
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40437-40468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14399]



[[Page 40437]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 119

June 21, 2016

Part III





Department of Homeland Security





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





 Coast Guard





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





46 CFR Part 28





Commercial Fishing Vessels--Implementation of 2010 and 2012 
Legislation; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 40438]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 28

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0025]
RIN 1625-AB85


Commercial Fishing Vessels--Implementation of 2010 and 2012 
Legislation

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to align its commercial fishing 
industry vessel regulations with the mandatory provisions of 2010 and 
2012 legislation passed by Congress that took effect upon enactment. 
The alignments would change the applicability of current regulations, 
and add new requirements for safety equipment, vessel examinations, 
vessel safety standards, the documentation of maintenance, and the 
termination of unsafe operations. This rule only proposes to implement 
these legislative mandates, would exercise no Coast Guard regulatory 
discretion, and would promote the Coast Guard's maritime safety 
mission. It does not reflect any provision of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2015, but the preamble to this document discusses 
its likely impact where appropriate. That Act will be the subject of 
future Coast Guard regulatory action.

DATES: Comments and related material must be submitted to the online 
docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management 
Facility, on or before September 19, 2016. Comments sent to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed collection of 
information must reach OMB on or before September 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0025 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://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. You must submit comments on the 
collection of information discussed in section VII.D of this preamble 
both to the Coast Guard's docket and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and 
Budget. OIRA submissions can use one of the listed methods.
     Email (preferred)_oira_submission@omb.eop.gov (include 
the docket number and ``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS'' 
in the subject line of the email).
     Fax--202-395-6566.
     Mail--Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 
ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. 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 Jack Kemerer, Chief, Fishing Vessels Division (CG-CVC-3), 
Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC), Coast Guard; telephone 
202-372-1249, email Jack.A.Kemerer@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Executive Summary
IV. Background Basis, and Purpose
V. Discussion of Comments on 2008 ANPRM
VI. Discussion of CGAA and CGMTA Mandates and the Proposed Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Comments

    We view 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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate 
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public 
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and 
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, 
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will 
be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the 
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal 
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal 
Register (70 FR 15086).
    We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider 
doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We 
would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, 
time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

APA Administrative Procedure Act
CFV Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels
CGAA Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010
CGMTA Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EPIRBs Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons
FR Federal Register
GPS Global Positioning System
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
PFD Personal Flotation Device
Pub. L. Public Law
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Executive Summary

    This rule proposes to implement statutory requirements enacted by 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (CGAA) \1\ and the Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (CGMTA).\2\ Both Acts 
contain provisions affecting those commercial fishing industry vessels 
(CFVs) that do not require Coast Guard inspection and certification. 
With respect to the CGAA, Congress intended the new requirements to 
help improve the safety

[[Page 40439]]

of an industry that experiences vessel losses and crew deaths.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905, Title VI.
    \2\ Pub. L. 112-213, 126 Stat. 1540.
    \3\ See H.R. Rep. No. 111-303, pt. 1, at 93 (accompanying H.R. 
3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010): ``The [marine 
safety title] of H.R. 3619 contains a variety of provisions intended 
to strengthen the Coast Guard's implementation of its marine safety 
functions. These provisions will ensure that the Coast Guard 
maintains a marine safety program that prevents casualties from 
occurring, minimizes the effect of the casualty, and maximizes lives 
saved, if a vessel must be abandoned. Commercial fishing is the most 
hazardous occupation in the United States according to the 
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics . . .''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule is authorized by the CGAA and the CGMTA, and by 
rulemaking authority delegated to the Coast Guard by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security.\4\ The need for this rule exists because current 
Coast Guard CFV regulations are based on statutes that the CGAA and 
CGMTA changed significantly. If the regulations do not align with the 
CGAA and CGMTA, there is no way for commercial fishermen or the general 
public to clearly understand what they must do to comply with the CGAA 
and CGMTA requirements. Without these proposed changes, Coast Guard 
regulations would be inconsistent with the CGAA and CGMTA, leading to 
confusion and uncertainty, particularly with regard to the Coast 
Guard's enforcement authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 
II, (92.b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CGAA and CGMTA mandated action with respect to the following 
topics:
     Vessel parity;
     Substitution of baseline for Boundary Line criteria;
     Survival craft;
     Records;
     Vessel examinations;
     Training;
     Construction standards for smaller vessels;
     Load lines;
     Classing of vessels;
     Termination of unsafe operations; and
     Miscellaneous.
    This rule only proposes to take regulatory action on those topics 
listed above where the statutory mandate took effect upon enactment of 
the CGAA in October 2010 and the CGMTA in December 2012, and can be 
incorporated in Coast Guard CFV regulations without the exercise of any 
Coast Guard discretion. Other CGAA and CGMTA provisions relating to 
CFVs with later effective dates and those that require exercise of 
Coast Guard discretion may be the subject of future Coast Guard 
rulemakings. The proposed rule does not reflect any provision of the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015. That Act will be the subject of 
future Coast Guard regulatory action.
    Vessel parity. Some statutory provisions with respect to special 
equipment requirements apply only to the subset of CFVs that operate 
beyond U.S. Boundary Lines (which, as subsequently discussed, the CGAA 
changed to beyond 3 nautical miles from the U.S. territorial sea 
baseline), or with more than 16 persons onboard, or that are Aleutian 
Trade fish tender vessels. These CFVs are subject to special Coast 
Guard regulatory requirements set forth in 46 CFR part 28, subpart C, 
and are referred to throughout this preamble as ``subpart C CFVs''. 
Until enactment of the CGAA, only Federally documented CFVs were 
required to comply with the special equipment requirements; \5\ the 
(typically) smaller CFVs that require only State registration were 
excluded. The CGAA required uniform safety standards and equipment 
requirements for all CFVs (whether documented or undocumented) that 
operate beyond 3 nautical miles of the baseline of the territorial sea 
or the coastline of the Great Lakes. This rule proposes to implement 
the CGAA by revising subpart C to reflect that change in applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 46 CFR 67.7 for what constitutes a documented vessel: 
``Any vessel of at least five net tons which engages in the 
fisheries on the navigable waters of the United States or in the 
Exclusive Economic Zone, or coastwise trade, unless exempt under 
Sec.  67.9(c), must have a Certificate of Documentation bearing a 
valid endorsement appropriate for the activity in which engaged.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some existing subpart C regulatory requirements are the result of 
prior Coast Guard discretionary determinations that the requirement is 
necessary for the safety of the documented CFVs to which subpart C 
formerly was restricted. The Coast Guard declines to extend those same 
requirements to undocumented CFVs because the proposed rule focuses 
exclusively on CGAA and CGMTA mandates, and the Coast Guard is not 
using any discretionary authority which would be required in order to 
make such a determination. The proposed rule would amend subpart C to 
clarify that, at least for now, the proposed changes would apply only 
to documented subpart C CFVs.
    Substitution of baseline for Boundary Line criteria. Special 
statutory provisions involving safety standards apply to the subset of 
CFVs that operate relatively far from shore, or with more than 16 
persons onboard, or that are Aleutian Trade fish tender vessels. 
Formerly, the relevant distance from shore was defined as ``beyond the 
Boundary Line.'' The location of the Boundary Line is set by Coast 
Guard regulation and varies by distance from the coastline around the 
country. The CGAA redefined the relevant distance as ``beyond 3 
nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea of the 
United States is measured or beyond 3 nautical miles from the coastline 
of the Great Lakes,'' and this rule proposes to align regulatory 
language accordingly.
    Survival craft. Until the CGAA was enacted, certain CFVs were 
allowed by statute and regulation to use life floats or rigid buoyant 
apparatus as survival craft. The CGAA requires survival craft on all 
CFVs to fully protect the occupants from exposing any part of the body 
to immersion in water.\6\ This rule proposes to include that 
requirement in the CFV regulations and requests public comment on 
whether or not, and to what extent, if any, we should exercise the 
limited grandfathering authorized by the CGAA and the CGMTA for certain 
non-conforming survival craft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-120, 
amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Records. This rule proposes to amend the CFV regulations so that 
they include the CGAA requirement that individuals in charge of certain 
CFVs keep records of equipment maintenance, and crew instruction and 
drills.
    Vessel examinations. Until the CGAA was enacted, the only CFVs 
required by the Coast Guard to undergo dockside safety examinations 
were fish processors, or fish tenders in the Aleutian trade. This rule 
proposes to incorporate the CGAA and CGMTA provisions that extend 
dockside examination requirements to any subpart C CFV. Dockside 
examinations must take place at least once every 5 years, with the 
first examinations to have been completed by October 15, 2015.
    Construction standards for smaller vessels. This rule proposes to 
amend CFV regulations to include the CGAA requirement for CFVs under 50 
feet in length and built in 2010 or later to comply with Coast Guard 
construction standards for recreational vessels.
    Load lines. Until the CGAA was enacted, CFVs were exempt from all 
statutory or regulatory load line requirements. This rule proposes to 
amend Coast Guard regulations to reflect the CGAA and CGMTA provisions 
that remove the load line

[[Page 40440]]

exemption for CFVs built after July 1, 2013.
    Classing of vessels. Until the CGAA was enacted, a fish processor 
had to meet all survey and classification requirements prescribed by 
the American Bureau of Shipping or another organization approved by the 
Coast Guard, if it was built or converted after July 27, 1990. The CGAA 
and the CGMTA extended this requirement to any subpart C CFV of 50 feet 
or more overall in length and built after July 1, 2013.\7\ This rule 
proposes to amend Coast Guard regulations to incorporate the 2010 and 
2012 vessel classing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Pub. L. 114-120, changed the applicability of classing requirements 
for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the classing 
requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more overall in length and built 
after July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that requirement CFVs 
of at least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in length, and 
built after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is overseen by 
a State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and their 
design ``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed by a 
classification society . . . or another qualified organization. . . 
.'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, which 
must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Termination of unsafe operations. This rule proposes to amend Coast 
Guard regulations so they reflect the broader CGAA authority to 
terminate a CFV's operations if the Coast Guard observes it operating 
under unsafe conditions, or if the CFV lacks required documentation 
like a certificate of having passed a dockside examination.
    Miscellaneous equipment. This rule proposes to amend Coast Guard 
regulations for subpart C vessels to include CGAA requirements for 
marine radios, navigation equipment, medical supplies, and ground 
tackle.
    Regulatory costs and benefits. Based on Marine Information for 
Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) data, there are approximately 75,083 
existing commercial fishing vessels that would be potentially affected 
by this proposed rulemaking. This rule proposes new requirements for 
vessels that are expected to operate beyond three nautical miles from 
the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured and the 
coastline of the Great Lakes. Coast Guard subject matter experts 
estimate that 36,115 of those 75,083 existing commercial fishing 
vessels operate beyond the three nautical miles threshold, and are 
affected by this rulemaking. Of the 36,115 vessels that operate beyond 
the three nautical mile threshold, 17,237 are documented fishing 
vessels and 18,878 are undocumented fishing vessels.
    The 10-year discounted present value cost to industry of this 
proposed rule is an estimated $240.3 million based on a 7 percent 
discount rate and $285.7 million based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
The annualized cost to industry is estimated at $34.2 million at the 7 
percent and $33.5 million at the 3 percent discount rate. The cost of 
third-party classing of vessels makes up the majority of the total 
industry costs.
    We anticipate that the government will incur labor and travel costs 
to conduct dockside CFV safety exams. We estimate the total present 
value cost to government over the 10-year period of analysis to be 
$38.2 million discounted at 7 percent, and $46.4 million discounted at 
3 percent. Annualized government costs are about $5.4 million under 
both 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates.
    We estimate the combined total 10-year present value cost of the 
rulemaking to industry and government at $278.5 million, discounted at 
7 percent, and $332.1 million, discounted at 3 percent. The combined 
annualized costs to industry and government are $39.7 million at 7 
percent and $38.9 million at 3 percent. The expected annual effect on 
the economy of the proposed rule would not exceed $100 million in the 
first or any subsequent year of implementation.
    The proposed rule is intended to reduce the risk of future fishing 
vessel casualties, and if a casualty occurs, to minimize the adverse 
impacts to crew and enable them to have the maximum opportunity to 
survive and to be rescued. The primary benefits resulting from 
increased safety include reductions in the risk of fatalities, property 
loss, and environmental damage that can be caused by lost and damaged 
commercial fishing vessels. The estimate of annualized quantified 
benefits ranges between $7.1 and $9.4 million, with a primary estimate 
of monetized annualized benefits of $7.1 million at a 7 percent 
discount rate. We did not estimate monetized benefits for several 
requirements, including recordkeeping for equipment maintenance and 
classing certain newly built vessels.

IV. Background, Basis, and Purpose

    This is one of two Coast Guard publications that appear in today's 
Federal Register and involve uninspected CFVs:
     A separate document announcing our withdrawal of a 
rulemaking (RIN 1625-AA77) that we began prior to 2010, and for which 
we issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2008.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 73 FR 16815 (Mar. 31, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This proposal to implement 2010 and 2012 statutory 
mandates. The proposed rule is the first Federal Register publication 
issued in connection with the RIN 1625-AB85 rulemaking.
    The basis of this proposed rule is the CGAA, as amended by the 
CGMTA. Both acts amended several provisions pertaining to CFVs that 
were first enacted as part of the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel 
Safety Act of 1988 and codified in 46 U.S.C., chapter 45.\9\ We discuss 
specific CGAA and CGMTA mandates and how they are implemented in the 
proposed rule in Part VI of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Pub. L. 100-424, 102 Stat. 1585 (Sept. 9, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement those CGAA and 
CGMTA mandates that pertain to CFVs, that became effective upon 
enactment of the CGAA in 2010 and the CGMTA in 2012, and that can be 
incorporated in Coast Guard CFV regulations without the exercise of any 
Coast Guard discretion. In many cases, the new mandates significantly 
change previous statutory requirements for CFVs. Current Coast Guard 
CFV regulations in 46 CFR part 28 align with the previous statutory 
requirements but not with the new mandates. This results in confusion 
for the regulated public. This proposed rule would align our 
regulations with the CGAA and CGMTA mandates. It does not reflect any 
provision of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015. That Act will 
be the subject of future Coast Guard regulatory action.

V. Discussion of Comments on 2008 ANPRM

    In response to our 2008 ANPRM, we heard from 43 public commenters, 
9 of whom spoke at the public meetings held in Seattle, WA in November 
2008. Several commenters made multiple submissions to the docket. 
Twelve of the commenters identified their primary affiliation as the 
commercial fishing industry; ten were naval architects, engineers, or 
consultants; seven were affiliated with safety activity (generally 
trainers or examiners); four were affiliated with Federal or State 
government; four were equipment manufacturers or service companies; 
three were individual fishermen; one commented on behalf of the 
Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee (CFIVSAC; 
renamed ``Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee'' by the CGAA); 
one commented on behalf of the Coast

[[Page 40441]]

Guard-sponsored Task Force for Implementation of the Global Mariner 
Distress and Safety System; and one did not identify any affiliation.
    The ANPRM posed 30 questions for public comment, as shown in Table 
1. Only a few commenters responded specifically to individual 
questions, but most commenters discussed themes related to those 
questions. Our discussion groups all comments by theme.

