
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44129-44140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17653]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

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

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


Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With 
International Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the amendments to Coast Guard regulations 
for certain lifesaving equipment, including launching appliances 
(winches and davits), release mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats, 
inflatable liferafts, and inflatable buoyant apparatus), rescue boats, 
and automatic disengaging devices, which were published as an interim 
rule and amended by a second interim rule. Additionally, it finalizes 
the amendments to the requirements for Coast Guard-approved release 
mechanisms proposed in a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking 
(SNPRM). This final rule harmonizes the Coast Guard's design, 
construction, and performance standards for this lifesaving equipment 
with international standards, while providing for the use of qualified 
independent laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, during the 
approval process and for production inspections of certain types of 
lifesaving equipment.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 29, 2014. The incorporation 
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register on August 29, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email Mr. George Grills, Commercial Regulations and Standards 
Directorate, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and 
Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1385, 
or email TypeApproval@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Discussion of Rule
    A. Background
    B. Discussion of Comments
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
    N. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
IMO LSA Code ``International Life-saving Appliance Code,'' IMO 
Resolution MSC.48(66)

[[Page 44130]]

LSA Life-saving Appliance
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement database
MSC Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime 
Organization
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Revised recommendation on testing ``Revised recommendation on 
testing of life-saving appliances,'' IMO Resolution MSC.81(70)
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as 
amended
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
2010 NPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and 
Harmonization With International Standards,'' August 31, 2010, (75 
FR 53458).
2011 IR ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization 
With International Standards; Interim Rule,'' October 10, 2011, (76 
FR 62962).
2011 SNPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and 
Harmonization with International Standards'' Supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking, October 10, 2011, (76 FR 62714).
2012 IR ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization 
with International Standards'' Interim Rule, February 21, 2012, (77 
FR 9859).
2012 SNPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and 
Harmonization with International Standards'' Supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking, November 26, 2012, (77 FR 70390).

II. Regulatory History

    The complete regulatory history of the Lifesaving Equipment 
rulemaking is summarized in Table 1 below.

                                           Table 1--Rulemaking History
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Document type             Federal Register cite   Date published                Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of proposed rulemaking       75 FR 53458                   8/31/2010  Proposed amendments to regulations
 (2010 NPRM).                                                                 for certain lifesaving equipment.
                                                                              Harmonized the design,
                                                                              construction, and performance
                                                                              standards for this lifesaving
                                                                              equipment with international
                                                                              standards and provided for the use
                                                                              of qualified independent
                                                                              laboratories, instead of Coast
                                                                              Guard inspectors, during the
                                                                              approval process and for
                                                                              production inspections.
Interim Rule (2011 IR)............  76 FR 62962                  10/11/2011  Established the requirements set
                                                                              forth in the 2010 NPRM, and
                                                                              indicated this would be an interim
                                                                              rule because of anticipated
                                                                              forthcoming changes to
                                                                              international standards for
                                                                              release mechanisms.
Supplemental notice of proposed     76 FR 62714                  10/11/2011  Proposed amending the 2011 IR
 rulemaking (2011 SNPRM).                                                     published on the same date to
                                                                              harmonize Coast Guard regulations
                                                                              for inflatable liferafts and
                                                                              inflatable buoyant apparatuses
                                                                              with recently adopted
                                                                              international standards.
Interim Rule Correction...........  76 FR 70062                  11/10/2011  Made four editorial corrections to
                                                                              the 2011 IR.
Interim Rule (2012 IR)............  77 FR 9859                    2/21/2012  Implemented the requirements set
                                                                              forth in the 2011 SNPRM,
                                                                              recognizing that before the 2011
                                                                              IR would become a final rule, an
                                                                              additional SNPRM would be issued
                                                                              to address release mechanisms for
                                                                              lifeboats and rescue boats.
Supplemental notice of proposed     77 FR 70390                  11/26/2012  Proposed amendments to the 2011 IR
 rulemaking (2012 SNPRM).                                                     to harmonize lifeboats and rescue
                                                                              boat release mechanism regulations
                                                                              with recently adopted
                                                                              international standards affecting
                                                                              design, performance, and testing
                                                                              for such lifesaving equipment, and
                                                                              to clarify the requirements
                                                                              concerning grooved drums in
                                                                              launching appliance winches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2010, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and 
Harmonization With International Standards'' (2010 NPRM) to harmonize 
the Coast Guard's requirements for certain lifesaving equipment, 
including launching appliances (winches and davits), release 
mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and 
inflatable buoyant apparatuses), rescue boats, and automatic 
disengaging devices with international design, construction, and 
performance standards, and to expand the use of qualified independent 
laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, in the approval 
process and for production inspections. A complete discussion of these 
changes is available in the NPRM, published August 30, 2010. See 75 FR 
53458, 53460.
    On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim rule 
titled ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization 
With International Standards; Interim Rule'' (2011 IR) making effective 
the changes proposed in the NPRM. See 76 FR 62962. The Coast Guard 
issued that interim rule in anticipation of future amendments to 
international standards from the International Maritime Organization's 
(IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) regarding release mechanisms. A 
complete discussion of the 2011 IR, published October 11, 2011, is also 
available. See 76 FR 62962.
    Concurrently on October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published a 
supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (2011 SNPRM) proposing 
amendments to the portion of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
modified by the 2011 IR regarding inflatable liferafts and inflatable 
buoyant apparatuses. See 76 FR 62714. The 2011 SNPRM proposed 
manufacturers conduct tests on prototype and production liferafts for 
Coast Guard approval under subpart 160.151 (SOLAS liferafts) using the 
new assumed average mass of liferaft occupants (82.5 kg), instead of 
the previous assumed average mass (75 kg), without imposing this 
requirement on liferafts currently in service. On February 21, 2012, 
the Coast Guard published a second interim rule (2012 IR) which made 
amendments to the 2011 IR by making the changes proposed in the 2011 
SNPRM regarding inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses 
effective. See 77 FR 9859. A complete discussion of these changes is 
available in the 2011 SNPRM. See 76 FR 62714. A complete discussion of 
the 2012 IR, published February 21, 2012, is also available. See 77 FR 
9859.
    On November 26, 2012, the Coast Guard published a second SNPRM 
(2012 SNPRM) proposing amendments to the portion of the CFR modified by 
the 2011 IR regarding release mechanisms. See 77 FR 70390. We received 
two public comments to the 2012 SNPRM, which we address below. No 
public meeting was requested and none was held.
    The Coast Guard is making final the 2011 interim rule with some 
changes. The only changes are those made by the 2012 IR, and the 2012 
SNPRM

[[Page 44131]]

amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and 164. The rest of the 2011 IR remains 
the same.

III. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that lifesaving equipment 
used on vessels subject to inspection by the United States meets 
specific design, construction, and performance standards. See 46 U.S.C. 
3306. The Coast Guard carries out this charge through the approval of 
lifesaving equipment per 46 CFR part 2, subpart 2.75. The approval 
process includes pre-approval review of lifesaving equipment designs, 
overseeing prototype construction, witnessing prototype testing, and 
monitoring production of the equipment for use on U.S. vessels. See 46 
CFR part 159. At each phase of the approval process, the Coast Guard 
sets specific standards to which lifesaving equipment must be built and 
tested. Please see the 2010 NPRM for further information on the Coast 
Guard's International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as 
amended, (SOLAS) obligations.

IV. Discussion of Rule

A. Background

    In the 2012 SNPRM, amendments were proposed to the Coast Guard's 
standards for release mechanisms found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 
160.133 to implement current SOLAS requirements for lifeboat release 
mechanisms. The Coast Guard also proposed amendments to subpart 160.115 
to clarify the winch drum design requirements, and also proposed 
technical amendments to correct non-substantive errors in 46 CFR part 
160, subparts 160.133, 160.135, and 160.156, and in 46 CFR part 164.
    Current requirements for lifeboat release mechanisms are the IMO 
standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS. Those IMO standards are 
the ``International Life-saving Appliance Code,'' IMO Resolution 
MSC.48(66), as amended (IMO LSA Code), and the ``Revised recommendation 
on testing of life-saving appliances,'' IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), as 
amended (Revised recommendation on testing). The IMO updates these 
standards by adopting MSC Resolutions which promulgate amendments to 
these standards. The 2011 IR incorporated by reference all MSC 
Resolutions affecting release mechanisms adopted at the time the 2010 
NPRM was published.
    On May 20, 2011, IMO adopted two new MSC Resolutions further 
amending the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing: 
IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), ``Adoption of amendments to the 
International Life-saving Appliance (LSA) Code,'' and IMO Resolution 
MSC.321(89), ``Adoption of amendments to the Revised Recommendation on 
Testing of Life-saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)), as 
amended.''
    Resolution MSC.320(89) amends the design and performance 
requirements for release mechanisms in the IMO LSA Code, which entered 
into force on January 1, 2013. The amendments include specific 
requirements for increased hook stability, corrosion-resistance, and 
additional safety features. Resolution MSC.321(89) specifies revisions 
to the prototype testing of release mechanisms supporting the 
amendments to the IMO LSA Code's Revised recommendation on testing, 
which entered into force on January 1, 2013.
    The Coast Guard proposed in the 2012 SNPRM to revise subpart 
160.133 to incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and 
MSC.321(89). These changes affect release mechanisms approved under 
approval series 160.133, applying new design, performance, and 
prototype testing requirements, as set forth in IMO Resolutions 
MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89). The changes also affect davit-launched 
lifeboats approved under subpart 160.135, and SOLAS rescue boats and 
fast rescue boats approved under subpart 160.156 (other than those 
fitted with automatic release hooks under approval series 160.170). 
These lifeboats and rescue boats are required to have a release 
mechanism approved under subpart 160.133 as revised by this final rule. 
However, davit-launched lifeboats, SOLAS rescue boats, and fast rescue 
boats already installed prior to the implementation of this final rule 
are not affected.
    Beyond the obligations to adopt the changes to the IMO LSA Code and 
Revised recommendation on testing as a signatory to the SOLAS 
convention, the Coast Guard desires to incorporate by reference the 
amendments in IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) because they 
provide higher standards of safety and performance than those of the 
existing requirements incorporated by reference in 46 CFR 160.133-5. 
Further, for manufacturers, harmonization with current international 
standards will facilitate marketing of their products internationally.
    The United States actively participated in the negotiations that 
led to the development of these IMO standards and conducted a series of 
outreach sessions with the public. The Coast Guard considers these IMO 
standards to represent the best available standards for the design and 
performance of release mechanisms. In order to facilitate international 
commerce with other contracting governments to SOLAS that follow IMO 
standards, and to achieve the benefits of the increased safety of 
adhering to these IMO standards, the Coast Guard, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 
3306, considers them to be appropriate for lifeboats and rescue boats 
subject to inspection by the United States.
    A complete discussion of these changes is available in the 2012 
SNPRM. See 77 FR 70390.
    In this final rule, the Coast Guard is making final the 2011 IR 
with some changes. The changes are those made by the 2012 IR, and the 
2012 SNPRM amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and 164. The rest of the 2011 
IR remains the same.

B. Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received two comments in response to the 2012 
SNPRM.
    The first commenter was generally supportive of the suggested 
changes, but noted that the IMO Standardized Life-Saving Appliance 
Evaluation and Test Report Forms published in IMO MSC Circular 980 have 
not been updated since they were originally issued in 2001.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that the standardized IMO forms are 
out of date. However, the forms were developed by the IMO to provide 
guidance on how to conduct the proscribed tests, how to record data, 
and how to report the results, and are within IMO's control to change. 
Use of these forms is not required. It is the responsibility of the 
manufacturer to ensure that the test reports submitted for approval 
appropriately document both the tests performed and the results. 
Therefore, no changes to the 2012 SNPRM were made based on this 
comment.
    The second commenter applauded the Coast Guard's actions to 
harmonize U.S. regulations with international standards, but expressed 
concern that the IMO Resolutions incorporated by reference, 
specifically Resolution MSC.321(89), and the resolution that it amends 
(MSC.81(70)), are written in non-mandatory language. The commenter 
requested clarification on how the Coast Guard will apply the 
provisions of an otherwise non-mandatory document when it is referenced 
in a regulatory requirement.
    The Revised recommendation on testing, as amended by Resolution 
MSC.321(89), sets forth requirements for

