revise paragraphs (b)(19), (b)(27)(i), and (b)(40);
0
g. Add paragraph (c); and
0
h. Revise the heading for the table to Sec. 199.175 and entries 5 and
17 of the table and add note 11 to the table.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 199.175 Survival craft and rescue boat equipment.
(a) * * *
(4) Must be packed in a suitable and compact form;
(5) Must be marked with either the Coast Guard approval number or
the standard that the product meets, as applicable; and
* * * * *
(b) Each lifeboat, rigid liferaft, and rescue boat, unless
otherwise stated in this paragraph (b), must carry the equipment listed
in this paragraph (b) and specified for it in Table 1 to this section
under the vessel's category of service. A lifeboat that is also a
rescue boat must carry the equipment in the table column marked for a
lifeboat.
* * * * *
(2) Bilge pump. The bilge pump must meet the requirements in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.3 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 199.05)
and must be installed in a ready-to-use condition.
* * * * *
(5) Can opener. A can opener must meet the requirements in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.43 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
199.05). A can opener may be in a jackknife meeting the requirements in
paragraph (b)(16) of this section.
(6) Compass. The compass and its mounting arrangement must meet the
requirements in ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.6 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 199.05).
(i) In a totally enclosed lifeboat, the compass must be permanently
fitted at the steering position; in any other boat it must be provided
with a binnacle, if necessary, to protect it from the weather, and with
suitable mounting arrangements.
(ii) The compass must be tested in accordance with the provisions
in ISO 25862:2009 Annex H (incorporated by
[[Page 62919]]
reference, see Sec. 199.05) by an independent laboratory accepted by
the Coast Guard in accordance with part 159, subpart 159.010, of this
chapter.
* * * * *
(9) Fire extinguisher. The fire extinguisher must be approved under
part 162, subpart 162.028, of this chapter. The fire extinguisher must
have a rating of a 40-B:C. Two 10-B:C extinguishers may be carried in
place of a 40-B:C extinguisher. Extinguishers with larger numerical
ratings or multiple letter designations may be used instead of the
requirements in the preceding sentences.
(10) First-aid kit. Each first-aid kit must meet the requirements
in ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.12 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
199.05).
(i) A first-aid kit may be considered acceptable if it meets all of
the requirements of ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.12, except that it does
not contain the burn preparation. It must be clearly marked on the
first-aid kit that it does not include the burn preparations.
(ii) Medicinal products must be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.
(11) Fishing kit. The fishing kit must meet the requirements in ISO
18813:2006 paragraph 4.13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
199.05).
* * * * *
(13) Hatchet. The hatchet must be suitable for cutting a rope
towline or painter in an emergency and must not require assembly or
unfolding.
(i) The hatchet must be at least 14 inches in length and have a
cutting edge of approximately 3-\1/4\ inches in length, with a hardened
steel or equivalent alloy head.
(ii) The hatchet must be provided a lanyard at least 3 feet in
length.
(iii) The hatchet must be stowed in brackets near the release
mechanism and, if more than one hatchet is carried, the hatchets must
be stowed at opposite ends of the boat.
* * * * *
(16) Jackknife. The jackknife must consist of a one-bladed knife
fitted with a can opener and attached to the boat by its lanyard. The
jackknife must meet the requirements in ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.19
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 199.05).
(17) * * *
(i) The knife for a rigid liferaft must be secured to the raft by a
lanyard and stowed in a pocket on the exterior of the canopy near the
point where the painter is attached to the liferaft. If an approved
jackknife is substituted for the second knife required on a liferaft
equipped for 13 or more persons, the jackknife must also be secured to
the liferaft by a lanyard.
(ii) The knife in an inflatable or rigid-inflatable rescue boat
must be of a type designed to minimize the possibility of damage to the
fabric portions of the hull.
(iii) Any knife may be replaced with a jackknife meeting the
requirements in paragraph (b)(16) of this section.
* * * * *
(19) Mirror. The signalling mirror must meet the requirements in
ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.23 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
199.05).
* * * * *
(27) * * *
(i) The sea anchor for a lifeboat, rescue boat, and rigid liferaft
must meet the requirements in ISO 17339:2018 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 199.05).
* * * * *
(40) Water. The water must meet the requirements in ISO 18813:2006
paragraph 4.46 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 199.05).
(i) The water must meet the U.S. Public Health Service ``Drinking
Water Standards'' in 40 CFR part 141 to suitably protect the container
against corrosion. After treatment and packing, the water must be free
from organic matter, sediment and odor. It must have a pH between 7.0
and 9.0 as determined by means of a standard pH meter using glass
electrodes. Water quality must be verified by the local municipality or
independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard in accordance with
part 159, subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
(ii) Containers of emergency drinking water must be tested in
accordance with the provisions in ISO 18813:2006 by an independent
laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard in accordance with part 159,
subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
(iii) Up to one-third of the emergency drinking water may be
replaced by a desalting apparatus approved under part 160, subpart
160.058, of this chapter that is capable of producing the substituted
amount of water in 2 days.
(iv) Up to two-thirds of the emergency drinking water may be
replaced by a manually powered, reverse osmosis desalinator approved
under part 160, subpart 160.058, of this chapter that is capable of
producing the substituted amount of water in 2 days.
* * * * *
(c) Any Coast Guard approved equipment on board before [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] may remain on board as long as it remains in good
and serviceable condition.
[[Page 62920]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.065
Dated: September 18, 2020.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-21032 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P