                                   Table 1--ANPRM Questions and Related Themes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Question                                                   Theme
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Given the statistics on vessel losses in Tables 2    Stability and watertight integrity (SWI).
 and 3 (of the ANPRM), what issues related to
 stability and watertight integrity should the Coast
 Guard consider addressing in regulations?
2. Table 2 (of the ANPRM) shows that vessel flooding    Stability and watertight integrity.
 results in the most vessel losses, and Table 3 (of
 the ANPRM) shows that flooding and sinking account
 for a significant portion of fatalities. What areas
 should be addressed to reduce vessel flooding losses
 and fatalities?
3. What routine measures are used to prevent            Stability and watertight integrity.
 unintentional flooding?
4. How often is your vessel examined by a marine        Risk awareness and minimization.
 surveyor and under what circumstances? Is
 documentation of the survey provided?
5. Table 3 (of the ANPRM) shows that fire is a          Causes of loss other than SWI.
 significant cause of vessel losses. What areas should
 the Coast Guard consider addressing to reduce the
 number of fire-related vessel losses (including, but
 not limited to: Construction standards, detection and
 extinguishing equipment, firefighting equipment, and
 firefighting training)?
6. What means are used to limit the danger of fires     Causes of loss other than SWI.
 and the consequence of fires?
7. Table 2 (of the ANPRM) shows that a significant      Causes of loss other than SWI.
 number of vessel losses are related to allisions,
 collisions, and groundings; how should the Coast
 Guard address these causes of vessel losses?
8. What impact has safety training had in improving     Instruction and drill requirements.
 safety within the commercial fishing industry? Do you
 have recommendations concerning safety training?
9. What impact have crew drills had in improving        Instruction and drill requirements.
 safety within the commercial fishing industry? Do you
 have recommendations concerning crew drills?
10. If training were required, would it be              Instruction and drill requirements.
 accomplished during off-season times?
11. How would additional training impact one's ability  Instruction and drill requirements.
 to fish?
12. If stability standards for vessels between 50 feet  Stability and watertight integrity.
 and 79 feet in length are considered, what standards
 should apply, and to which vessels should the
 standards apply?
13. How does a crew become experienced in safety        Instruction and drill requirements.
 procedures?
14. Should entry level crewmembers be expected to have  Instruction and drill requirements.
 a minimum level of familiarity with safety
 procedures?
15. How and when is stability guidance used? If         Instruction and drill requirements.
 stability guidance is available but not used, please
 explain why.
16. How are operating personnel made aware of           Instruction and drill requirements.
 stability and watertight integrity guidance?
17. How often should stability guidance be reviewed,    Instruction and drill requirements.
 updated, or validated?
18. How are modifications to a vessel or its gear       Stability and watertight integrity.
 accounted for relative to the vessel's maximum load,
 watertight integrity, and other stability
 considerations?
19. How adequate are current requirements for personal  Safety and survival equipment.
 protection and survival equipment?
20. How do crew members become familiar with vessel     Safety and survival equipment.
 safety?
21. How are safety risks aboard your vessel(s)          Risk awareness and minimization.
 identified and minimized?
22. If you are a small business, what economic impact   Regulatory costs and benefits.
 on you, your business, or your organization would the
 rules we are considering have? In your comments
 please explain why, how, and to what degree such
 rules would have an economic impact.
23. Have you experienced--or are you aware of--any      Regulatory costs and benefits.
 situations where any of the measures under
 consideration saved lives, or prevented/reduced harm/
 damage to vessels?
24. Are there areas not addressed that would benefit    Miscellaneous.
 safety within the commercial fishing industry?
25. What are the costs of each requirement we are       Regulatory costs and benefits.
 considering? Are there comparable alternative
 solutions to each requirement under consideration
 that may be more cost effective?
26. What are the direct and indirect costs of each      Regulatory costs and benefits.
 requirement we are considering? For example, labor
 costs, training costs, and hourly wages of fishermen
 (or alternative measures of valuing their time if
 they are not salaried)? The costs of vessel losses,
 including equipment, lost catches, and any other
 opportunity costs?
27. Can any of the requirements we are considering be   Regulatory costs and benefits.
 completed off-season? If so, which ones? For those
 that cannot, how much time would be taken away from
 productive fishing time to complete the requirement?
 How would this affect revenue, i.e., fish catches?
28. What would be the impact on the domestic fishing    Regulatory costs and benefits.
 industry, if any, of each requirement we are
 considering? Would there be a differential impact by
 size of vessel or region?
29. What would be the economic impact of each           Regulatory costs and benefits.
 requirement we are considering on States, local, and
 tribal governments?
30. What other requirements, if any, should the Coast   Miscellaneous.
 Guard be considering?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Stability and Watertight Integrity Questions

    Table 2 shows the ANPRM's five questions relating to a vessel's 
stability and watertight integrity (SWI).

[[Page 40442]]



     Table 2--ANPRM Questions on Stability and Watertight Integrity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Given the statistics on vessel losses in Tables 2 and 3 (of the
 ANPRM), what issues related to SWI should the Coast Guard consider
 addressing in regulations?
2. Table 2 (of the ANPRM) shows that vessel flooding results in the most
 vessel losses, and Table 3 (of the ANPRM) shows that flooding and
 sinking account for a significant portion of fatalities. What areas
 should be addressed to reduce vessel flooding losses and fatalities?
3. What routine measures are used to prevent unintentional flooding?
12. If stability standards for vessels between 50 feet and 79 feet in
 length are considered, what standards should apply, and to which
 vessels should the standards apply?
18. How are modifications to a vessel or its gear accounted for relative
 to the vessel's maximum load, watertight integrity, and other stability
 considerations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-three commenters responded to these questions.
    New SWI measures. Eight commenters said additional high water alarm 
requirements are needed, while two others said they were not. Six 
commenters addressed the adequacy of existing SWI regulatory measures, 
with three calling them inadequate, two saying better training and 
enforcement is needed, and one saying SWI documentation requirements 
need strengthening. Five commenters said we should require stability 
training. Four commenters asked us to issue additional SWI regulations 
and extend SWI regulations to smaller vessels. Three commenters asked 
us to require periodic stability reassessment. One commenter said 
watertight enclosures need additional labeling.
    We agree that additional high water alarm protection, better SWI 
training and documentation, and stability assessment and periodic 
reassessment would all contribute to reducing the risk of SWI-related 
CFV casualties. It is unclear to us whether the labeling of watertight 
enclosures requires additional regulatory attention and we ask for 
public comment on that topic. With respect to SWI and as we discuss in 
the next section of this preamble, our proposed rule would implement 
the statutory mandate for new subpart C CFVs less than 50 feet overall 
in length to meet recreational vessel construction standards, which 
include safe loading requirements (33 CFR part 183, subpart C) that 
help ensure small vessel stability. The other additional SWI measures 
cited by commenters on the ANPRM are not included in CGAA or CGMTA 
mandates, and therefore are beyond the scope of this proposed rule. The 
Coast Guard is reviewing additional measures and may take action in a 
separate future rulemaking.
    SWI information. Five commenters provided or offered to provide 
information on routine measures to prevent unintentional flooding. Five 
commenters provided or offered to provide detailed information for 
developing new regulations. Three commenters said it is difficult to 
account for the impact of vessel modifications on vessel stability. Two 
commenters cited the importance of regular vessel maintenance and 
inspection for SWI. Two commenters said fatigue and fishing season 
limitations contribute to flooding losses and deaths. One commenter 
said stability is not an issue for smaller vessels.
    We appreciate the information commenters provided and may use it in 
developing future regulatory proposals. We agree on the difficulty of 
assessing changes in a vessel's stability, and on the importance of 
regular SWI inspection and maintenance. We acknowledge the SWI risks 
posed by fatigue and fishing season factors, but point out that we lack 
regulatory authority over either issue. We agree that smaller CFVs may 
not be prone to the same stability issues that are relevant for larger 
vessels, but this does not mean small vessels are immune to SWI 
problems. Our data show that SWI may be a factor in some small vessel 
casualties.
    SWI cost and logistics issues. Seven commenters expressed concern 
over the cost of new SWI regulations; three commenters wondered if 
there are enough naval architects to conduct additional stability 
assessments; and another commenter was concerned about the difficulty 
of obtaining stability assessments or training in small, remote fishing 
villages. Three commenters said we should take the needs and conditions 
of specific fisheries into account.
    As previously noted, the scope of this rule is limited to proposing 
to implement the CGAA and CGMTA-mandated recreational vessel 
construction requirements for certain CFVs. Therefore at this time we 
are taking no action on SWI, but should we do so in the future, we 
would invite public comment on the validity of the cost and logistical 
concerns raised by commenters on the ANPRM, and on how best to address 
those concerns.
    Miscellaneous. In addition, some of the 29 commenters who responded 
to Questions 24 and 30, which invited comment on miscellaneous issues, 
raised SWI points in those responses. Three commenters discussed ways 
of reducing flooding risk, including bilge and open-door alarms and 
regular hull examinations. One commenter said we should revise freeing 
port requirements to align with international standards. We agree that 
all these ideas could be worthy of consideration for future regulatory 
action, but since none is the subject of CGAA or CGMTA mandates, they 
are beyond the scope of this proposed rule. Should we take future 
regulatory action on SWI, hull examinations, and freeing port 
requirements, we would seek public comment on how best to address those 
issues.

B. Causes of Loss Other Than SWI

    Table 3 shows the three questions we asked in the ANPRM relating to 
causes of loss other than stability and watertight integrity.

        Table 3--ANPRM Questions on Causes of Loss Other Than SWI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Table 3 (of the ANPRM) shows that fire is a significant cause of
 vessel losses. What areas should the Coast Guard consider addressing to
 reduce the number of fire-related vessel losses (including, but not
 limited to, construction standards, detection and extinguishing
 equipment, firefighting equipment, and firefighting training)?
6. What means are used to limit the danger of fires and the consequence
 of fires?
7. Table 2 (of the ANPRM) shows that a significant number of vessel
 losses are related to allisions, collisions, and groundings; how should
 the Coast Guard address these causes of vessel losses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40443]]

    Eight commenters responded to these questions.
    Risk in general. Among factors cited as raising risk for CFVs are 
weather (4 commenters) and fatigue (3 commenters). Among factors cited 
as lowering risk for CFVs are training (2 commenters), and safety and 
security watchstanders (1 commenter). Two commenters provided technical 
information that we may use in developing future regulatory action. We 
agree with each of the factors cited as raising or lowering CFV risk, 
and we may address them in a future rulemaking. The legislation 
mandated additional training for persons in charge of certain CFVs.\10\ 
Because that mandate cannot be implemented without the exercise of the 
Coast Guard's discretion, it is not reflected in this proposed rule but 
may be the subject of future regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 46 U.S.C. 4502(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reducing fire risk. Three commenters provided or offered to provide 
information about measures used to limit fire danger or to control the 
consequences of fire. We may use that information in developing future 
regulatory action. Three commenters specified additional factors, for 
example vessel examinations, that can reduce the risk of fire; a fourth 
commenter said several factors beyond the control of any regulator 
could lead to fire on smaller vessels. We agree with all four 
commenters. Additional fire risk control measures are not included in 
CGAA or CGMTA mandates and therefore are beyond the scope of this 
proposed rule.
    Miscellaneous. In addition, some of the 29 commenters who responded 
to Questions 24 and 30, which invited comment on miscellaneous issues, 
raised ``other causes of loss'' points in those responses. Two 
commenters said we should pay more attention to preventing or dealing 
with man-overboard incidents, and one commenter each cited the quality 
of weather reports, crew fatigue, structural fire protection, and pre-
employment drug testing as factors deserving our regulatory attention. 
We agree that these are all factors that can affect CFV safety, and we 
may consider them in the future. None of the factors cited by the 
commenters is addressed in CGAA or CGMTA mandates and, therefore, they 
are all beyond the limited scope of this proposed rule.

C. Risk Awareness and Minimization

    Table 4 shows the two questions we asked in the ANPRM about risk 
awareness and minimization.

       Table 4--ANPRM Questions on Risk Awareness and Minimization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. How often is your vessel examined by a marine surveyor and under what
 circumstances? Is documentation of the survey provided?
21. How are safety risks aboard your vessel(s) identified and minimized?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty commenters responded to these questions.
    Vessel examination. Nine commenters said we should require 
mandatory periodic vessel self-examinations tailored to the needs and 
conditions of specific fisheries, but two other commenters said that 
over-zealous Coast Guard enforcement and unnecessary vessel boardings 
discourage voluntary vessel self-examination. Four commenters said 
periodic examinations are already required, usually by insurers. Three 
commenters said we should require mandatory Coast Guard dockside vessel 
examinations, but two other commenters said the Coast Guard has too few 
inspectors to conduct such examinations efficiently, and a third 
commenter said required vessel self-examinations would have little 
value. Two commenters pointed out that documentation of vessel self-
examinations could be fraudulent.
    Vessel self-examination is not included in CGAA or CGMTA mandates 
and therefore is beyond the scope of this proposed rule. However, the 
proposed rule does implement the statutory mandate for dockside 
examination of CFVs subject to 46 CFR part 28, subpart C: those that 
operate beyond 3 nautical miles from the U.S. territorial sea baseline, 
or with more than 16 persons onboard, or that are Aleutian Trade fish 
tender vessels (collectively referred to as ``subpart C vessels''). We 
believe we are fully prepared to enforce the dockside examination 
requirement and appropriately staffed to do so. We encourage all CFV 
owners and operators to conduct their own frequent examinations of 
vessel and equipment condition, and we acknowledge that many already do 
so, for insurance reasons or as a best practice. We acknowledge that 
vessel self-examination and compliance documentation could be subject 
to fraud or error, but point out that fraudulent or erroneous 
documentation exposes perpetrators to the civil and criminal penalty 
provisions of 33 CFR subpart 1.07.
    We are concerned by any reports of impropriety in Coast Guard 
enforcement activity, though that is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. We are committed to effective, but fair, regulatory 
enforcement. If you believe you have been subject to improper Coast 
Guard enforcement activity, we encourage you to bring it to the 
attention of your local Coast Guard office. You should also be aware 
that under 46 CFR 1.03-20 you can appeal an inspector's action to the 
cognizant Coast Guard District Commander. Finally, if you are a small 
business you may send comments on Coast Guard regulatory enforcement 
actions 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 businesses. If you wish to comment on actions 
by employees of the Coast Guard, call the Ombudsman's office at 1-888-
REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
    Other risk minimization measures. Two commenters said that vessel 
owners and operators pass risk information to their crews. One 
commenter each remarked that risks are minimized through regular 
maintenance, drills, and training; that we should require mandatory 
crew training; that we should improve documentation of casualties 
occurring while a vessel is traveling to or from fishing grounds; and 
that we should not require vessel safety officers.
    We agree that keeping crews informed and trained to minimize risk 
is essential for CFV safety. We think some vessels may benefit from 
designating a vessel safety officer. At this time, we take no position 
on whether additional regulatory action is needed to improve in-transit 
casualty documentation. Aside from requiring documentation of crew 
instruction and drills, the risk minimization measures discussed by the 
commenters are not included in CGAA or CGMTA mandates and, therefore, 
are beyond the scope of this proposed rule.
    Miscellaneous. In addition, some of the 29 commenters who responded 
to Questions 24 and 30, which invited

[[Page 40444]]

comment on miscellaneous issues and raised risk awareness and 
minimization points in those responses. Two commenters asked us to 
provide more regulatory guidance, like compliance checklists, and a 
third commenter provided sample checklists and maintenance guidelines. 
Two commenters said we should conduct random dockside safety audits. 
One commenter said we should require mandatory Coast Guard dockside 
vessel examination.
    We try to make valuable information and regulatory guidance 
available to commercial fishermen. Our ``Homeport'' Web site, http://homeport.uscg.mil, features a page dedicated to commercial fishing 
vessels. That page provides numerous links to safety information and 
related Web sites. Random audits are not included in CGAA or CGMTA 
requirements and therefore are beyond the scope of this proposed rule, 
but the proposed rule does implement statutory requirements for the 
mandatory dockside examination of certain CFVs.