[[Page 44132]]

prototype testing of release mechanisms. It is accepted as the best 
available standard to demonstrate compliance with the LSA Code. The 
Coast Guard makes these requirements mandatory by incorporating by 
reference the Revised recommendation on testing and IMO Resolution 
MSC.321(89) into the regulations. Alternative standards or tests to 
demonstrate compliance with the LSA Code may be accepted in accordance 
with 46 CFR 159.005-7(c). The non-mandatory language in these documents 
does not matter for the purposes of Coast Guard regulations, as the 
standards become mandatory when incorporated by reference into Coast 
Guard regulations, as we do in this final rule. Therefore, no changes 
to the 2012 SNPRM were made based on this comment.
    Based on the above discussion of the two comments received, no 
changes were made to the regulatory text proposed in the 2012 SNPRM. 
All comments received on the NPRM and the 2011 SNPRM were addressed in 
the 2011 and 2012 IRs, respectively. See 76 FR 62962 and 77 FR 9859.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 
46 CFR 160.133-5(c)(6) and (c)(7) for incorporation by reference under 
5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available 
from the sources listed in paragraph (a) of that section.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on several of these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies 
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives 
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both 
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of 
promoting flexibility.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) 
of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not 
reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of 
the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on 
industry. A final regulatory assessment follows.
    As this regulatory assessment is based on the regulatory analyses 
contained in the previously published documents and supporting 
documentation for the 2011 IR, the 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM, the 
regulatory assessment below is only a summation of the analyses 
performed in those documents.\1\ A summary of each rulemaking is 
provided here. Those interested in the full analyses contained in those 
documents should refer to them on the docket as indicated in Table 1 of 
this preamble. As all the documents, with the exception of the 2012 
SNPRM, are already effective, the emphasis of the discussion below will 
be on the 2012 SNPRM. As the phases of this rulemaking prior to the 
2012 SNPRM are already effective, and the 2012 SNPRM does not impose 
costs, the final rule also does not impose any new costs. We received 
no additional information from the public or from other sources to 
cause us to modify our estimated costs and benefits for any of these 
phases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2010 NPRM, 2011 SNPRM, 2011 IR and the 2012 SNPRM. The 
2010 NPRM and 2011 SNPRMs also contained regulatory analyses, but as 
the analyses in these documents were the same as those in the 2011 
IR and the 2012 IR, they are not discussed separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the 2011 IR Regulatory Assessment
    The 2011 IR became effective November 10, 2011. As a result, this 
final rule does not add any incremental costs or benefits to that IR. 
This summary of the 2011 IR provides background into the regulatory 
history surrounding the final rule.
    In the 2011 IR, which promulgated the requirements set forth in the 
2010 NPRM, the Coast Guard amended 46 CFR part 160 to harmonize its 
regulations with IMO standards governing certain types of lifesaving 
equipment. The Coast Guard also allowed the use of independent 
laboratories under Coast Guard approval procedures for certain types of 
lifesaving equipment, including requiring the use of independent 
laboratories at certain stages of the approval procedures, instead of 
Coast Guard personnel to perform these inspections and witness these 
tests. We expected that the changes to harmonize existing regulations 
with international standards would have no additional costs for 
manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. In order for their lifesaving 
equipment to be used on vessels for international voyages from any 
nation that is signatory to SOLAS, equipment manufacturers must comply 
with the international standards for lifesaving equipment established 
by SOLAS. We further expected that the 2011 IR reflected existing 
industry practices adopted in response to these international standards 
governing the performance of certain types of lifesaving equipment.
    We expected the changes requiring the use of independent 
laboratories, instead of Coast Guard personnel, would result in 
additional costs for manufacturers of certain types of lifesaving 
equipment. The Coast Guard did not have a regulatory mechanism to 
charge for any step in the approval process for lifesaving equipment. 
The use of independent laboratories required by the 2011 IR created a 
new cost for manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. However, we 
expected that the costs of inspections by independent laboratories 
would be partially offset by an overall reduction in the number of 
inspections, made possible through the coordination of independent 
laboratories. Manufacturers, as a result of the 2011 IR, are able to 
schedule inspections and testing for independent laboratories acting on 
behalf of multiple nations, including the United States, rather than 
requiring separate Coast Guard inspections and testing. This 
coordinated use of independent laboratories avoids multiple inspections 
and testing of the same equipment.
    Data obtained from the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange 
indicated that the population affected by the 2011 IR included eight 
U.S. manufacturers. We estimated the annual costs to manufacturers for 
using independent laboratories was approximately $130,000 for U.S. 
firms, in 2008 dollars. After converting to 2012 dollars, the cost 
comes to $138,597.\2\ Over a 10-year period the nominal non-discounted 
cost is estimated at $1,385,969. The cost is $973,447 when discounted 
at 7 percent, and $1,182,260 when discounted at 3 percent. These 
estimates, along with the annual costs, can be seen in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The deflator used for conversion was the consumer price 
index (all urban consumers), series CUUR0000SA0. This data was 
downloaded on December 12, 2013 from the Bureau of Labor (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost). Data from the ``Annual'' column in 
this table, for 2008 and 2012, was used (215.303 and 229.594). 
Dollars were converted to 2012 instead of 2013 because the 2013 data 
was not available as of the date the calculations were made. Unless 
otherwise stated, all conversions in this regulatory analysis to 
2012 dollars were made using this BLS dataset.

[[Page 44133]]