D. Instruction and Drill Requirements

    Table 5 shows the nine questions our ANPRM asked about instruction 
and drill requirements.

     Table 5--ANPRM Questions on Instruction and Drill Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. What impact has safety training had in improving safety within the
 commercial fishing industry? Do you have recommendations concerning
 safety training?
9. What impact have crew drills had in improving safety within the
 commercial fishing industry? Do you have recommendations concerning
 crew drills?
10. If training were required, would it be accomplished during off-
 season times?
11. How would additional training impact one's ability to fish?
13. How does a crew become experienced in safety procedures?
14. Should entry-level crewmembers be expected to have a minimum level
 of familiarity with safety procedures?
15. How and when is stability guidance used? If stability guidance is
 available but not used, please explain why.
16. How are operating personnel made aware of stability and watertight
 integrity guidance?
17. How often should stability guidance be reviewed, updated, or
 validated?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-seven commenters responded.
    Training on stability and watertight integrity (SWI). Eight 
commenters said that at least some members of a vessel's crew should 
receive training in SWI. Three commenters said we should adopt the 
Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee's 
recommendation for all crew members to receive at least some level of 
stability training. Three commenters said they already provide their 
crews with stability training. Two commenters said stability training 
helps the master understand vessel capabilities and develop operational 
guidance for the crew. One commenter said stability training for crew 
members should focus on areas where crew members can assist the master 
in preserving vessel stability.
    This proposed rule does not address SWI training. We encourage CFV 
owners and operators to provide SWI training for all crew members. 
Should we take future regulatory action on SWI training, we would first 
submit our proposed action to the public for comment.
    Vessel-specific stability assessment or guidance. Five commenters 
said we should require assessments and reassessments at least every 
five years, or under other conditions they specified; a sixth commenter 
said requiring assessment results to be reported would impose an 
unnecessary cost. Four commenters said that vessel-specific stability 
guidance is logistically difficult and expensive to provide; a fifth 
commenter specifically cited the difficulty of reassessing an older 
vessel's stability if no vessel blueprints are available. Two 
commenters said stability guidance must be adapted for the use of 
smaller vessels. Two commenters said lightweight surveys are sufficient 
to ensure stability, implying opposition to any requirement for incline 
testing; two other commenters said incline testing can be important 
especially for vessels that are particularly susceptible to weight 
changes; a fifth commenter said inspectors might push for unnecessary 
incline tests. Two commenters said vessels should be required to 
document weight changes continuously. One commenter said stability 
guidance is useful only if it is easy to understand. Another commenter 
said concisely worded stability guidance is easier to understand than 
pictorial displays. One commenter said stability should be reassessed 
only as part of the vessel survey needed to purchase insurance; another 
said reassessment is only necessary if the vessel is significantly 
altered. One commenter said stability guidance should be updated 
whenever a vessel spends significant time in a shipyard or dockside. 
One commenter said the master should be required to review stability 
guidance at least yearly, or prior to every voyage, while another 
commenter said the master could review stability guidance by using a 
simple stability checklist.
    Vessel stability assessment and guidance are not addressed in the 
CGAA or CGMTA mandates, and thus are beyond the scope of this proposed 
rule, but we encourage CFV owners and operators to obtain, make sure 
they understand, and frequently review stability assessments and 
guidance. We think the difficulty and expense of taking these measures 
need to be weighed against the considerable safety risk that comes with 
vessel instability. We also think it is best safety practice to 
reassess a vessel's stability not only after a significant 
modification, but also periodically (for example, every five years), 
because a vessel's stability characteristics can change over long 
periods of time. Should we take future regulatory action to mandate 
this practice, we would first submit the proposed action to the public 
for comment.
    This rule proposes to implement the statutory mandate for new 
subpart C CFVs of less than 50 feet overall in length to meet 
recreational vessel construction standards, which include safe loading 
requirements (33 CFR part 183, subpart B) that help ensure a small 
vessel's stability. Lightweight surveys are often sufficient for 
stability assessment purposes, but we agree with the commenters who 
said incline testing is important for a vessel that is particularly 
susceptible to weight changes. Continual awareness of how changes to a 
vessel or its equipment can affect stability is important, and we 
encourage CFV owners and operators to document vessel weight changes.
    General crew training and drill requirements. Eleven commenters 
said we should increase crew training and periodic retraining 
requirements; seven commenters said we should require periodic 
retraining; three other commenters opposed increased

[[Page 40445]]

requirements due to costs in time and money; another commenter said we 
should exempt experienced fishermen from additional training 
requirements; another said additional training only makes work for the 
Coast Guard; and another said crew members should be included in the 
safety training we conduct for Coast Guard personnel. Five commenters 
said entry-level crew members should have vessel-specific safety 
orientation and training; a sixth commenter said this should not be 
necessary for a crew member with significant recent experience on 
another vessel; and a seventh said that orientation--with good 
leadership from the master--helps prepare crews. Five commenters said 
crew training should be documented. Three commenters said safety 
planning and drills help prepare crews to deal with emergencies. Three 
commenters said compliance with current training requirements is often 
inadequate; while two other commenters said the Coast Guard does not 
adequately enforce those requirements. Two commenters said we should 
address fatigue awareness in crew training, and a third said crews 
should be trained to deal with man-overboard emergencies.
    The legislation mandates additional training for the persons in 
charge of certain CFVs and to document crew instruction and drills, 
which will be the subject of future regulatory action because 
implementation will require further consideration of the appropriate 
exercise of Coast Guard discretionary authority. Otherwise, CGAA and 
CGMTA mandates do not impose other new training requirements, and 
therefore the commenter's recommended changes are beyond the scope of 
the proposed rule. Nevertheless we encourage CFV owners and operators 
to make sure crews are well-trained. The expense and difficulty of crew 
training, retraining, and drills should be weighed against the safety 
risks to which CFV crews are exposed and the safety benefits that 
frequently refreshed training and drills can provide. We do not agree 
that CFV crews need the same training Coast Guard personnel receive--
our training is designed to meet the needs of our service--but we think 
even experienced fishermen can benefit from additional training, 
especially when that training is specific to a vessel's unique 
structural, equipment, and operational characteristics, and that new 
crew members should receive a vessel-specific safety orientation as 
soon as they come aboard. We encourage CFV owners and operators to 
include fatigue awareness and response to man-overboard emergencies in 
their crew training. We are concerned by comments that charge us with 
inadequate enforcement of existing regulations, and we have devoted 
particular attention to planning for effective enforcement of this 
proposed rule.
    Logistics of training. Three commenters said certain training can 
be conducted in the off season, but that other topics need to be 
addressed just prior to and during vessel operations; a fourth 
commenter said that the off season is the only effective time for 
training. Two commenters said providing training in remote coastal 
areas is logistically difficult. Two commenters said we should require 
formal training and periodic retraining for drill instructors. One 
commenter said we should phase in new training requirements to ensure a 
sufficient number of trainers. One commenter said fishing vessel 
operators need to make time for training and that additional training 
would not be unduly burdensome. One commenter said training 
requirements are complicated by late changes in crew membership, but 
another said this complication can be overcome through onboard 
training.
    The legislation mandates additional training for the persons in 
charge of certain CFVs and to document crew instruction and drills, 
which will be the subject of future regulatory action because 
implementation will require further consideration of the appropriate 
exercise of Coast Guard discretionary authority. Otherwise, CGAA and 
CGMTA mandates do not impose other new training requirements, and 
therefore the commenter's recommended changes are beyond the scope of 
the proposed rule. We acknowledge the logistical difficulties involved 
in providing good training, but we agree that the value of training 
makes it worth overcoming those difficulties, and that this often can 
be done by balancing off-season training with onboard training and 
drills.
    Vessel safety and drill officers. Three commenters said we should 
require onboard drill conductors. Three commenters discussed whether a 
``vessel safety officer'' should be mandatory, with two opposing the 
position because it could interfere with the master's authority, and 
the third disputing that idea and supporting the position. We think 
some CFVs can benefit from having designated onboard drill conductors 
and vessel safety officers, but neither is required by CGAA or CGMTA 
mandates nor required by this proposed rule.
    Miscellaneous. In addition to the nine ANPRM questions specifically 
relating to instruction and drill requirements, Questions 24 and 30 
invited comments on miscellaneous issues. Some of the 29 commenters who 
responded to Questions 24 and 30 used the opportunity to discuss 
instruction and drill requirements in general terms. Four commenters 
suggested additional training topics: One each suggesting the use of 
personal flotation devices (PFDs) to mitigate the risk of falling 
overboard, additional training for rescue swimmers, fatigue awareness 
and endurance, and damage control. Two commenters said we should 
provide more information about operational improvements and new 
products that could enhance safety. One commenter said we should 
improve regulatory awareness by mailing the regulations to every vessel 
owner. One commenter said we can improve safety on older vessels that 
cannot upgrade safety features, by focusing on training, instruction, 
and regular inspections.
    None of the additional training topics these commenters suggested 
is required by CGAA or CGMTA mandates, and therefore they are not 
included in this proposed rule. However, we acknowledge that each topic 
can be a useful part of CFV crew safety training. We try to make 
valuable CFV safety information available to commercial fishermen. We 
have briefed attendees on the CGAA/CGMTA mandates at national and 
regional meetings of associations that represent CFV owners and 
operators, and our ``Homeport'' \11\ and ``FishSafe'' \12\ Web sites 
provide a summary of the CGAA/CGMTA mandates \13\ as well as numerous 
links to CFV safety information and related Web sites.\14\ We will 
continue to provide easily accessible CFV safety information, and ample 
guidance and publicity to accompany any new regulations. Our proposed 
rule and any final rule, along with any supplementary materials, will 
also be available in several locations on the Internet, including the 
Federal Register Web site and Regulations.gov. We believe that improved 
training, instruction, and vessel self-examination

[[Page 40446]]

are of value to all vessels, and that this may be particularly true for 
older vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See https://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/home.do.
    \12\ See http://www.fishsafe.info/.
    \13\ See http://www.fishsafe.info/Update%20on%20CFVS%20Requirements%20-%201Mar2013.pdf.
    \14\ For example, information on updated dockside safety 
examination requirements appears at http://www.fishsafe.info/Update%20on%20CFVS%20Requirements%20-%201Mar2013.pdf. An alert on 
overloaded CFV lifting gear appears at http://www.fishsafe.info/MSA02-12.pdf, and a dockside safety examination request form appears 
at http://www.fishsafe.info/docksideexamrequest.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Safety and Survival Equipment

    Table 6 shows the two questions the ANPRM asked about safety and 
survival equipment.

        Table 6--ANPRM Questions on Safety and Survival Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. How adequate are current requirements for personal protection and
 survival equipment?
20. How do crew members become familiar with vessel safety and survival
 equipment?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-four commenters responded to these questions.
    Equipment in general. Five commenters said old equipment needs to 
be replaced and equipment lifespan guidelines should be set for 
specific items. Four commenters said crew members become familiar with 
safety and survival equipment through proper training and frequent 
drills. Four commenters said we should exempt fisheries and types of 
vessels of interest to those commenters. Three commenters said we 
should allow properly labeled outdated equipment to be used for 
training. Two commenters said better protection is needed to prevent 
man-overboard incidents. One commenter each said equipment requirements 
for larger CFVs should apply to all CFVs; that we should develop an 
equipment recall program; and that emergency equipment is often 
improperly installed and maintained.
    The legislation mandates additional training for the persons in 
charge of certain CFVs, and to document crew instruction and drills, 
which will be the subject of future regulatory action because 
implementation will require further consideration of the appropriate 
exercise of Coast Guard discretionary authority. Otherwise, CGAA and 
CGMTA mandates do not impose other new training requirements, and 
therefore the commenter's recommended changes are beyond the scope of 
the proposed rule. However, CFV safety could benefit from examining 
these issues and we may do so in future regulatory action.
    Survival craft.\15\ Five commenters said survival craft often 
cannot be launched by one person. Five other commenters said the 
location of survival craft can be problematic, especially for smaller 
vessels, and can interfere with normal operations. One commenter said 
current survival craft may not be properly designed or equipped. One 
commenter said we should update survival craft requirements, and this 
proposed rule implements the statutory mandate for survival craft to 
protect occupants from immersion in water. We agree with the comments 
made by these commenters and may address the issues they raise in 
future regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-
120, amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The new legislation will be addressed in a 
future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emergency communications and lighting. Five commenters said we 
should require emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) 
registration. Two commenters said current emergency lighting 
regulations are inadequate. One commenter asked us to update all 
emergency communication requirements. One commenter noted that EPIRBs 
and other distress signals are often inaccessible in emergencies. We 
agree that EPIRBs should be registered, as is required by Federal 
Communications Commission regulations in 47 CFR 80.1061(e) and (f). CFV 
safety could benefit from examining the issues raised by all these 
commenters and we may do so in future regulatory action, but because 
none of those issues is addressed by CGAA or CGMTA mandates, they are 
beyond the scope of the proposed rule.
    Immersion suits and personal flotation devices. Four commenters 
said we should require immersion suits to be carried in seasonally cold 
waters, and three other commenters noted that hypothermia is possible 
even in warm waters. Four commenters said we should require revised 
immersion suit labeling because ``universal'' suits do not fit many 
crew members. One commenter asked us to require PFDs or other 
protective gear to be worn in rough weather. We agree with the points 
made by these commenters and may address them in future regulatory 
action, but because they are not addressed by CGAA or CGMTA mandates, 
they are not included in this proposed rule.
    Embarkation stations. Three commenters asked us to modify 
embarkation station requirements based on vessel size. One other 
commenter said we should develop new requirements for embarkation 
stations, but another commenter noted that such requirements could be 
counterproductive for smaller vessels. We agree that, in addition to 
the existing 46 CFR 28.395 embarkation station requirements for certain 
CFVs, new vessel-appropriate embarkation station requirements may 
improve CFV safety, and we may consider such requirements for future 
regulatory action, but because they are not addressed by CGAA or CGMTA 
mandates, they are not included in this proposed rule.
    Miscellaneous. In addition, some of the 29 commenters who responded 
to Questions 24 and 30, which invited comment on miscellaneous issues, 
raised safety and survival equipment points in those responses. Three 
commenters said we should require PFDs to be worn in rough weather. Two 
commenters said the Coast Guard should work with cell phone companies 
to provide better coverage on fishing grounds; another commenter cited 
the value of the Coast Guard's Rescue 21 project in improving radio 
coverage. One commenter generally opposed current emergency power 
source requirements; another commenter generally favored adoption of a 
recognized industry standard for such requirements. One commenter each 
said we should require the use of protective equipment under hazardous 
conditions, require vessels to carry damage control kits, require 
immersion suits to be fitted with strobe lights, regulate boarding 
ladder locations, and regulate the safety of vessel front windows.
    CFV safety could benefit from examining the issues raised by all 
these commenters and we may do so in future regulatory action, but 
because none of those issues is addressed by CGAA or CGMTA mandates, 
they are not included in this proposed rule.

F. Regulatory Costs and Benefits

    Table 7 shows the seven questions our ANPRM asked about regulatory 
costs and benefits.

[[Page 40447]]



        Table 7--ANPRM Questions on Regulatory Costs and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. If you are a small business, what economic impact on you, your
 business, or your organization would the rules we are considering have?
 In your comments please explain why, how, and to what degree such rules
 would have an economic impact.
23. Have you experienced--or are you aware of--any situations where any
 of the measures under consideration saved lives, or prevented/reduced
 harm/damage to vessels?
25. What are the costs of each requirement we are considering? Are there
 comparable alternative solutions to each requirement under
 consideration that may be more cost effective?
26. What are the direct and indirect costs of each requirement we are
 considering? For example, labor costs, training costs, and hourly wages
 of fishermen (or alternative measures of valuing their time if they are
 not salaried)? The costs of vessel losses, including equipment, lost
 catches, and any other opportunity costs?
27. Can any of the requirements we are considering be completed off-
 season? If so, which ones? For those that cannot, how much time would
 be taken away from productive fishing time to complete the requirement?
 How would this affect revenue, i.e., fish catches?
28. What would be the impact on the domestic fishing industry, if any,
 of each requirement we are considering? Would there be a differential
 impact by size of vessel or region?
29. What would be the economic impact of each requirement we are
 considering on States, local, and tribal governments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty commenters responded.
    General impact. Seven commenters commented on the likely expense of 
taking regulatory action to implement ideas discussed in the ANPRM, 
with five commenters saying the cost impact would be significant and 
adverse, and two others saying the impact would vary depending on 
fishery and vessel size. Seven commenters cited ways in which we might 
mitigate regulatory costs for the CFV industry: two saying we should 
focus on fishery-specific regulations; one each saying we should avoid 
imposing new regulations and instead improve CFV safety through online 
instruction, improved weather forecasting, and better Coast Guard 
cooperation with industry; that we should let insurance companies take 
the lead in requiring new safety measures; that we should provide 
grants to help CFV operators finance new safety measures; that we 
should phase in the implementation of costly measures; and that we 
should increase reliance on alternative compliance programs. Two 
commenters provided general cost information, one saying it costs 
almost $1,000 per year to provide safety equipment for vessels 
operating outside the Boundary Line, and the other saying that the 
annual per person direct cost of safety training is no more than $225 
per day, sometimes $100 per day or less.
    The Coast Guard has no statutory role in the accurate development 
or distribution of the weather forecasts available to the CFV 
community. Otherwise, we will be mindful of the cost information and 
concerns voiced by these commenters and will consider their suggestions 
for mitigating cost impacts in taking any future regulatory action. 
This proposed rule is limited to implementing CGAA and CGMTA mandates, 
as we are required by law to do, and because of the limited scope of 
those mandates, the cost impact of this proposed rule is less than it 
would be if we were to proceed with all the regulatory actions we 
discussed in the ANPRM.
    Small business impact. Two commenters said new regulations would 
likely have a significant adverse economic impact on small businesses. 
One commenter said new regulations would be an incentive for small 
business operators to spend less time fishing and more time working in 
safety related work. One commenter provided or can provide detailed 
small business economic information. We agree that new congressionally 
mandated regulations may have an adverse economic impact on small 
businesses. We will be mindful of the impacts on small businesses in 
any future regulatory action. As we have previously explained, this 
proposed rule is limited to implementing CGAA and CGMTA mandates 
without the exercise of Coast Guard discretion. Because of the more 
limited scope of those mandates, the cost impact on small businesses of 
this proposed rule would be less than it would be if we were to proceed 
with all the regulatory actions we discussed in the ANPRM.
    Specific regulatory measures. Seven commenters cited the likely 
high cost of specific regulatory measures discussed in the ANPRM: 
stability (3 commenters), documentation (2 commenters), training (1 
commenter), and boarding ladders and embarkation stations (1 
commenter). Five commenters cited specific regulatory measures that 
would benefit CFV safety: improved instruction and drill (2 
commenters); new regulations in general (1 commenter); new instruction 
and drill, vessel maintenance, immersion suit, and EPIRB regulations (1 
commenter); regular high water alarm tests, crew debriefings after 
emergency drills, and crew discussions of incidents involving other 
vessels (1 commenter). Four commenters provided cost information for 
stability analysis and documentation.
    We agree that all the measures cited by these commenters could 
benefit CFV safety and we may consider them for future regulatory 
action, in which case we may use the cost information some commenters 
provided. The CGAA and CGMTA mandates require persons in charge of 
certain CFVs to receive training (including stability training) and 
require documentation of crew instruction and drills, but otherwise 
they do not address the regulatory measures cited by these commenters, 
and therefore they are not included in this proposed rule.

G. Miscellaneous Issues

    Table 8 shows the two questions our ANPRM asked about miscellaneous 
issues.

            Table 8--ANPRM Questions on Miscellaneous Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Are there areas not addressed (in the ANPRM) that would benefit
 safety within the commercial fishing industry?
30. What other requirements, if any, should the Coast Guard be
 considering?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-nine commenters responded to these questions.
    Regulations for subsets of the CFV industry. Fourteen commenters 
said that our CFV regulations should be modified to reflect the special 
conditions and risks found in certain regions (8 commenters), 
fisheries, or types of

[[Page 40448]]

vessel (6 commenters). In considering any future regulatory action, we 
would try to accommodate subset-specific concerns. This proposed rule 
is limited to implementing CGAA and CGMTA mandates that sometimes 
require different behavior depending on vessel size or operating 
conditions, but which otherwise apply to CFVs regardless of region or 
fishery.
    Coast Guard resources and enforcement. Several commenters 
recommended changes in the way we allocate resources to CFV safety and 
enforce CFV regulations. They suggest we add enforcement resources (6 
commenters); improve enforcement efficiency and fairness (6 
commenters); better enforce existing regulations (2 commenters); focus 
on approving vessel plans and licensing operators (2 commenters); 
develop a competitive grant program to research CFV safety (1 
commenter); have an advisory board of naval architects (1 commenter); 
update Coast Guard safety guidance (1 commenter); and focus on 
providing safety checklists (1 commenter). We may consider these 
recommendations for future action, but none is addressed by CGAA or 
CGMTA mandates and, therefore, all are beyond the scope of this 
proposed rule.
    Though it is beyond the scope of this proposed rule, we are 
concerned by any report of unfairness in Coast Guard enforcement 
activity. We are committed to effective and fair regulatory 
enforcement. If you believe you have been subject to improper Coast 
Guard enforcement activity, we encourage you to bring it to the 
attention of your local Coast Guard office. You should also be aware of 
the ``rights of appeal'' provisions contained in our regulations, in 46 
CFR subpart 1.03. Finally, if you are a small business, you may send 
comments on Coast Guard regulatory enforcement actions 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).
    Rulemaking protocols. Several commenters made recommendations about 
guiding principles and procedures that we should keep in mind when 
engaged in CFV rulemakings. They said we should view supporting data 
with caution (3 commenters), provide a long public comment period and 
several public meetings in connection with any NPRM (2 commenters), 
base regulations on International Maritime Organization standards 
wherever possible (2 commenters), use international weight and 
measurement standards (1 commenter), expand voluntary compliance 
programs (1 commenter), and stop grandfathering older vessels (1 
commenter). This rule proposes to implement CGAA and CGMTA mandates 
that have been in place for several years. However, we will bear the 
concerns and recommendations voiced by these commenters in mind in 
taking any further CFV regulatory action. Since the passage of the 2010 
and 2012 legislation, we have made numerous presentations and received 
input from the public at national and regional commercial fishing 
industry meetings, and at the annual meetings of the Commercial Fishing 
Safety Advisory Committee.
    Specific regulatory measures. Several commenters recommended 
specific regulatory measures we should take (or avoid). They said those 
measures should focus on compliance documentation (3 commenters), 
improving fishery management (2 commenters), permitting the use of 
larger, foreign built vessels (2 commenters), avoiding trip report 
requirements (2 commenters), posting compliance documentation for crew 
scrutiny (1 commenter), redefining Boundary Lines to facilitate 
compliance (1 commenter), minimum safety construction standards for all 
new CFVs, reserving safety examination duties for Coast Guard personnel 
rather than marine surveyors (1 commenter), extending documented CFV 
safety equipment requirements to undocumented CFVs (1 commenter), 
avoiding licensing commercial fishermen (1 commenter), and confined 
space entry regulations (1 commenter).
    This rule proposes to implement CGAA and CGMTA mandates relating to 
compliance documentation, recreational vessel construction standards 
for CFVs of less than 50 feet overall in length, mandatory dockside 
examinations for certain CFVs, and regulatory parity for both 
documented and undocumented CFVs; and it proposes to implement the 
statutory substitution of territorial sea baseline references for 
Boundary Line references. Our rule does not propose to require trip 
reports. The Coast Guard has no regulatory responsibility for fishery 
management, and lacks the authority to license commercial fishermen or 
to permit the use of foreign-built vessels where that use is prohibited 
by U.S. law. Neither posting compliance documentation for crew 
scrutiny, excluding non-Coast Guard personnel from vessel examination 
duties, nor confined space entry is addressed by CGAA or CGMTA 
mandates, and therefore all are beyond the scope of the proposed rule, 
though we may consider them for future regulatory action.

VI. Discussion of CGAA and CGMTA Mandates and the Proposed Rule

    The CGAA and CGMTA contain a variety of marine safety provisions. 
Many of those provisions amend 1988 CFV safety legislation that is 
codified in 46 U.S.C. Chapter 45, Uninspected Commercial Fishing 
Industry Vessels. Coast Guard regulations implementing the 1988 
legislation were first issued in 1991 and appear in 46 CFR part 28.\16\ 
Statutory civil and criminal penalties are provided for violations of 
Chapter 45 ``or a regulation prescribed under this chapter.'' See 46 
U.S.C. 4507(a). Coast Guard enforcement procedures are described in 33 
CFR subpart 1.07. In addition, vessels that violate part 28 regulations 
or that are operating under unsafe conditions may have their operations 
restricted or terminated, 46 CFR 28.65, and be subject to other 
operational controls ordered by a District Commander or Captain of the 
Port under 33 CFR 160.111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A general summary of statutes and regulations applicable to 
CFVs, written for the benefit of the CFV public, appears at http://www.fishsafe.info/FederalRequirementsCFV2009.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In many cases the CGAA and CGMTA changes either require or permit 
the Coast Guard to amend its CFV regulations. This rule proposes to 
implement those statutory mandates that pertain to CFVs, that took 
effect upon enactment of the CGAA in October 2010 and the CGMTA in 
December 2012, and that can be incorporated in Coast Guard CFV 
regulations without the exercise of any Coast Guard discretion. This 
rule does not propose to apply any new or existing Coast Guard 
discretionary authority. We are considering additional regulatory 
action that would implement the Coast Guard's discretionary authority 
in the CGAA and CGMTA and improve the safety of commercial fishing 
vessel operation. Should we take that action, we will first solicit 
public comment.
    Vessel parity. CGAA section 604(a)(2)(A) amends 46 U.S.C. 
4502(b)(1), which contains special provisions for subpart C CFVs--those 
that operate beyond the Boundary Lines and with more than 16 
individuals on board, or are fish tender vessels engaged in the 
Aleutian trade.\17\ Until enactment of the CGAA, section 4502(b)(1) 
applied only to Federally documented CFVs,\18\

[[Page 40449]]

and not to any of the (typically) smaller CFVs that require only State 
registration. The CGAA removed that restriction so that subpart C CFVs 
now can be either documented or undocumented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 46 CFR 28.200.
    \18\ See 46 CFR 67.7 for what constitutes a documented vessel: 
``Any vessel of at least five net tons which engages in the 
fisheries on the navigable waters of the United States or in the 
Exclusive Economic Zone, or coastwise trade, unless exempt under 
Sec.  67.9(c), must have a Certificate of Documentation bearing a 
valid endorsement appropriate for the activity in which engaged.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule proposes to implement the CGAA by revising the subpart C 
heading and Sec. Sec.  28.200, 28.205, 28.210, 28.215, 28.225, 28.230, 
28.235, 28.240, 28.245, 28.250, 28.255, 28.260, 28.265, and 28.270. 
Generally, the proposed revisions eliminate language that reflects the 
previous exclusion of undocumented CFVs from the ``subpart C CFV'' 
category.
    Some existing subpart C regulatory requirements are the result of 
prior Coast Guard discretionary determinations that are necessary for 
the safety of the documented CFVs to which subpart C formerly was 
restricted. It may make sense now to extend those same requirements to 
undocumented CFVs, but because this proposed rule relies exclusively on 
CGAA and CGMTA mandates and not use of Coast Guard discretionary 
authority, we cannot make that determination at this time. Where this 
is the case, the rule proposes to amend the regulation to clarify that, 
at least for now, it would continue to apply only to documented subpart 
C CFVs.
    Before the CGAA was enacted, 46 U.S.C. 4502(a) mandated only basic 
safety equipment for all CFVs. The Coast Guard had discretionary 
authority to require additional safety equipment, but only if a CFV met 
special conditions defined elsewhere in section 4502. CGAA section 
604(a)(1)(A) amends section 4502(a) so that it, too, now gives the 
Coast Guard discretionary authority to require additional equipment on 
any CFV, if we determine that ``a risk of serious injury exists that 
can be eliminated or mitigated by that equipment.'' Because such a 
determination would exercise our discretionary authority, it is beyond 
the scope of this proposed rule, which is limited to implementing CGAA 
and CGMTA mandates. We may exercise that discretion in future 
rulemakings. To that end, we request public comment identifying the 
types or operational characteristics of CFVs that are at risk of 
serious injury, and identifying equipment that can eliminate or 
mitigate that risk and that the Coast Guard should require by 
regulation.
    Substitution of baseline for Boundary Line criteria. Special 
provisions in 46 U.S.C. 4502(b) pertain to the subset of CFVs that 
operate relatively far from shore, or with more than 16 persons 
onboard, or that are Aleutian Trade fish tender vessels. This subset is 
subject to special regulatory requirements contained in 46 CFR part 28, 
subpart C. Prior to enactment of the CGAA, section 4502(b) defined the 
relevant distance from shore as ``beyond the Boundary Line.'' The 
location of the Boundary Line varies by distance from the coastline 
around the country.\19\ CGAA section 604(a)(2)(B) amends 46 U.S.C. 
4502(b)(1)(A) by replacing the statutory Boundary Line with ``3 
nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea of the 
United States is measured or beyond 3 nautical miles from the coastline 
of the Great Lakes.'' As defined in 33 CFR 2.20, the territorial sea 
baseline is ``the line defining the shoreward extent of the territorial 
sea of the United States drawn according to the principles, as 
recognized by the United States, of the Convention on the Territorial 
Sea and the Contiguous Zone . . . and the 1982 United Nations 
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). . . . Normally, the 
territorial sea baseline is the mean low water line along the coast of 
the United States.'' Generally, navigation charts mark the three-
nautical mile distance (the ``3-mile line'') from the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Coast Guard regulations prescribing those variations at 
46 CFR part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule proposes to update references, in the table to 46 CFR 
28.110, to the lifesaving devices required by subpart C. It proposes to 
replace ``Boundary Line'' with ``3-mile line'' references.
    Survival craft. In two separate provisions, the CGAA provided that 
a survival craft must ensure ``that no part of a person is immersed in 
water'' (``non-immersibility''). The first provision, CGAA section 
604(a)(2)(C), amended 46 U.S.C. 4502(b)(2)(B) to require non-immersible 
craft on subpart C CFVs. Second, section 609 had added 46 U.S.C. 3104 
to require non-immersible craft on any vessel subject to Coast Guard 
inspection or regulation, including all CFVs.\20\ As a result of later 
legislation, however, section 309 no longer applies to any CFV.\21\ In 
this rule, we propose to amend 46 CFR 28.120 and 28.130 to give effect 
to section 604's non-immersibility provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As subsequently amended by sec. 303 of the CGMTA, sec. 609 
of the CGAA gave us discretionary authority to authorize the 
continued use, until February 26, 2016, of survival craft that 
cannot ensure non-immersibility (``older survival craft''), if we 
approved them under the applicable subpart of 46 CFR part 160 before 
2010, and if the person in charge of the CFV determined under 46 CFR 
28.140 that they remain in serviceable condition. Between 2010 and 
February 2016 we granted that authorization to any CFV to which the 
non-immersibility requirements applied.
    \21\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-120, 
amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by limiting its applicability to passenger 
vessels only, thereby removing any CFV from its coverage and leaving 
only the non-immersibility language of 46 U.S.C. 4502(b)(2)(B) in 
place for subpart C CFVs. Despite the removal of non-immersion 
requirements for non-subpart C vessels, should we find that non-
immersible survival craft could provide substantial safety benefits 
for those vessels, using our discretionary regulatory authority we 
could require them in a separate future regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Records. CGAA section 604(a)(3) amends 46 U.S.C. 4502(f) to require 
that an individual in charge of any subpart C vessel keep a record of 
equipment maintenance and required instruction and drills. The rule 
proposes to amend 46 CFR 28.200 by requiring these records to be kept 
for three years, the maximum retention period ordinarily required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\22\ We request comments on further 
specifications for this record retention requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vessel examinations. CGAA section 604(a)(3), as amended by CGMTA 
section 305(a), amends the dockside safety examination provisions of 46 
U.S.C. 4502(f). The 1988 legislation added section 4502(f), requiring 
the Coast Guard to examine at least once every two years, at dockside, 
all fish processing vessels and Aleutian Trade fish tenders, and to 
issue a certificate to each successfully examined vessel to show that 
it complies with all 46 U.S.C. Chapter 45 requirements and 46 CFR part 
28 implementing regulations.
    Our current dockside examination program was developed after we 
issued our 1991 regulations to implement the 1988 legislation.\23\ Our 
FishSafe Web site provides CFV owners, operators, and personnel with 
information about dockside examinations.\24\ In general, examinations 
check for a vessel's lifesaving equipment, documentation, bridge and 
engine room equipment, and other miscellaneous required items. In 
addition to providing examinations for the fish processors and Aleutian 
Trade fish tenders that the 1988 legislation required them to, we 
encouraged other CFV owners and operators to obtain dockside 
examinations voluntarily. Whether mandatory or voluntary, we