   Table 2--10-Year Estimated Costs of Inspection and Testing by Third-Party Inspectors to U.S. Manufacturers
                                                 [2012 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Discounted
                              Year                                    Nominal    -------------------------------
                                                                                        7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $138,597        $129,530        $134,560
2...............................................................         138,597         121,056         130,641
3...............................................................         138,597         113,136         126,836
4...............................................................         138,597         105,735         123,142
5...............................................................         138,597          98,818         119,555
6...............................................................         138,597          92,353         116,073
7...............................................................         138,597          86,311         112,692
8...............................................................         138,597          80,665         109,410
9...............................................................         138,597          75,388         106,223
10..............................................................         138,597          70,456         103,129
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       1,385,969         973,447       1,182,260
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................         138,597         138,597         138,597
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other changes stemming from the 2011 IR, not resulting from 
harmonization with international standards or use of independent 
laboratories, updated Coast Guard regulations to reflect current 
industry practice or to incorporate newer versions of existing 
standards, and were determined to have no costs. These included an 
amendment specifying the attachment point for sea anchors to liferafts, 
the addition of a new subpart in 46 CFR part 164 addressing resins used 
in the construction of lifeboats and rescue boats, and incorporating 
the use of equivalent international standards as an alternative to 
national consensus standards.
    The benefits of the 2011 IR included compliance with U.S. 
obligations as a signatory nation to SOLAS, and the removal of 
inconsistencies between international standards and the Coast Guard's 
regulations. In addition, the rule also provided possible savings for 
manufacturers from coordination efficiencies for inspections that were 
not quantified in the IR. It also increased efficiency for the Coast 
Guard by providing flexibility in assigning its human resources, 
particularly those stationed at overseas Coast Guard offices.
    The 2011 IR's provisions relating to third-party inspections have 
already been enacted, and the final rule makes no further modifications 
to these provisions. Therefore, this final rule does not impose new 
costs or benefits.
Summary of the 2012 IR Regulatory Assessment
    The 2012 IR became effective March 22, 2012. As a result, this 
final rule does not add any incremental costs or benefits to that IR. 
This summary of the 2012 IR provides background to the regulatory 
history surrounding the final rule.
    In the 2012 IR, which implemented the requirements set forth in the 
2011 SNPRM, the Coast Guard amended the 2011 IR addressing lifesaving 
equipment to harmonize Coast Guard regulations for inflatable liferafts 
and inflatable buoyant apparatuses with recently adopted international 
standards affecting capacity requirements for such lifesaving 
equipment. Having found no additional information (including public 
comments) that changed our findings in the 2011 SNPRM, we adopted the 
assessment in the 2011 SNPRM for the 2012 IR as final.
    The 2012 IR addressed the change in the international standard for 
occupant weight used in testing equipment to establish the rated 
capacity of inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses by 
revising the occupant weight or ``assumed average occupant mass'' from 
the previous 75 kg (approximately 165 pounds) \3\ to the current weight 
standard of 82.5 kg (approximately 182 pounds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ One kilogram is equal to 2.20462262 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the 2012 IR required manufacturers to conduct prototype and 
production tests for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant 
apparatuses manufactured on or after March 22, 2012, using the new 
occupant weight standard, it limited retesting of currently approved 
equipment manufactured to only liferafts then currently rated for six 
occupants. The 2012 IR did not apply to liferafts currently in service 
aboard U.S. vessels. These were grandfathered in. As a result, no 
vessel incurred replacement costs for liferafts based on the 2012 IR. 
Therefore, only manufacturers were impacted. A summary of changes to 
the baseline testing requirements is shown in Table 3. It should be 
noted that Table 3 only applies to manufacturers of liferafts, not 
vessels carrying liferafts.

[[Page 44134]]



                               Table 3--Summary of Changes to the Baseline Testing Requirements Stemming From the 2012 IR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Existing equipment (approval prior to January    New equipment (approval after January 1,
                                                                                1, 2012)                                        2012)
               Device                     Testing type      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Testing                Impacts                Testing                Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLAS Inflatable Liferafts           Prototype testing.....  Manufacturers must      Units with rated       All tests use the new  Units with rated
 (160.151).                                                   obtain a new            capacity of fewer      occupant weight        capacity of fewer
                                                              Certificate of          than six occupants     standard to            than six occupants
                                                              Approval certifying     are ineligible for     establish occupancy    are ineligible for
                                                              rated occupancy using   SOLAS service. Costs   rating. Costs of       SOLAS service.
                                                              the new occupant        of testing unchanged   testing unchanged as
                                                              weight standard.        as nature of the       nature of the test
                                                              Manufacturers may       test is unchanged.     is unchanged.
                                                              either retest or have
                                                              a certification made
                                                              using previous test
                                                              results adjusted for
                                                              the new occupant
                                                              weight standard.
                                     Production Testing....  All tests use the new   Costs of testing       All tests use the new  Costs of testing
                                                              weight standard to      unchanged as nature    occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              establish occupancy     of the test is         standard to            of the test is
                                                              rating.                 unchanged.             establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                                             rating.
Non-SOLAS Inflatable Liferafts       Prototype testing.....  Existing Certificates   No cost or benefit as  All tests use the new  Costs of testing
 (160.051).                                                   of Approval may be      the use of the new     occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              renewed without         occupant weight        standard to            of the test is
                                                              retesting.              standard is optional.  establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                                             rating.
                                                            -----------------------------------------------
                                     Production Testing....  No cost or benefit. The use of the new         All tests use the new  Costs of testing
                                                              occupant weight standard is optional for       occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              equipment manufactured under an existing       standard to            of the test is
                                                              Certificate of Approval.                       establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                                             rating.
                                                            -----------------------------------------------
Inflatable Buoyant Apparatus         Prototype testing.....  Existing Certificates   No cost or benefit as  All tests use the new  Costs of testing
 (160.010).                                                   of Approval may be      the use of the new     occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              renewed without         occupant weight        standard to            of the test is
                                                              retesting.              standard is optional.  establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                                             rating.
                                                            -----------------------------------------------
                                     Production Testing....  No cost or benefit. The use of the new         All tests use the new  Costs of testing
                                                              occupant weight standard is optional for       occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              equipment manufactured under an existing       standard to            of the test is
                                                              Certificate of Approval.                       establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                                             rating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 3, manufacturers of SOLAS inflatable liferafts 
approved under subpart 160.151 and manufactured on or after March 22, 
2012, were allowed the option of either retesting using the new 
occupant weight standard or requesting certification for a lower rated 
occupancy (adjusted for the new occupant weight standard) based on the 
certification testing submitted for their current approval.
    We expected that the principal cost impact for manufacturers of 
SOLAS liferafts would be for currently approved inflatable liferafts 
whose rated capacity is six occupants using the current weight standard 
of 75 kg. Since SOLAS requires that inflatable liferafts have a minimum 
capacity of six occupants, any SOLAS liferaft currently approved for 
six occupants had to be retested under the new occupant weight standard 
in order to retain approval.
    We indicated in the 2012 IR that there were three U.S. 
manufacturers of in-scope liferafts. These three firms manufactured a 
total of five different models of liferafts with three of the models 
having a capacity of six occupants. See Table 4. U.S. firms that 
manufactured liferafts with a capacity of six occupants were assumed to 
retest their liferafts in order to maintain their SOLAS certification. 
From data obtained from industry and used in the 2012 IR, we estimated 
the costs of retesting for compliance with the new occupant weight 
standard at $1,800 for each model.
    We estimated the total cost to industry to retest all current SOLAS 
liferaft models manufactured by U.S. firms to be $5,400. This figure is 
in 2011 dollars. See Table 4. We show the converted 2011 dollars to 
2012 dollars in Table 5. This cost was only incurred once, when the 
2012 IR was implemented. There were no requirements to test in 
subsequent years. Therefore, in terms of the overall cost of the 2012 
IR, we expected that there were no additional costs, other than those 
identified in Tables 4 and 5.