[[Page 40450]]

issue a dated Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Decal to any CFV that 
successfully completes its dockside examination. The decal indicates 
that the dockside examiner has found the CFV to be in compliance with 
all applicable Federal laws, not just 46 U.S.C. Chapter 45 and 46 CFR 
part 28. Many CFVs benefit from having this decal; if they operate in 
fisheries frequented by endangered or threatened marine species, they 
may be required under National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
regulations \25\ to have a NMFS-approved observer onboard. NMFS 
regulations \26\ prohibit observers from going or staying onboard any 
CFV that does not display a valid decal. Thus, by 2010, dockside 
examinations were a well-developed and familiar feature of our CFV 
safety program.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Commandant Instruction 16711.13B, ``Implementation of 
Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Regulations,'' Aug. 17, 1995.
    \24\ See http://www.fishsafe.info/. Several pages on that Web 
site are referenced in footnotes to this discussion.
    \25\ 50 CFR part 222, subpart D.
    \26\ 50 CFR 600.746 (c), (d).
    \27\ Regulations providing for dockside examinations appear at 
46 CFR 28.710 (fish processing vessels) and 28.890 (Aleutian Trade 
Act vessels), and are supplemented by the guidance in COMDTINST 
16711.13B (1995), available at http://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/16000-16999/CI_16711_13B.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Against this backdrop, CGAA section 604(a)(3) left the dockside 
examination requirement of 46 U.S.C. 4502(f) unchanged, except to 
extend the requirement to any CFV (including fish processors and 
Aleutian Trade fish tenders) subject to section 4502(b) and regulated 
under 46 CFR part 28, subpart C. We interpret section 604(a)(3) as 
expressing Congress's intent for us to take the same well-developed and 
familiar dockside examination program that originally applied to fish 
processors and Aleutian Trade fish tenders, and apply it to a broader 
CFV population. The first examination under the new provisions were 
required to take place no later than October 15, 2015. Under 46 U.S.C. 
2117, the Coast Guard can order the termination of a CFV's operation, 
if it fails to carry a valid certificate of compliance to demonstrate 
successful completion of the dockside examination.
    This proposed rule would add 46 CFR 28.201(a) to incorporate the 
new subpart C CFV dockside examination requirement. Because this 
proposed rule's regulatory text would be limited to the mandatory 
language of the CGAA and the CGMTA, section 28.201(a) provides few 
details to guide vessel owners and operators on how to request 
examinations. We are considering future regulatory action to specify a 
procedure, and would first submit any proposed action to the public for 
comment. For now, CFV owners and operators who are subject to the 
vessel examination requirement can demonstrate compliance with the 
examination requirement by displaying a current, valid safety decal, by 
having a Form CG-5587 signed by a Coast Guard examiner, or by having a 
signed letter of compliance from an accepted third-party organization, 
such as a marine surveyor, as proof that the vessel has passed an 
examination and is compliant with current regulations. Owners and 
operators can contact their local Coast Guard Sector, Marine Safety 
Unit, or Field Office to arrange for an examination or to obtain more 
information,\28\ or they can request the examination online.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ A copy of the dockside examination booklet is given to 
operators and owners at the time of the examination and can be 
retained to demonstrate regulatory compliance should the vessel 
subsequently be boarded by Coast Guard personnel. The booklet 
includes a list of the specific items to be examined. See http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgcvc/cvc3/references/CFVS_Exam_Booklet_CG-5587_Revised_06_08.pdf. At the Coast Guard's FishSafe site (http://www.fishsafe.info/), a prominently displayed link to http://www.uscg.mil/d13/cfvs/DocksideExams/vFinal.swf directs CFV personnel 
to the Commercial Fishing Vessel Checklist Generator, which helps 
personnel prepare for a dockside exam. In response to answers that 
personnel supply about their vessel and its operations, the 
Checklist Generator provides information about the specific items 
examiners will check. The Checklist Generator also provides links to 
regulations and other official references related to each item.
    \29\ See http://www.fishsafe.info/docksideexamrequest.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though CGMTA section 305(a) lengthened the interval for 
mandatory dockside examinations from two years to five years, we 
continue to encourage all CFV owners and operators to obtain dockside 
examinations at least once every two years, voluntarily, whether or not 
their vessels are subject to the legislative mandate.
    Training. CGAA section 604(a)(4) adds 46 U.S.C. 4502(g), which 
requires an individual in charge of a subpart C CFV to pass a training 
program. The training program must recognize and give credit for recent 
CFV experience, and must cover seamanship, stability, collision 
prevention, navigation, fire-fighting and prevention, damage control, 
personal survival, emergency medical care, emergency drills and 
communication, and weather. Section 4502(g) mandates that a certificate 
be issued upon successful completion of the training, and requires 
refresher training every 5 years. Finally, section 4502(g) requires the 
Coast Guard to establish an electronic database listing individuals who 
have completed the training.
    The proposed rule proposes no action with respect to section 
4502(g), because before we can enforce its training requirement, we 
must first use our discretionary authority to determine how to 
recognize and give credit for CFV experience, and develop the specific 
items that training covers, within the broad subject areas listed in 
the statute. We intend to do so in a future regulatory action that, 
likely, will propose an amendment to 46 CFR 28.270. In the meantime, 
and for better clarity, we are making a nonsubstantive change to Sec.  
28.270, by moving the substance of the ``Note'' currently appearing at 
the end of the section, so that it now serves as introductory language 
at the beginning of the section.
    Construction standards for smaller vessels. CGAA section 604(a)(4) 
adds 46 U.S.C. 4502(h), which mandates that each subpart C CFV less 
than 50 feet overall in length and built after January 1, 2010 must be 
constructed so as to provide a level of safety equivalent to the level 
provided by recreational vessel standards established under 46 U.S.C. 
4302. Those standards are contained in Coast Guard regulations in 33 
CFR part 183, and the Coast Guard regularly uses its delegated 
authority under 46 U.S.C. 4305 to exempt manufacturers from particular 
part 183 standards that are not essential for safety given a vessel's 
specific characteristics. The part 183 standards require most 
recreational vessels (including any vessel that would be suitable for 
CFV use) to--
     Observe safe loading requirements;
     Observe horsepower capacity limits;
     Provide adequate flotation;
     Meet safe electrical and fuel system standards (except 
with respect to outboard motors or other portable equipment);
     Provide adequate ventilation for gasoline engines;
     Be equipped with a device to prevent the motor being 
started when the engine is already in gear; and
     Be equipped with all required navigation lights.
    Affected CFVs need not comply with each specific requirement of 
part 183. For example, as commercial vessels, we do not expect them 
necessarily to carry the weight and horsepower capacity labels that 
part 183 requires for vessels in solely recreational use. However, we 
do expect that all affected CFVs will be able to demonstrate that they 
provide a level of safety that is equivalent to the level that would be 
provided if they complied with every part 183 requirement. This rule 
proposes restating the statutory mandate in 46 CFR 28.202.
    Load lines. CGAA section 604(d)(1), as amended by CGMTA section 
305(d), limits the existing 46 U.S.C. 5102(b)(3)

[[Page 40451]]

exemption of all commercial fishing vessels from load line requirements 
by exempting only vessels built prior to July 1, 2013. Thus, section 
604(d)(1) would apply not only to the uninspected CFVs with which this 
proposed rule is concerned, but also to any inspected fishing vessels--
of which there are none at this time. The section 5102(b)(3) exemption 
now is unavailable to any vessel built after July 1, 2013. Like other 
commercial vessels, CFVs built after July 1, 2013 need to comply with 
the existing load line regulations in 46 CFR subchapter E if they are 
79 feet or more in length and venture outside the statutory Boundary 
Line.
    The proposed rule would add 46 CFR 28.170 to require each fishing 
vessel built after July 1, 2013, to be assigned a load line in 
accordance with 46 CFR subchapter E if it is 79 feet in length or 
greater and operates outside the Boundary Line. The rule also proposes 
to amend 46 CFR 28.500 to make it clear that CFV stability regulations 
continue to apply to certain CFVs, even though those CFVs will be 
subject to load line requirements as well.
    Load lines are also the subject of CGAA section 604(d)(2), which, 
as amended by CGMTA section 305(d), adds 46 U.S.C. 5103(c). This 
requires vessels built on or before July 1, 2013 to comply with an 
alternate load line compliance program developed in cooperation with 
the industry, if they complete a major conversion after that date. 
Section 604(d)(2) requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations 
establishing the alternate load line compliance program, but does not 
provide a deadline for doing so.
    This proposed rule would take no action with respect to new section 
5103(c), because before we can enforce its requirement for an alternate 
load line compliance program, we must first use our discretionary 
authority to develop the details of that program, in cooperation with 
industry. We are considering providing those details in a future 
regulatory action, and would first seek input from appropriate sources 
and submit any proposed action to the public for comment.
    Classing of vessels.\30\ CGAA section 604(e)(1), as amended by 
CGMTA section 305(c), amends 46 U.S.C. 4503, which formerly applied 
only to fish processing vessels built or converted after July 27, 1990. 
As amended, section 4503 now applies to those fish processing vessels 
and also to each subpart C vessel that operates beyond 3 nautical miles 
from the baseline, is at least 50 feet overall in length, and is built 
after July 1, 2013. These vessels must meet all survey and 
classification requirements prescribed by the American Bureau of 
Shipping (ABS) or another approved organization. The ABS and other 
organizations have existing requirements that apply to CFVs, and each 
organization can add or modify those requirements in the future, as 
they choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Pub. L. 114-120, changed the applicability of classing requirements 
for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the classing 
requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more in length and built before 
July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that requirement CFVs of at 
least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in length, and built 
after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is overseen by a 
State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and their design 
``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed by a 
classification society . . . or another qualified organization . . . 
.'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, which 
must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ABS rules \31\ issued in 2001 for steel fishing vessels under 295 
feet in length illustrate the requirements an approved organization may 
provide for CFVs. Under the ABS rules, a vessel must satisfy stability 
requirements that include--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels Under 90 
Meters (295 Feet) in Length (2012), ch. 12: Fishing Vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An intact stability analysis based on the applicable part 
of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO's) Resolution 
A.749(18) Code on Intact Stability for All Types Ships Covered by IMO 
Instrument, as amended by Maritime Safety Committee Resolution 
MSC.75(69);
     An inclining experiment or deadweight survey;
     Criteria in IMO Resolution A.168 (ES.IV), with an 
additional requirement that the vessel have a minimum range of 
stability of 60 degrees;
     Severe wind and rolling criteria indicated in IMO 
Resolution A.562(14); and
     Addressing specified design and operating factors that 
affect stability.
    In addition, the ABS rules require a vessel to meet specifications 
for--
     Fish hold bulkhead design;
     Local strengthening of shell and deck plating;
     Bulwarks, rails, ports, portlights, and ventilators;
     Freeboard and draft marks;
     Cargo handling equipment; and
     Miscellaneous specifications for wire rope, equipment 
operability under inclined conditions, liquid petroleum gas, electrical 
installation, and refrigeration.
    The proposed rule would add 46 CFR 28.201(b) and (c) to incorporate 
the new vessel classing requirements.
    Subpart C vessels of at least 50 feet overall in length and built 
on or before July 1, 2013 will eventually be required by CGAA section 
604(e)(1), as amended by CGMTA section 305(c), to comply with an 
alternate safety compliance program. CGAA section 604(f) requires us to 
complete the program's development by January 1, 2017.
    The proposed rule would take no action with respect to the new 
alternative safety compliance program, because we must use our 
discretionary authority to undertake the required cooperation with 
industry to develop the alternate safety compliance program. This will 
be the subject of future regulatory action.
    Termination of unsafe operations. CGAA section 608 adds new 46 
U.S.C. 2117, which expands the Coast Guard's authority to terminate a 
CFV's operation when we determine that unsafe conditions exist. Section 
2117 authorizes a boarding officer to remove any certificate that the 
boarded vessel is required to possess, if the boarding officer finds 
that the vessel is not in compliance with the terms of the certificate. 
Loss of the certificate then becomes, in itself, reason to terminate 
the vessel's voyage. This proposed rule would amend 46 CFR 28.65(a) to 
incorporate the new termination provisions and leaves section 28.65(b) 
unchanged, but it would remove section 28.65(c) because its presence is 
redundant and could be confusing, in light of the revision of section 
28.65(a).
    Miscellaneous. CGAA section 604(a)(2)(D) through (G) amend 46 
U.S.C. 4502(b)(2)(D) through (G) with respect to each subpart C vessel. 
Subpart C vessels now must have marine radio communications equipment 
sufficient to effectively communicate with land-based search and rescue 
facilities; navigation equipment, including compasses, nautical charts, 
and publications; first aid equipment and medical supplies sufficient 
for the size and area of operation of the vessel; and ground tackle 
sufficient for the vessel. This type equipment must be adequate for the 
size of the vessel and where the vessel operates. The proposed rule 
would reflect these changes in 46 CFR 28.245, 28.225, 28.210, and 
28.235 respectively. We request comments on further specifications for 
this equipment requirement.
    We also propose revising the authority line for 46 CFR part 28, to 
more fully state the sources of our

[[Page 40452]]

authority to issue the regulations appearing in that part.
    Table. Table 9 sequentially lists the regulations we would add or 
amend in this proposed rule, and summarizes how the CGAA and CGMTA 
affected the regulation.

                               Table 9--46 CFR Sections Affected by Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Related statutory         Related statutory
          46 CFR section                     Heading                 section(s)                 topic(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28.65.............................  Termination of unsafe     CGAA 608................  Termination of unsafe
                                     operations.                                         operations.
28.110............................  Life preservers or other  CGAA 604(a)(2)(B).......  Substitution of baseline
                                     personal flotation                                  for Boundary Line
                                     devices..                                           criteria.
28.120............................  Survival craft \32\.....  CGAA 604(a)(2)(C); CGMTA  Survival craft.
                                                               303.
28.130............................  Survival craft equipment  CGAA 604(a)(2)(C); CGMTA  Survival craft.
                                                               303.
28.170............................  Load lines..............  CGAA 604(d); CGMTA 305..  Load lines.
Subpart C heading.................  Old: Requirements for     CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
                                     vessels that operate
                                     beyond the Boundary
                                     Lines or with more than
                                     16 individuals on
                                     board, or for fish
                                     tender vessels engaged
                                     in the Aleutian Trade.
28.200............................  Old: Applicability......  CGAA 604(a)(2)(A),        Vessel parity, Records.
                                                               604(a)(3).
28.201............................  Examination and           CGAA 604(a)(3),           Vessel examinations,
                                     certification.            604(e)(1); CGMTA 305.     Classing of vessels.
28.202............................  Construction requirement  CGAA 604(a)(4)..........  Construction standards
                                     for smaller vessels.                                for smaller vessels.
28.205............................  Fireman's outfits and     CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
                                     self-contained
                                     breathing apparatus.
28.210............................  First aid equipment and   CGAA 604(a)(2)(A),        Vessel parity,
                                     training.                 604(a)(2)(F).             Miscellaneous.
28.215............................  Guards for exposed        CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
                                     hazards.
28.225............................  Navigational information  CGAA 604(a)(2)(A),        Vessel parity,
                                                               604(a)(2)(E).             Miscellaneous.
28.230............................  Compasses...............  CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
28.235............................  Anchors and radar         CGAA 604(a)(2)(A),        Vessel parity,
                                     reflectors.               604(a)(2)(G).             Miscellaneous.
28.240............................  General alarm system....  CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
28.245............................  Communications equipment  CGAA 604(a)(2)(A),        Vessel parity,
                                                               604(a)(2)(D).             Miscellaneous.
28.250............................  High water alarms.......  CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
28.255............................  Bilge pumps, bilge        CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
                                     piping, and dewatering
                                     systems.
28.260............................  Electronic position       CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
                                     fixing devices.
28.265............................  Emergency instructions..  CGAA 604(a)(2)(A).......  Vessel parity.
28.270............................  Old: Instruction,         CGAA 604(a)(2)(A),        Vessel parity, Training.
                                     drills, and safety        604(a)(4); CGMTA 305.
                                     orientation.
28.500............................  Applicability [of         CGAA 604(d).............  Load lines.
                                     stability regulations].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our 
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-120, 
amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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. The estimated costs of this rulemaking do not 
exceed the threshold of economic significance (i.e., the rulemaking has 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, the 
proposed rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore it has been 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A preliminary 
Regulatory Analysis (RA) is available in the docket where indicated 
under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of 
this preamble.
    See part VI of this preamble for a discussion of the proposed rule 
and see the preliminary RA in our docket for a more detailed discussion 
of costs, benefits, and alternatives considered. Table 10 summarizes 
the impacts of this rulemaking.

    Table 10--Summary of Affected Population, Costs, and Benefits of
                         Congressional Mandates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                          Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability................  U.S. flagged, uninspected commercial
                                fishing vessels (CFVs).
Affected population..........  36,115 CFVs.
Industry costs * ($ millions,  $34.2 million (annualized), $240.3
 7% discount rate).             million (10-year). Not quantified:
                                Potential lost revenues, Potential lost
                                wages.
Government costs * ($          $5.4 million (annualized) $38.2 million
 millions, 7% discount rate).   (10-year).
Total costs * ($ millions, 7%  $39.7 million (annualized), $278.5
 discount rate).                million (10-year).

[[Page 40453]]

 
Benefits ($ millions, 7%       $7.1-$9.4 million (annualized), $44.4-
 discount rate).                $65.5 million (10-year). Not quantified:
                                Benefits from reducing injuries,
                                property losses and environmental damage
                                from oil spills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please refer to the preliminary RA in the docket for details.

    A summary of the RA follows:
    The 2010 CGAA and the 2012 CGMTA make numerous, significant changes 
to Chapter 45 of 46 U.S.C., ``Uninspected Commercial Fishing Industry 
Vessels.'' These new requirements build on the requirements set forth 
in the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act of 1988. Once 
implemented through new or amended regulations, the commercial fishing 
industry should experience enhanced worker and vessel safety from the 
CGAA and CGMTA changes. The proposed rule would implement only those 
CGAA and CGMTA provisions that mandate the promulgation of regulations. 
The proposed rule would revise safety standards by adding or amending 
regulations in the categories indicated in Table 11.
    In addition, uniform safety standards are established for all 
fishing vessels for some requirements, particularly those vessels 
operating beyond 3 nautical miles of the baseline of the territorial 
sea or coastline of the Great Lakes. The Boundary Line is used as the 
demarcation line for operating area and equipment standards, but it is 
not uniform around the U.S. coastline. The CGAA amended sections 
4502(b)(1)(A) of 46 U.S.C. by deleting the words ``Boundary Line'' and 
replacing them with ``3 nautical miles from the baseline from which the 
territorial sea of the United States is measured or 3 nautical miles 
from the coastline of the Great Lakes.''

                           Table 11--Proposed Rule Requirement With Cost Impacts \33\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Rule requirement                       Category                     Description of changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)....................................  Survival Craft \34\........  Establishes requirements for all fishing
                                                                       industry vessels operating beyond 3
                                                                       nautical miles to carry survival craft
                                                                       that will meet a new performance standard
                                                                       for primary lifesaving equipment. The use
                                                                       of ``lifeboats or liferafts'' is replaced
                                                                       with ``a survival craft that ensures that
                                                                       no part of an individual is immersed in
                                                                       water.'' This means that lifefloats and
                                                                       buoyant apparatus will no longer be
                                                                       accepted as survival craft on any
                                                                       commercial fishing vessel operating
                                                                       beyond 3 nautical miles. As the CGMTA
                                                                       permitted us to do, we refrained from
                                                                       enforcing this provision between the
                                                                       CGMTA's enactment and February 2016.
(2)....................................  Records....................  Requires the individual in charge of a
                                                                       vessel operating beyond 3 nautical miles
                                                                       to maintain a record of lifesaving and
                                                                       fire equipment maintenance. It will be
                                                                       incumbent upon the master/individual in
                                                                       charge of the vessel to maintain these
                                                                       records onboard.
(3)....................................  Examinations and             Requires a dockside safety examination at
                                          Certificates of              least once every 5 years for vessels
                                          Compliance. \35\             operating beyond 3 nautical miles with
                                                                       the first exam statutorily required by
                                                                       October 15, 2015. A ``certificate of
                                                                       compliance'' will be issued to a vessel
                                                                       successfully completing the exam.
                                                                       Voluntary exams will continue to be
                                                                       promoted for vessel operating inside 3
                                                                       nautical miles.
(4)....................................  Classing of Vessels, Third   Requires the survey and classification of
                                          Party. \36\                  a fishing vessel that is at least 50 feet
                                                                       overall in length, built after July 1,
                                                                       2013, and operates beyond 3 nautical
                                                                       miles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
    Based on Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) 
data, there are approximately 75,083 U.S. commercial fishing vessels in 
the United States. This proposed rule would take regulatory action on 
vessels operating beyond three nautical miles of the baseline of the 
territorial sea and the coastline of the Great Lakes. Coast Guard 
subject matter experts estimate that 36,115 (17,237 documented and 
18,878 undocumented) operate beyond the three nautical miles threshold, 
and are affected by this rulemaking \37\. Each rule requirement applies 
to a distinct set of vessels based on area of operation and vessel 
size. (Table 12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Please refer to the Regulatory Analysis Section 1.7 
Regulatory Impacts for discussion on no cost requirements.
    \34\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-
120, amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.
    \35\ The proposed rule enhances the enforcement of dockside 
examinations by allowing the termination of vessels that do not 
obtain the required certification. The costs to acquire and maintain 
certification is captured under Examinations and Certification of 
Compliance. There is a potential, non-quantifiable cost if a voyage 
is terminated due to unsafe operations.
    \36\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-120, changed the applicability of classing 
requirements for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the 
classing requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more overall in length 
and built before July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that 
requirement CFVs of at least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in 
length, and built after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is 
overseen by a State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and 
their design ``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed 
by a classification society. . . or another qualified organization. 
. . .'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, 
which must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.
    \37\ The remaining 38,968 vessels are not affected by this rule.

[[Page 40454]]



   Table 12--Summary of Affected Population by Regulatory Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
    CGAA/CGMTA requirements        Affected population        number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Requirement that survival    All vessels that                 24,771
 craft ensure that no part of     operate beyond 3 NM
 individual is immersed in        that currently do not
 water. \38\                      carry survival craft
                                  that ensure that no
                                  part of individual is
                                  immersed in water.
(2) Requirement to keep records  All vessels that                 36,115
 of equipment maintenance and     operate beyond 3 NM.
 drills/instructions in safety
 logbook.
(3) Requirement for vessels to   All vessels that                 36,115
 have dockside exam every 5       operate beyond 3 NM.
 years and carry certificate.
(4) Vessel 50 feet in length or  New vessels >=50 ft in              260
 greater built after 2013 must    length (26 annually)
 be classed by third party        that operate beyond 3
 organization. \39\               NM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    One-hundred percent of the costs of this rule are Congressionally 
mandated. We estimated the total average costs of this rulemaking on 
industry for a 10-year period as summarized in Table 13. \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-
120, amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.
    \39\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-120, changed the applicability of classing 
requirements for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the 
classing requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more overall in length 
and built after July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that 
requirement CFVs of at least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in 
length, and built after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is 
overseen by a State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and 
their design ``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed 
by a classification society . . . or another qualified organization. 
. . .'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, 
which must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.
    \40\ We discounted the costs at 7 and 3 percent as set forth by 
guidance in the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                     Table 13--Proposed Rule Industry Costs
                                             [Values in $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Discounted costs
                              Year                                 Undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................          $67.97          $63.52          $65.99
Year 2..........................................................           27.28           23.83           25.72
Year 3..........................................................           27.37           22.34           25.05
Year 4..........................................................           27.46           20.95           24.40
Year 5..........................................................           27.46           19.58           23.69
Year 6..........................................................           41.48           27.64           34.74
Year 7..........................................................           27.55           17.16           22.40
Year 8..........................................................           27.64           16.09           21.82
Year 9..........................................................           27.72           15.08           21.25
Year 10.........................................................           27.72           14.09           20.63
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          329.66          240.28          285.67
Annualized......................................................  ..............           34.21           33.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first-year (initial) undiscounted cost of this rulemaking is 
$68 million. The 10-year discounted present value cost to industry of 
the proposed rule is $240.3 million based on a 7-percent discount rate 
and $285.7 million based on a 3-percent discount rate assuming 
immediate implementation. The annualized cost to industry is $34.2 
million at a 7-percent discount rate. Table 14 presents the costs to 
industry by requirement, of which ``classing of vessels by third 
party'' makes up the majority of the total costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-
120, amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.

                    Table 14--Annualized Proposed Rule Industry Costs by Requirement Category
                                             [Values in $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   10-Year cost                             Annualized
    Proposed rule requirement    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Undiscounted         7%              3%              7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Survival Craft \41\.........          $82.49          $64.15          $73.52           $9.13           $8.62
(2) Records.....................            6.52            4.58            5.56            0.65            0.65
(3) Examination and Certificates           27.87           22.31           25.20            3.18            2.95
 of Compliance..................
(4) Classing of Vessel, Third             212.77          149.24          181.39           21.25           21.26
 Party..........................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for Authorization Act           329.66          240.28          285.67           34.21           33.49
     Requirements...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40455]]

    We anticipate that the government will incur labor and travel costs 
to conduct dockside CFV safety exams. We estimate the total present 
value cost to government over the 10-year period of analysis to be 
$38.2 million discounted at 7 percent and $46.4 million discounted at 3 
percent (Table 15). Annualized government costs are about $5.4 million 
under both 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates.

                                 Table 15--Proposed Rule--Total Government Costs
                                             [Values in $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Discounted costs
                              Year                                 Undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................           $5.44           $5.09           $5.28
Year 2..........................................................            5.44            4.75            5.13
Year 3..........................................................            5.44            4.44            4.98
Year 4..........................................................            5.44            4.15            4.83
Year 5..........................................................            5.44            3.88            4.69
Year 6..........................................................            5.44            3.63            4.56
Year 7..........................................................            5.44            3.39            4.42
Year 8..........................................................            5.44            3.17            4.30
Year 9..........................................................            5.44            2.96            4.17
Year 10.........................................................            5.44            2.77            4.05
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           54.41           38.22           46.42
Annualized......................................................  ..............            5.44            5.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the combined total 10-year present value cost of the 
rulemaking to industry and government at $278.5 million, discounted at 
7 percent, and $332.1 million, discounted at 3 percent (Table 16). The 
combined annualized costs to industry and government are $39.7 million 
at 7 percent and $38.9 million at 3 percent. The expected annual effect 
on the economy of the proposed rule would not exceed $100 million in 
the first or any subsequent year of implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-
120, amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.
    \43\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-120, changed the applicability of classing 
requirements for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the 
classing requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more overall in length 
and built after July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that 
requirement CFVs of at least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in 
length, and built after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is 
overseen by a State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and 
their design ``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed 
by a classification society . . . or another qualified organization 
. . . .'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, 
which must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.