[[Page 44135]]



                                       Table 4--SOLAS Liferafts; Costs To Retest From the 2012 IR, in 2011 Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total number of
                                                                               Total number of       models of        Cost to retest
                       Manufacturer                            Number of          models of      liferaft produced      each SOLAS       Total cost to
                                                             manufacturers    liferaft produced  with an occupancy       liferaft            retest
                                                                                                   rating of six
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. owned Total.........................................                 3                  5                  3             $1,800             $5,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 5--SOLAS Liferafts; Costs To Retest From the 2012 IR, in 2012 Dollars, for U.S. Manufacturers Producing
                                                 SOLAS Liferafts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total number of
                                       Total number of       models of
                                          models of          liferafts        Cost-to retest     Total cost to
 Number of U.S. owned manufacturers        lifeboat       produced with an      each SOLAS           retest
                                         manufactured     occupancy rating       liferaft
                                                               of six
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...................................                 5                  3             $1,876             $5,513
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal benefit of the 2012 IR was the protection of life at 
sea by establishing capacity standards for inflatable liferafts and 
inflatable buoyant apparatuses, reflecting a global increase in mariner 
weights. Additionally, the 2012 IR ensured compliance with 
internationally applicable standards for SOLAS and adopted by the IMO.
    This final rule does not change the requirements in the 2012 IR 
discussed above, and it does not add additional costs or benefits 
related to the 2012 IR.
Summary of the 2012 SNPRM Regulatory Assessment
    The 2012 SNPRM proposed amendments to the regulations promulgated 
by the 2011 IR concerning release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue 
boats with recently adopted international standards affecting design, 
performance, and testing for such lifesaving equipment. It also 
proposed to clarify the requirements concerning grooved drums in 
launching appliance winches. The 2012 SNPRM had three components that 
could potentially have cost impacts. The first component involved 
amendments made to the IMO LSA Code by the IMO MSC regarding release 
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats. The second component was a 
rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with respect to the 
acceptance of non-grooved winch drums as an alternative to grooved 
drums on launching appliance winches. The third component dealt with 
the need for applications for pre-approval review for Certificates of 
Approval.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These pre-approval reviews are in accordance with 160.133-
23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first component, the set of amendments made by the IMO's MSC to 
design, performance and testing requirements for release mechanisms, 
incorporated into the CFR, impacted one U.S. manufacturer of release 
mechanisms. That one manufacturer had to design, manufacture and test a 
release mechanism that fulfilled these new amendments. However, that 
single manufacturer designed, tested, and began to manufacture, market 
and sell release mechanisms that fulfilled the new requirements before 
the 2012 SNPRM became effective on January 1, 2013.\5\ The manufacturer 
did this independently of the Coast Guard's implementation of the 2012 
SNPRM.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the 
manufacturer.
    \6\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the 
manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we had assumed the Coast Guard had promulgated the 2012 SNPRM in 
the absence of an IMO amendment, there would have been a cost. The 
single U.S. manufacturer would have experienced fixed testing and 
design costs that it would not otherwise have incurred.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Based on telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and 
the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second component, the rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115-
7(b)(5)(i), had no impact on the design, manufacturing or testing of 
release mechanism, or on any process involving government approval. The 
rewording only was intended to make it clear to the public that non-
grooved winch drums were acceptable as well as grooved winch drums. 
This wording clarified the Coast Guard's previous practice of accepting 
both.
    The third component was a requirement for manufacturers to provide 
the Coast Guard with an application for pre-approval review for 
certificates of approval for the new release mechanisms. However, as 
already stated in this preamble, the single U.S. manufacturer phased in 
production of release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO 
requirements prior to January 1, 2013, and independently of whether the 
Coast Guard put forth the requirements in the 2012 SNPRM.\8\ As the 
introduction of a new release mechanism would have required, regardless 
of its specifications, the completion of such paperwork, the cost was 
already incurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The manufacturer told the Coast Guard this in a phone 
conversation in June of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The incorporation of the IMO's new amendments to the LSA Code into 
the CFR harmonized U.S. standards with the IMO's standards. This 
harmonization was necessary for two reasons. First, it was needed for 
the United States to comply with its treaty obligations as a signatory 
to SOLAS. By harmonizing Coast Guard requirements for release 
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats, the United States now has 
the same requirements as the international standards established by the 
IMO LSA Code. Secondly, the harmonization was necessary to clarify 
requirements and remove inconsistencies between the requirements for 
SOLAS compliance and parts of Title 46 that regulate release mechanisms 
on lifeboats and rescue boats.
    One benefit of U.S. harmonization with international standards is 
that it allows the domestic manufacturer, as well as any future 
manufacturers, of in-scope equipment to sell the equipment on the 
international market and to do so in a more efficient manner. Adoption 
of the international standards, and Coast Guard inspection and 
certification of the equipment in line with those standards,

[[Page 44136]]