                               Table 16--Summary of Cost by Regulatory Requirement
                                             [Values in $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   10-Year cost                             Annualized
    Proposed rule requirement    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Undiscounted         7%              3%              7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Survival Craft \42\.........          $82.49          $64.15          $73.52           $9.13           $8.62
(2) Records.....................            6.52            4.58            5.56            0.65            0.65
(3) Examination and Certificates           27.87           22.31           25.20            3.18            2.95
 of Compliance..................
(4) Classing of Vessel, Third             212.77          149.24          181.39           21.25           21.26
 Party \43\.....................
Government Costs:
    Examinations and                       54.41           38.22           46.42            5.44            5.44
     Certificates of Compliance.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for Authorization Act               384.07          278.50          332.09           39.65           38.93
 Requirements...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
    In this rulemaking, the Coast Guard is proposing to implement CFV 
safety standards mandated by Congress in the 2010 CGAA and 2012 CGMTA. 
These mandates are collectively intended to reduce the risk of future 
casualties, and if a casualty occurs, to minimize the adverse impacts 
to crew and increase the likelihood of survival and rescue. To reduce 
the risk of casualties and to mitigate the adverse consequences, the 
Coast Guard adopts comprehensive safety requirements that are intended 
to increase compliance with current regulations and increase the 
operational awareness and preparedness of CFV owners and masters. The 
primary benefits resulting from increased safety include reductions in 
the risk of fatalities, property loss, and environmental damage that 
can be caused by lost and damaged CFVs. Table 17 presents the benefits 
resulting from improved CFV safety.

[[Page 40456]]



                        Table 17--Proposed Rule Benefits of Safety Standards by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Rule requirement                              Category                               Benefit(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)..............................  Survival Craft \44\.............................  Ensures personnel who
                                                                                      evacuate in the event of
                                                                                      the loss of a vessel are
                                                                                      removed from the water,
                                                                                      thereby reducing the risk
                                                                                      of hypothermia.
(2)..............................  Records.........................................  Requires the individual in
                                                                                      charge of a vessel
                                                                                      operating beyond 3
                                                                                      nautical miles of the base
                                                                                      line to maintain onboard a
                                                                                      record of equipment
                                                                                      maintenance and required
                                                                                      instruction and drills.
                                                                                      Maintaining records
                                                                                      increases accountability
                                                                                      and provides a means of
                                                                                      determining compliance for
                                                                                      many provisions,
                                                                                      particularly during Coast
                                                                                      Guard vessel boardings and
                                                                                      investigations.
                                                                                      Maintaining records also
                                                                                      assists the vessel
                                                                                      operator by reminding him
                                                                                      or her that actions are
                                                                                      needed to remain in
                                                                                      compliance with the rules.
(3)..............................  Examinations and Certificates of Compliance.....  Makes current voluntary
                                                                                      system of examinations
                                                                                      mandatory, thereby
                                                                                      ensuring vessel is
                                                                                      maintained properly and
                                                                                      able to operate in a safe
                                                                                      and environmentally sound
                                                                                      manner.
(4)..............................  Classing of Vessels, Third Party \45\...........  Requires survey and
                                                                                      classification of a
                                                                                      fishing vessel that is at
                                                                                      least 50 feet overall in
                                                                                      length, built after July
                                                                                      1, 2013, and operating
                                                                                      beyond 3 nautical miles of
                                                                                      the base line. Vessel
                                                                                      classification helps to
                                                                                      ensure that a vessel is
                                                                                      designed and maintained in
                                                                                      a safe manner, reducing
                                                                                      the likelihood of all
                                                                                      types of mishaps. The
                                                                                      classification process
                                                                                      includes: The development
                                                                                      of standards; technical
                                                                                      plan review and design
                                                                                      analysis; surveys during
                                                                                      construction; source
                                                                                      inspection of materials,
                                                                                      equipment and machinery;
                                                                                      subsequent periodic
                                                                                      surveys for maintenance of
                                                                                      class; survey of damage,
                                                                                      repairs and modifications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table 18--Additional Proposed Rule Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Authorization Act requirement                  Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dockside examination and vessel             Clarifies current industry
 certification: A vessel that that was       practice and harmonizes
 classed before July 1, 2012, must remain    regulatory and statutory
 subject to the requirements of a            language.
 classification society.
Requires that vessels built after January   Clarifies current industry
 1, 2010, and less than 50 feet overall in   practice and harmonizes
 length be constructed in a manner that      regulatory and statutory
 provides a level of safety equivalent to    language.
 the standards for recreational vessels
 established under Title 46 U.S.C. 4302.
First aid equipment and training:           Clarifies current industry
 Substitutes the words ``medical supplies    practice and harmonizes
 sufficient for the size and area of         regulatory and statutory
 operation of the vessel, which on           language.
 documented vessels must be in a readily
 accessible location'' for ``medicine
 chest of a size suitable for the number
 of individuals on board in a readily
 accessible location''.
First aid equipment and training: Limits    Clarifies current
 applicability to documented vessels. No     applicability and
 change from current requirements.           harmonizes regulatory and
                                             statutory language.
Changes to applicability language for:      Limits applicability to
 Navigational equipment; Anchors and radar   documented vessels.
 reflectors; General alarm system; High      Clarifies current
 water alarms; Electronic position fixing    applicability and
 devices; Emergency Instructions;            harmonizes regulatory and
 Instructions, drills, and safety            statutory language.
 orientation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regulatory assessment, the benefits associated with (1) 
survival craft and (3) examinations are further evaluated, with 
monetized estimates developed. Other components are left non-monetized 
given limitations on casualty data (e.g., limited specificity in 
casualty investigations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-
120, amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.
    \45\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-120, changed the applicability of classing 
requirements for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the 
classing requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more overall in length 
and built before July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that 
requirement CFVs of at least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in 
length, and built after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is 
overseen by a State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and 
their design ``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed 
by a classification society . . or another qualified organization. . 
. .'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, 
which must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the period of 2002-2012, a total of 426 fishermen lost their 
lives on commercial fishing vessels (Exhibit A). Of those, a total of 
205 lives were lost due to vessel loss and 221 lives were lost due to 
other causes. On an annual basis, an average of 39 fishermen lost their 
lives per year, with an average of 19 of these fatalities associated 
with vessel loss. As there is no discernible, consistent trend of 
fatalities over the time period, we use the average fatalities over the 
period to represent the projected fatalities without the proposed rule 
in the future 10-year period covered in this analysis.
    During the 2002-2012 period, 851 vessels were lost (Exhibit B), 
resulting in an estimated property damage of $17.3 million and 13,270 
gallons of pollutant spilled. Table 18 summarizes the negative impacts 
of commercial fishing vessel casualties with fatalities monetized at 
$9.1 million per fatality and Exhibit C displays average annual 
monetary damages, of which fatalities make up the overwhelming majority 
of damages associated with the commercial fishing industry.
    To monetize the value of fatalities and those prevented, we use the 
concept of ``value of statistical life'' (VSL), which is commonly used 
in safety analyses. The VSL does not represent the dollar value of a 
person's life, but the amount society would be willing to pay to reduce 
the probability of premature death. We currently use a value of $9.1 
million as an estimate of VSL.\46\ A $9.1 million VSL does not mean a 
specific human life is worth $9.1 million, but instead, a $9.1 million 
VSL means an individual

[[Page 40457]]

is willing to pay $9.10 to reduce the annual risk of premature death by 
one in 1,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See guidance on the Treatment of the Economic Value of a 
Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses, U.S. 
DOT, 2013, available at http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN16.000



[[Page 40458]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN16.001


                                  Table 19--Negative Impacts From CFV Incidents
                                                   [2002-2012]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Average
                                                                  Total monetary                     monetary
            Impact                  Monetary       Total effects    damages (in     Average per     damage per
                                   evaluation                        millions)         year          year (in
                                                                                                     millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities from all vessel      $9.1 million per             426        $3,876.6              39          $354.9
 incidents.                      fatality.
    Fatalities, from non-                                    221         2,011.1              20             182
     vessel loss.
    Fatalities, resulting from                               205         1,865.5              19           172.9
     vessel loss.
Lost Vessels (Property Damage)  Varies..........             851            17.3              77             1.6
Gallons of Oil Spilled........  254 per gallon..          13,270             3.4           1,210             0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(1) Fatality values are based on a $9.1 million value of a statistical life referenced in Guidance on Treatment
  of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses, U.S. DOT, 2013,
  available at http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf.
(2) Vessel lost include property and cargo damages as reported in MISLE.
(3) Oil spilled damages are based on a $254 damage per gallon of oil spilled as indicated by Inspection of
  Towing Vessels, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Initial Regulatory
  Flexibility Analysis, USCG-2006-24412, July 2011, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2006-24412-0002.


[[Page 40459]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN16.002

    As noted above, we develop monetized benefits for two of the 
requirements (Survival Craft and Dockside Examinations). In addition to 
the aforementioned, the following categories of benefits have not been 
captured due to analysis limitations and scope: \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The benefit analysis is achieved on a per vessel basis. 
That is, the benefits estimated reflect the historical casualty 
incidents that might have been prevented if the proposed rule were 
in place. In order to estimate the reduction in property and 
environmental damage, we would need an algorithm that detailed when 
the requirements of the proposed rule would reduce the likelihood of 
vessel loss, requiring a significant amount of analytical effort. 
Given that property and environmental damages makes up a small 
fraction (0.58%) of the total annual damages (Exhibit ES-3), the CG 
sought to focus on the benefits associated with fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Property and environmental damage. The examination requirements 
have the potential to prevent the loss of vessels. For example, the 
dockside examination may identify deficiencies, like a non-functioning 
high water alarm, that, if activated, could allow the crew to respond 
in a timely manner to avoid vessel loss. Based on MISLE \48\ data, the 
baseline value of property damage due to vessel loss is estimated at 
$1.6 million per year and the value of oil spill damages is $0.3 
million per year. To the extent a vessel loss is prevented, property 
damage and oil spills may also be reduced. Also, search and rescue 
costs and other response costs (such as emergency transportation to 
hospitals) could be reduced if a vessel loss is prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement 
(MISLE) is a database system managed and used by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. MISLE is used to store data on marine accidents, pollution 
incidents, search and rescue cases, law enforcement activities, and 
vessel inspections/examinations. The public may access portions of 
the data contained on the MISLE system through the Coast Guard 
Maritime Information Exchange at: https://cgmix.uscg.mil/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Injuries. Survival craft and dockside examination provisions could 
also reduce injuries. According to the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, in Alaska during the period of 1991-
2002, 798 fishermen were hospitalized for treatment of severe injuries 
received during fishing activities, an average of 66.5 injuries per 
year in Alaska alone. These severe injuries can lead to lifetime 
consequences and include injuries that result in amputation and 
paralysis. During a vessel loss event, it is not uncommon for survivors 
to suffer from exposure and hypothermia due to immersion in water or 
trauma injuries suffered during the sinking. The dockside examinations 
could prevent vessel losses while the survival craft could reduce the 
risk of exposure and hypothermia injuries after the vessel is lost.
    The quantitative analysis of benefits entailed: A review of 
historical commercial fishing vessel casualties to determine if they 
were within the affected population as set by the proposed rule, an 
assessment of the applicability of each proposed rule feature as it 
relates to the risk reduction when compared to historical casualties, 
and an estimation of the effectiveness of each proposed rule feature as 
decided by subject matter experts.
    The primary and high estimate of benefits for each category is 
summarized in Table 19. The estimate of monetized annualized benefits 
is $7.1 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The high estimate of 
benefits is $9.4 million at 7 percent discount rate.
    The high estimates are based on an extrapolation from casualty 
reports that contain detailed information on the cause of the casualty 
to casualties that contain limited information on the cause of the 
casualty. With commercial fishing vessels casualties, it is not unusual 
for a vessel to be lost at sea with no survivors. In these cases, the 
casualty report may contain limited information as to the causal 
factors for the loss to be able to make a confident determination of 
the potential for risk reduction. Based on our review of the casualty 
reports, we found approximately 20 percent of the cases contained too 
limited information to attempt an estimation of potential benefits for 
use in the primary estimate. To the extent these limited information 
casualties are similar to those that contain more detailed information, 
we are likely to underestimate benefits. We have included these limited 
information casualties only in a high estimate and not in our primary 
benefits estimate to show the a possible range of quantified benefits.

[[Page 40460]]



                Table 20--Summary of Annualized Benefits
                         [7 Percent, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Estimation of benefits
                                   -------------------------------------
             Category                                  Primary + limited
                                     Primary baseline      information
                                        incidents          incidents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survival Craft \49\...............               $4.8                6.3
Examinations and Certificates of                  2.3                3.1
 Compliance.......................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................                7.1                9.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison of Costs and Benefits
    The annualized costs to government and industry for the proposed 
rule over the 10-year period are estimated at $39.7 million at a 7 
percent discount rate. The estimate of annualized quantified benefits 
ranges between $7.1 and $9.4 million, with a primary estimate of 
monetized annualized benefits of $7.1 million at a 7 percent discount 
rate. We did not estimate monetized benefits for several requirements, 
including recordkeeping for equipment maintenance and classing certain 
newly built vessels. As stated previously, one-hundred percent of the 
costs of this rule are Congressionally mandated. The Coast Guard does 
not have the authority to alter the provisions of this rule to lessen 
the economic impacts of this rule on the fishing industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-
120, amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.

                                 Table 21--Proposed Rule, Summary of Quantified Annualized Costs and Annualized Benefits
                                                            [7 Percent, Values in $ millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary                          High
                                              Annualized   ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                      costs to          Total                           Total                          Benefits not captured
                                             industry and     annualized    Net annualized    annualized    Net annualized
                                              government       benefits        benefits        benefits        benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Survival Craft \50\...................            $9.1            $4.8          ($4.3)            $6.3          ($2.8)  Injuries (such as non-fatal
                                                                                                                             hypothermia).
(3) Examination and Certificates of                    8.6             2.3           (6.3)             3.1           (5.5)  Reduced property and
 Compliance.                                                                                                                 environmental damages, and
                                                                                                                             injuries.
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................           17.70             7.1          (10.6)             9.4           (8.3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 22--Proposed Rule, Summary of Provisions--Benefits Not Quantified
                    [7 Percent, Values in $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Annualized costs
            Category                to industry and   Beneficial impacts
                                      government
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Records.....................               $0.65  Enhances ability
                                                       to determine and
                                                       track compliance.
(4) Classing of Vessel, Third                   21.2  Ensures vessel has
 Party \51\.                                           safe design and
                                                       is maintained as
                                                       designed.
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total.......................                   21.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breakeven Analysis
    We also examined the risk reduction from the total casualty 
baseline required for the benefits of the proposed rule to exceed the 
costs (Table 23). Overall, the proposed rule would need to prevent 4.4 
fatalities per year for the benefits to equal the costs, a reduction of 
23 percent from the baseline of 19 annual casualties resulting from the 
loss of fishing vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-
120, amended 46 U.S.C. 3104 by removing language mandating that we 
require survival craft on all CFVs to protect occupants against 
immersion in water. The survival craft provisions of 46 U.S.C. 4502 
were unaffected and therefore those provisions continue to apply to 
subpart C survival craft. The 2015 legislation will be addressed in 
a future rulemaking.
    \51\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-120, changed the applicability of classing 
requirements for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the 
classing requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more overall in length 
and built before July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that 
requirement CFVs of at least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in 
length, and built after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is 
overseen by a State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and 
their design ``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed 
by a classification society . . . or another qualified organization 
. . . .'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, 
which must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.