enables domestic manufacturers to enter foreign markets and to sell 
more effectively as a result of the Coast Guard certification they 
obtain.
    Harmonization also enables vessels with the in-scope equipment to 
operate in international waters and ports without fear of detention or 
fines. Without the adoption of the international standards, these 
vessels would be in violation of IMO requirements. There are 170 
members \9\ of the IMO. As member-nations of the IMO normally adopt IMO 
requirements into their own legal maritime codes, vessels with in-scope 
equipment would be able to operate in a large number of nations without 
fear of legal repercussions and the implied fines and loss of revenue 
stemming from associated delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ According to the official IMO's Web site, on March 14, 2014, 
the IMO had 170 members and three associate members (http://www.imo.org/About/Membership/Pages/Default.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 SNPRM could also have affected U.S. vessel owners or 
operators of U.S. vessels that were required to carry lifeboats and/or 
rescue boats, which would need to be equipped with release mechanisms 
that fulfilled the new requirements. However, only those release 
mechanisms purchased after January 1, 2013, would need to be replaced. 
If release mechanisms meeting both the pre-2012 SNPRM and post-2012 
SNPRM requirements were available, the Coast Guard assumes vessel 
owners or operators would purchase the less expensive of the two, which 
were those mechanisms that met the pre-2012 SNRPM requirements (i.e., 
pre-January 1, 2013). As stated above, however, the one U.S.-based 
supplier of in-scope, galvanized steel release mechanisms stopped 
manufacturing them and began manufacturing and selling release 
mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO LSA Code amendments proposed in 
the 2012 SNPRM. This U.S. manufacturer was the only manufacturer of 
galvanized steel (or its regulatory equivalent) in the world.\10\ 
Therefore, the galvanized steel mechanisms (or their regulatory 
equivalent) would no longer be available for purchase after the single 
U.S. manufacturer stopped producing them. Only the non-galvanized, 
corrosion resistant mechanisms that were in compliance with the IMO 
requirements would be available after January 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Based on telephone discussions with numerous distributors 
and manufacturers of release mechanisms in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 SNPRM is adopted without change in this final rule. The 
Coast Guard does not expect a change in the benefits or costs between 
the 2012 SNPRM and this final rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ There were no public comments received, or other 
information found, that implied any changes were needed in the 2012 
SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summation of the Costs and Benefits of the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and 2012 
SNPRM
    As stated previously, the 2011 and 2012 IRs have already been 
implemented. The 2012 SNPRM had no quantifiable costs or benefits and 
is being implemented in this final rule with no additional changes 
being made that may impact either costs or benefits. Thus, this final 
rule has no incremental costs or benefits associated with it. The 
aggregate costs and benefits of the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 
SNPRM are only being presented to provide the reader with perspective 
on the previous rulemakings.
    This section aggregates the monetized costs and qualitative 
benefits relating to the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM. The 
costs and benefits are each aggregated in Tables 6 and 7. In Table 6, 
we aggregate the total nominal 10-year costs at $1,391,482. Discounted, 
at 7 percent, the 10-year total came to $978,599 ($139,331 on an 
annualized basis) and, at 3 percent, to $1,187,612 ($139,224 on an 
annualized basis). The 2012 SNPRM had no monetized costs, and it is not 
included in the table.
    It should be stressed that this final rule does not add additional 
costs to those already established by the previous phases of this 
rulemaking. Additionally, we received no public comments or other 
information suggesting any change was required.

                                                                Table 6--Monetized Costs
                                                                     [2012 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2011 IR                                2012 IR                                 Total
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Estimated annual cost inspection and  Costs to U.S. manufacturers producing                      Discounted
                                     testing by third-party inspectors for   in-scope liferafts with the capacity              -------------------------
                Year                           U.S. manufacturers               of holding only six passengers
                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Nominal
                                                         Discounted                             Discounted                           7%           3%
                                       Nominal   --------------------------   Nominal   --------------------------
                                                       7%           3%                        7%           3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................     $138,597     $129,530     $134,560       $5,513       $5,152       $5,352     $144,110     $134,682     $139,913
2..................................      138,597      121,056      130,641            0            0            0      138,597      121,056      130,641
3..................................      138,597      113,136      126,836            0            0            0      138,597      113,136      126,836
4..................................      138,597      105,735      123,142            0            0            0      138,597      105,735      123,142
5..................................      138,597       98,818      119,555            0            0            0      138,597       98,818      119,555
6..................................      138,597       92,353      116,073            0            0            0      138,597       92,353      116,073
7..................................      138,597       86,311      112,692            0            0            0      138,597       86,311      112,692
8..................................      138,597       80,665      109,410            0            0            0      138,597       80,665      109,410
9..................................      138,597       75,388      106,223            0            0            0      138,597       75,388      106,223
10.................................      138,597       70,456      103,129            0            0            0      138,597       70,456      103,129
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................    1,385,969      973,447    1,182,260        5,513        5,152        5,352    1,391,482      978,599    1,187,612
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized.....................      138,597      138,597      138,597          551          734          627      139,148      139,331      139,224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM are 
summarized in Table 7. The final rule does not change any of the 
amendments discussed above relating to benefits, nor does it add or 
delete any benefits. Therefore, the final rule will not change the 
benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR and 2012 SNPRM.

[[Page 44137]]



                            Table 7--Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Benefits (qualitative)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 IR.......................  Harmonization of domestic and
                                 international standards will lead to--
                                   * The implementation of the
                                    regulation has led to the
                                    requirement for one homogeneous
                                    standard that replaces the more
                                    numerous standards being used
                                    domestically. This leads to reduced
                                    transaction costs due to the fact
                                    that there are fewer standards to
                                    follow.
                                   * Increased market size, and
                                    economies of scale, to manufacturers
                                    that will lead to lower costs in
                                    terms of investment that is fixed in
                                    manufacturing, research and
                                    development, marketing, and other
                                    fixed variables.
                                   * Common international standards also
                                    encourage new entrants into the
                                    market by reducing the barriers to
                                    entry encountered in markets
                                    fragmented by different standards.
                                   * Enabling the U.S. to fulfill its
                                    obligations as a signatory party to
                                    SOLAS.
                                New placement of anchor requirements
                                 will lead to--
                                   * Potentially fewer personnel
                                    casualties.
                                   * Updating and replacing some
                                    standards for fire retardant resins
                                    incorporated by reference in 46 CFR
                                    160.035(b) into a separate subpart,
                                    46 CFR subpart 164.017.
                                Possibly reduced costs of manufacturing
                                 and inventories because the adoption of
                                 international standards means the need
                                 for fewer models of in-scope equipment
                                 for both domestic and international
                                 markets.
                                The use of independent laboratories
                                 instead of Coast Guard personnel will
                                 lead to--
                                   * Manufacturers will have greater
                                    flexibility over when they can
                                    arrange inspections.
                                   * Enables the Coast Guard to
                                    concentrate on fulfilling its
                                    lifesaving and environmental
                                    stewardship functions.
2012 IR.......................  Higher weight testing standards lead to--
 
                                   * Possibly fewer personnel casualties
                                    and less property damage.
                                   * Enabling the U.S. to fulfill its
                                    obligations as a signatory party to
                                    SOLAS.
2012 SNPRM....................  Adoption of new IMO LSA design,
                                 construction and testing standards
                                 leads to--
                                   * Potentially fewer accidents, and
                                    therefore few personnel casualties
                                    and less property damage.
                                Added wording on Coast Guard's
                                 acceptance of non-grooved drums as
                                 alternative to grooved drums on
                                 launching appliance winches is expected
                                 to--
                                   * Reduce uncertainty for both
                                    manufacturers and consumers. This,
                                    in turn, leads to more confidence in
                                    purchasing the appropriate in-scope
                                    equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    A brief summary of the analyses performed for the 2011 IR, 2012 IR 
and 2012 SNPRM for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is 
provided below. Each of these analyses is discussed separately in its 
own section. The discussions are only intended as a brief synopsis. In-
depth analysis can be found on the docket.
2011 IR
    As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2011 IR'' in Section VII.A of 
this preamble, we determined that six of the eight U.S. firms 
manufacturing in-scope lifesaving equipment were classified as small 
entities under the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. 
We estimated the annual costs to use independent laboratories was less 
than 0.5 percent of annual revenue for five of the six small entities, 
and less than 1.25 percent of annual revenue for the other. However, 
these estimates do not include adjustments for manufacturer savings 
from the coordinated use of independent laboratories, which would avoid 
multiple inspections and tests of the same equipment. This adjustment 
could not be made, as there was no data on which to base an estimate, 
but its omission should only serve to inflate costs. Based on available 
information, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the 
2011 IR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
2012 IR
    As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2012 IR'' in Section VII.A of 
this preamble, the 2012 IR identified only one material cost, and that 
was associated with testing three different inflatable liferafts that 
had the capacity to hold exactly six passengers in order to determine 
if they could meet the new weight standards of 82.5 kg instead of 75 
kg. This cost was estimated at $1,876 \12\ per model. There were a 
total of three in-scope models being produced, so the total industry 
cost was estimated at $5,513. This cost was only incurred in the first 
year of the implementation of the 2012 IR. No further testing would be 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In 2012 dollar terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard identified three manufacturers that could be 
considered small entities according to SBA small business 
requirements.\13\ For two of these companies, revenue data were not 
available. For the third, the revenues were $20 million per year.\14\ 
The 2012 IR's costs came to 0.027 percent of total annual revenue.\15\ 
Based on this information, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 
605(b) that the 2012 IR would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 2011 SNPRM. 76 FR 62714, page 62719.
    \14\ Data was not available in 2010 when the search was 
originally conducted. In December 2013 another search was conducted 
for the same two companies' revenue in MANTA but the data was also 
not available at that time.
    \15\ Total costs were estimated at $5,513 over the entire 10 
year period. Total revenue was at least $20 million for the most 
recent available year. Thus the cost/revenue ratio was 
conservatively estimated at 0.027%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2012 SNPRM
    As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2012 SNPRM Regulatory 
Assessment'' in Section VII.A of this preamble, there were no costs 
estimated as a result of the implementation of the 2012 SNPRM. The 
single U.S. manufacturing firm that produced the in-scope release 
mechanisms had stopped manufacturing the release mechanisms that 
fulfilled older IMO requirements and began manufacturing only those 
release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO requirements prior to 
January 1, 2013 (the date the new IMO requirements took effect). Only 
those release mechanisms that fulfill the IMO requirements are 
available on the

[[Page 44138]]

market. The manufacturer made this change prior to the publication of 
the 2012 SNPRM and independently of whether or not the Coast Guard 
would have implemented the 2012 SNPRM.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the 
manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
Final Rule
    The final rule does not amend the 2011 IR, 2012 IR or 2012 SNPRM in 
any manner that may add costs and does not add any new requirements 
that we find to add costs. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard 
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain 
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have 
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 
13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled 
that all of the categories covered for inspected vessels in 46 U.S.C. 
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, 
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning 
of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other 
category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole 
source of a vessel's obligations are within fields foreclosed from 
regulation by the States. (See the Supreme Court's decision in United 
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 
(March 6, 2000).)
    This rule amends regulations that establish the approval process 
for lifesaving equipment designs, oversight of prototype construction, 
prototype testing, and production monitoring of equipment for use on 
U.S. vessels. As these regulations are promulgated under the authority 
of 46 U.S.C. 3306, they fall within fields foreclosed from regulation 
by State or local governments. Therefore, this final rule is consistent 
with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements 
described in E.O. 13132.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in 
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 
in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'').

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of E.O. 12988 (``Civil Justice Reform'') to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''). This rule 
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use''). We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy 
action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the 
Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
not designated it as a significant energy action.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a 
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides 
Congress, through the OMB, with an explanation of why using these 
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; 
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule uses technical standards other than voluntary consensus 
standards:
     International Life-Saving Appliance Code, (IMO Resolution 
MSC.48(66)), as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.320(89);
     IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), Revised recommendation on 
testing of life-saving appliances, as amended by IMO Resolution 
MSC.321(89).

[[Page 44139]]

    The sections that reference these standards, and the locations 
where these standards are available, are listed in 46 CFR 160.133-5. 
They are used because we did not find voluntary consensus standards 
that are applicable to this rule.
    Additionally, this rule finalizes technical standards, some of 
which are voluntary consensus standards, which were addressed in the 
2011 and 2012 IRs. Please see 76 FR 62962 and 77 FR 9859 for 
information on these standards.

M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))

    Section 608 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 
111-281) adds new section 2118 to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and 
Seamen), Chapter 21 (General). New section 2118(a) sets forth 
requirements for standards established for approved equipment required 
on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Part 
B (Inspection and Regulation of Vessels). Those standards must be ``(1) 
based on performance using the best available technology that is 
economically achievable; and (2) operationally practical.'' See 46 
U.S.C. 2118(a). This rule addresses lifesaving equipment for Coast 
Guard approval that is required on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. 
Subtitle II, Part B, and the Coast Guard has ensured that this rule 
would satisfy the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 2118(a), as necessary.

N. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this 
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This 
rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, 
paragraph (34)(a), (d) and (e) and under section 6a of the ``Appendix 
to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for 
Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR 48244, 
July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations which are editorial, 
regulations concerning equipping of vessels, regulations concerning 
equipment approval and carriage requirements, and regulations 
concerning vessel operation safety standards. An environmental analysis 
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in 
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 160

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

46 CFR Part 164

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard adopts 
the interim rule amending 46 CFR parts 108, 117, 133, 160, 164, 180, 
and 199, which published at 76 FR 62962 on October 11, 2011, as a final 
rule without change, except as amended by the interim rule published at 
77 FR 9859 on February 12, 2012, with the following changes:

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 160 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703 and 4302; E.O. 12234; 45 
FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Subpart 160.115--Launching Appliances--Winches

0
2. Amend Sec.  160.115-7 by revising paragraph (b)(5)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  160.115-7  Design, construction, and performance of winches.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Winch drums must either be grooved or otherwise designed to 
wind the falls evenly on and off each drum.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  160.115-13 by adding paragraph (d)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  160.115-13  Approval instructions and tests for prototype 
winches.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Winch drum. Each winch designed without grooved drums must 
demonstrate during prototype testing that the falls wind evenly on and 
off each drum.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend the heading of Subpart 160.133 to read as follows:

Subpart 160.133--Release Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats


Sec.  160.133-3  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  160.133-3, in the introductory text, after the words ``IMO 
LSA Code'', add the words ``, as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89)''.

0
6. Amend Sec.  160.133-5 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6) as 
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), respectively;
0
c. In paragraph (c)(2), after the words ``pages 7-71'', remove the 
words ``(``IMO LSA Code'')'', and after the words ``and 160.133-7'' add 
the words ``(``IMO LSA Code'')'';
0
d. In paragraph (c)(3), after the words ``Revised recommendation on 
testing of'', remove the words ``live-saving'' and add, in their place, 
the words ``life-saving'', and after the words ``pages 79-254'', remove 
the words ``(``IMO Revised recommendation on testing'')''; and
0
e. Add paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  160.133-5  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) Annex 4 to MSC 89/25, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee 
on its Eighty-Ninth Session, ``Resolution MSC.320(89), Adoption of 
Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code,'' 
(adopted May 20, 2011), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  160.133-3, 160.133-
5(c)(6), 160.133-7(d)(1), 160.133-7(b)(8), and 160.133-7(b)(9) 
(``Resolution MSC.320(89)'').
    (7) Annex 5 to MSC 89/25, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee 
on its Eighty-Ninth Session, ``Resolution MSC.321(89), Adoption of 
Amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving 
Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)),'' (adopted May 20, 2011), IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  160.133-5(c)(7), 160.133-7(a)(2), and 160.133-
13(d)(2) (``Resolution MSC.321(89)'').

0
7. Amend Sec.  160.133-7 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), after the words ``IMO LSA Code,'' add the words 
``as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2), after the words ``IMO Revised recommendation on 
testing,'' add the words ``as amended by Resolution MSC.321(89),'';
0
c. Revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as set forth below;
0
d. In paragraph (b)(8), after the words ``required by'', add the word 
``IMO'', and after the words ``LSA Code'', add

[[Page 44140]]

the words ``, as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
0
e. In paragraph (b)(9), after the words ``required by'', add the word 
``IMO'', and after the words ``LSA Code'', add the words ``, as amended 
by Resolution MSC.320(89),''; and
0
f. Remove paragraph (b)(15).


Sec.  160.133-7  Design, construction, and performance of release 
mechanisms.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Steel. Each major structural component of each release 
mechanism must be constructed of corrosion-resistant steel. Corrosion-
resistant steel must be a type 302 stainless steel per ASTM A 276, ASTM 
A 313 or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.133-5 of 
this subpart). Other corrosion-resistant materials may be used if 
accepted by the Commandant as having equivalent or superior corrosion-
resistant characteristics;
* * * * *


Sec.  160.133-13  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  160.133-13 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text, after the words ``tests 
described in IMO Revised recommendation on testing,'' add the words 
``as amended by Resolution MSC.321(89),'' and after the words ``with 
these paragraphs of IMO Revised recommendation on testing,'' add the 
words ``as amended by Resolution MSC.321(89),'';
0
b. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(iii); and
0
c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v), and (d)(2)(vi) as 
paragraphs (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), and (d)(2)(v), respectively.


Sec.  160.133-15  [Amended]

0
9. Amend Sec.  160.133-15(e) by removing the last two sentences.

0
10. Amend the heading of Subpart 160.135 to read as follows:

Subpart 160.135--Lifeboats


Sec.  160.135-5  [Amended]

0
11. Amend Sec.  160.135-5(d)(4) by removing the word ``and'' and 
adding, in its place, the punctuation ``,'', and, after the numbers 
``160.135-13'', adding the words ``, and 160.135-15''.

0
12. Amend Sec.  160.135-15 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d), remove the reference ``(e)(2)'' and add, in its 
place, the reference ``(e)'';
0
b. In paragraph (e)(1)(iv), remove the reference ``Sec.  160.135-
13(c)(2)(i)(B)'' and add, in its place, the reference ``Sec.  160.135-
11(c)(2)(i)(B)''; and
0
c. Revise paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  160.135-15  Production inspections, tests, quality control, and 
conformance of lifeboats.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Post assembly tests and inspections. The finished lifeboat must 
be visually inspected inside and out. The manufacturer must develop and 
maintain a visual inspection checklist designed to ensure that all 
applicable requirements have been met and the lifeboat is equipped in 
accordance with approved plans. Each production lifeboat of each design 
must pass each of the tests described in the IMO Revised recommendation 
on testing, part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
160.135-5 of this subpart).


Sec.  160.156-5  [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  160.156-5(d)(4) by removing the word ``and'' and 
adding, in its place, the punctuation ``,'', and, after the numbers 
``160.156-13'', adding the words ``, and 160.156-15''.


Sec.  160.156-7  [Amended]

0
14. Amend Sec.  160.156-7(b)(13) by removing the word ``lifeboat'' and 
adding, in its place, the words ``rescue boat''.


Sec.  160.156-9  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  160.156-9 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(22)(iv), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add, in 
its place, the words ``rescue boat''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add, in its 
place, the words ``rescue boat''.

0
16. Amend Sec.  160.156-15 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, remove the words ``In 
accordance with the interval prescribed in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section, each'' and add, in their place, the word ``Each''; and
0
b. Revise paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  160.156-15  Production inspections, tests, quality control, and 
conformance of rescue boats and fast rescue boats.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Post assembly tests and inspections. The finished rescue boat 
must be visually inspected inside and out. The manufacturer must 
develop and maintain a visual inspection checklist designed to ensure 
that all applicable requirements have been met and the rescue boat is 
equipped in accordance with approved plans. Each production rescue boat 
of each design must pass each of the tests described in the IMO Revised 
recommendation on testing, part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  160.156-5 of this subpart).

PART 164--MATERIALS

0
17. The authority citation for part 164 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    Dated: July 22, 2014.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-17653 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