[[Page 40461]]



                      Table 23--Proposed Rule, Breakeven Analysis (7 Percent, $ Millions).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percent
                                                                    Annualized                     reduction in
                                                                     costs to       Fatalities     total fishing
                    Proposed rule requirement                      industry and    prevented to     vessel loss
                                                                    government       breakeven    casualties  to
                                                                                                     breakeven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Survival Craft..............................................           $9.10             1.0             5.3
(2) Records.....................................................             .70             0.1             0.4
(3) Examination and Certificates of Compliance..................             8.6             0.9               5
(4) Classing of Vessel, Third Party \52\........................           21.30             2.3            12.3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total for Authorization Act Requirements....................            39.7             4.4              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives
    Consistent with Executive Order 12866, an agency shall identify and 
assess available alternatives to direct regulation. The agency should 
consider a range of potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
regulatory alternatives. We analyzed and assessed the effectiveness of 
the following alternatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-120, changed the applicability of classing 
requirements for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the 
classing requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more overall in length 
and built before July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that 
requirement CFVs of at least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in 
length, and built after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is 
overseen by a State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and 
their design ``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed 
by a classification society . . . or another qualified organization 
. . .'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, 
which must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Alternative 1: No Action;
     Alternative 2: Implementation through Guidance;
     Alternative 3: Regulation to Align Non-Discretionary 
Requirements with Statute;
     Alternative 4: Discretionary Stringency in Dockside 
Examination Frequency; and
     Alternative 5: Discretionary Implementation of Person-in-
Charge Training.
    We conducted a screening of alternatives based on an assessment of 
the negative and positive impacts. Table 24 presents the results, which 
indicate that Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative. In this 
proposed rule, the Coast Guard is implementing Alternative 3. 
Alternative 3 harmonizes Coast Guard regulations with statutes to 
eliminate uncertainty and enhance clarity. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, 
Coast Guard regulations and applicable statutes would continue to be 
inconsistent, leading to confusion and uncertainty, particularly 
regarding enforcement authority. Alternatives 4 and 5 have the 
potential to increase safety and costs, but both require the exercise 
of discretionary authority and should be subject to notice and public 
comment before implementing.

                                       Table 24--Screening of Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Alternatives               Description              Negative impacts              Relative impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................  No Action..............  CG regulations would be       Safety improvements would be
                                                       inconsistent with Federal     diminished due to confusion
                                                       mandate, generating           and uncertainty about
                                                       uncertainty about             compliance and enforcement.
                                                       compliance and enforcement.
                                                      Costs to industry would be
                                                       incurred to comply with
                                                       Statute.
2..........................  Implementation through   CG regulations would be       Guidance could reduce some
                              Guidance.                inconsistent with Federal     confusion, but uncertainty
                                                       mandate, generating           about compliance and
                                                       uncertainty about             enforcement would remain.
                                                       compliance and enforcement.
                                                      Costs to industry would be
                                                       incurred to comply with
                                                       Statute.
3..........................  Regulation to Align Non- Costs to industry would be    Increased safety due to
                              Discretionary            incurred to comply with       survival craft, dockside
                              Requirements with        regulations.                  examinations, and the
                              Statute.                                               classing of new vessels.
                                                                                    Harmonizes CG regulations
                                                                                     with Statute to eliminate
                                                                                     uncertainty about
                                                                                     compliance and enforcement.
4..........................  Discretionary            Added costs due to more       Increased safety resulting
                              Stringency in Dockside   frequent examinations.        from the more timely
                              Examination Frequency.  Requires exercise of           identification of condition
                                                       discretionary authority.      and compliance
                                                                                     deficiencies.
                                                                                    Decrease in the incidence of
                                                                                     deficiencies.
5..........................  Discretionary            Added costs due to person in  Increased safety resulting
                              Implementation of        charge training.              from training on
                              Person-in-Charge        Requires exercise of           seamanship, stability,
                              Training.                discretionary authority.      collision prevention,
                                                                                     navigation, fire fighting
                                                                                     and prevention, damage
                                                                                     control and emergency
                                                                                     communication, personal
                                                                                     survival, emergency medical
                                                                                     care, emergency drills, and
                                                                                     weather.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40462]]

B. Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), requires Federal agencies to consider the 
potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental 
jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their 
rules.
    The Coast Guard prepared an analysis on the potential economic 
impacts of this proposed rule on small entities. A combined Regulatory 
Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discussing the 
impact the proposed rule would have on small entities is available in 
the docket where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request 
for Comments'' section of this preamble.
    Based on the current data provided by the Coast Guard's MISLE 
database, we estimate that there are potentially 16,730 owners of 
17,237 documented commercial fishing vessels. As we do not have data 
that distinguishes those vessels that operate beyond and within 3 
nautical miles of the baseline, we use documented fishing vessels as a 
proxy for the 36,115 vessels that operate beyond 3 nautical miles for 
the purposes of determining the ownership characteristics and revenues 
of small entities under the proposed rule. Operations and fisheries for 
undocumented vessels operating beyond 3 nautical miles are similar to 
small documented vessels that operate beyond 3 nautical miles. Although 
by definition undocumented vessels are smaller than documented vessels, 
for operational purposes a 4.9 net ton vessel is very similar in 
equipment, manning, operations and fisheries to a 5 net ton vessel, but 
one is classified as undocumented (<=4.9 net tons) and the other is 
documented (>=5 net tons). Given that the operational area, defined by 
operating beyond 3 nautical miles of the baseline, indicates similar 
operations and fisheries, and because smaller vessel size is inversely 
related to operating beyond three nautical miles, using documented 
vessels to represent impacts to small entities is a reasonable proxy 
and is the best data available. As such, undocumented vessels that 
operate beyond three nautical miles are assumed to be represented 
within the revenue distribution of documented vessels and other vessel 
characteristics (age, structural integrity, etc.).
    In our review of the MISLE ownership data for documented fishing 
vessels, we found 1,612 vessel owners of 1,615 vessels that had a non-
business organization type. Of these, 1,562 vessels are owned by an 
organization that had an ``unknown'' organization type, 4 are owned by 
the Federal government, 45 are owned by trusts, and 4 are owned by non-
profits.
    Of the remaining documented commercial fishing vessels, almost all 
(over 99 percent) are owned by small businesses, as determined by SBA 
small business size standards.\53\ Many of the small businesses are 
classified as NAICS 141111 (Finfish) and 141112 (Shellfish), although 
many have a non-fishing primary NAICS classification. Of this target 
population, we examined publicly available revenue information on 360 
vessel owners that owned 762 vessels. We assume that the remaining 
3,273 owners of 3,375 vessels (for which revenue information was 
unavailable) are small businesses for the purpose of this analysis. Of 
those 360 owners for which revenue and employment information was 
available, we found 17 entities owning 204 vessels that exceeded the 
small business thresholds for their relevant NAICS code. The remaining 
343 entities owning the remaining 558 vessels are small businesses as 
defined by the NAICS thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ SBA small business standards are based on either company 
revenue or number of employees. Many companies in our sample have 
employee numbers determining them small, but we were unable to find 
annual revenue data to pair with the employee data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 25 summarizes the proposed rule cost on a per vessel basis. 
If a vessel incurs all of the cost items, the maximum total initial and 
recurring costs are $812,358 and $11,118 respectively. We estimate that 
the 260 vessels that undergo classing would incur the maximum cost, 
representing less than 1 percent of the affected population. To reflect 
a more likely cost impact on the typical commercial fishing vessel, we 
calculate a weighted cost using a Monte Carlo simulation described in 
Appendix H of the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Assigning the full burden 
of the cost to the remaining population of 35,855 would distort the 
estimated regulatory burden \54\. The weighted implementation and 
recurring cost, on a per vessel basis, for requirements (1), (2), (3), 
and (4) are $7,643 and $897, respectively. For the most part, 
commercial fishing vessel owners own 1 vessel. In our sample, when an 
entity owns more than 1 vessel, we calculate the cost per entity by 
multiplying the cost per vessel by the number of vessels owned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In an effort to capture the impact of requirement ``(4) 
Classing of Vessels, Third Party,'' we simulated the costs based on 
probability. Specifically, we used a Monte Carlo simulation to 
better understand the uncertainty in our costs estimate. For a more 
detailed discussion, refer to Appendix H.
    \55\ The weighted costs is a calculation of a vessel's cost in 
which each regulatory requirement is proportionately weighted by the 
affected population. That is, each regulatory requirement is 
assigned a weight based on the relative size of the affected 
population.
    \56\ Sec. 318(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, 
Pub. L. 114-120, changed the applicability of classing requirements 
for CFVs. The 2010 and 2012 legislation extended the classing 
requirement to CFVs of 50 feet or more overall in length and built 
before July 1, 2013. The 2015 Act exempts from that requirement CFVs 
of at least 50 and not more than 79 feet overall in length, and 
built after Feb. 8, 2016, provided their construction is overseen by 
a State-licensed naval architect or marine engineer, and their 
design ``incorporates standards equivalent to those prescribed by a 
classification society . . . . or another qualified organization. . 
. .'' This NPRM does not incorporate any of the 2015 provisions, 
which must be reflected in our regulations through future regulatory 
action.

                                                Table 25--Proposed Rule Weighted Average Cost Per Vessel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Maximum costs                Weighted costs \55\
                       Requirement                           Affected         Weight     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            population                        Initial        Recurring        Initial        Recurring
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Survival Craft......................................          24,771           68.6%          $1,740            $300          $1,193            $206
(2) Records.............................................          36,115           100.0              18              18              18              18
(3) Examinations and Certificates of Completion.........          36,115           100.0             600             600             600             600
(4) Classing of Vessels, Third Party \56\...............             260             0.7         810,000          10,200           5,831              73
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Cost per Vessel...............................                                         812,358          11,118           7,643             897
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40463]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN16.003

    For the initial implementation period, based on MANTA revenue 
estimates, 18 percent of affected owners will incur a cost of 1 percent 
or less of revenues, while 17 percent will incur a cost impact of 
between 10 and 30 percent of revenues. Approximately 6 percent will 
incur costs greater than 30 percent of revenues. (Table 25). For the 
recurring costs, 74 percent of fishing vessel owners will incur 1 
percent or less of revenues. The Coast Guard expects this rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As discussed previously, this rulemaking would implement only 
the mandatory provisions required by Congress and for which the Coast 
Guard cannot exercise discretion. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not 
have the authority to grant relief to small businesses from the cost of 
this rule.

         Table 26--Revenue Impacts on Affected Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Initial
            Impact range               implementation   Recurring impact
                                      impact (percent)      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% < Impact <= 1%...................                18                74
1 < Impact <= 3.....................                21                19
3 < Impact <= 5.....................                13                 3
5 < Impact <= 10....................                24                 2
10 < Impact <= 30...................                17               1.5
>= 30...............................                 6               0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule 
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). 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

[[Page 40464]]

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 calls for a revision to an existing 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: Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0061.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: Sections 28.140, 28.155, 
28.201, and 28.270 of this proposed rule would amend the collection-of-
information requirements for vessel owners and operators of certain 
U.S. commercial fishing vessels. These changes would require vessel 
owners and operators that operate beyond 3 nautical miles of the 
baseline to document lifesaving equipment maintenance and inspection 
and instructions and drills.
    Vessel owners and operators of subpart C CFVs (those operating 
beyond 3 nautical miles, or with more than 16 individuals on board, or 
that are Aleutian fish tenders) must also document the completion of a 
dockside examination at least once every 5 years. These new 
requirements would require a change in previously approved OMB 
Collection 1625-0061.
    Need for Information: The Coast Guard needs this information to 
determine whether a vessel meets the new regulatory requirements for 
dockside examinations, and documentation of certain activities.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard would use this 
information to determine whether a vessel meets the new regulatory 
requirements for dockside examinations, and documentation of certain 
activities.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents are vessel owners and 
operators of certain U.S. commercial fishing vessels.
    Number of Respondents: This proposed rule would increase the number 
of respondents in this OMB-approved collection by 36,115 as operators 
of certain commercial fishing vessels would need to document dockside 
examinations, and certain maintenance activities.
    Frequency of Response: This proposed rule would vary the number of 
responses each year by requirement. Details are shown in Table 27.
    Burden of Response: The burden of response for each regulatory 
requirement varies. Details are shown in Table 27.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The annual increase in burden from 
this rule would be approximately 20,251 hours. That includes 14,446 
hours from the private sector (36,115 responses) and an additional 
government burden estimated at 5,805 hours for 23,221 responses.

                                                 Table 27--Collection of Information by NPRM Requirement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Annual                          Number of      Total
          NPRM requirement                   Frequency         Duration   duration  Number of     Wage     responses    number of     Annual     Annual
                                                               (hours)    (hours)     vessels     rate      per year    responses     burden      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Records, Documentation of Equipment   Varies................        0.4        0.4     36,115        $45            1       36,115     14,446   $652,324
 Maintenance, and Inspection.
Examination and Certificates of       Once over the first          0.25       0.25     23,221         45            1       23,221      5,805    262,142
 Compliance, Documentation.            three years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Burden for NPRM...........................................................................................       59,336     20,251    914,465
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Costs, Examination and     Once over the first          0.25       0.25     23,221         66            1       23,221      5,805    377,341
 Certificates of Compliance.           three years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
3,507(d), we have submitted a copy of this rule and an information 
request to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
    We ask for public comment on the collection of information to help 
us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help us 
perform our functions better; whether it is readily available 
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; 
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve 
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can 
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit 
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated 
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    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 
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 
\57\ 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

[[Page 40465]]

fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described 
in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, this proposed rule would implement the statutory 
requirements enacted by the CGAA and CGMTA. In certain instances, 
Congress amended the scope and applicability of existing laws for 
uninspected commercial fishing vessels. For instance, the CGAA amended 
the applicability of 46 U.S.C. 4502(b)(1) so that previously 
promulgated equipment regulations are now required for undocumented 
commercial fishing vessels. Additionally, Congress changed the 
applicability of the statute to commercial fishing vessels that operate 
beyond ``3 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial 
sea of the United States is measured or beyond 3 nautical miles from 
the coastline of the Great Lakes.'' Therefore, regulations promulgated 
under 46 U.S.C. 4502(b)(1), including those promulgated under its 
amended applicability, are within fields foreclosed from state or local 
regulation.
    Congress also amended existing 46 U.S.C. 4502(b)(2), which directed 
the Coast Guard, via delegation by the Secretary, to promulgate 
regulations in the field of marine radios, survival craft, navigation 
equipment, medical supplies, and ground tackle for both documented and 
undocumented uninspected fishing vessels, fish processing vessels, or 
fish tender vessels, that operate beyond three nautical miles from the 
baseline, operate with more than 16 individuals on board, or that is a 
fish tender vessel that engages in the Aleutian trade. The Coast Guard 
has been granted the exclusive authority to promulgate regulations 
within these fields for these specific vessels and, consequently, these 
regulations are within fields foreclosed from state or local 
regulation.
    Congress also directed the Coast Guard, via delegation by the 
Secretary, to promulgate additional regulations under for documented 
and undocumented uninspected commercial fishing vessels, fish 
processing vessels, or fish tender vessels, that operate beyond three 
nautical miles from the baseline, operate with more than 16 individuals 
on board, or that is a fish tender vessel that engages in the Aleutian 
trade. Specifically, Congress directed the Coast Guard to promulgate 
regulations for the training and certification of individuals in charge 
of these vessels, regulations requiring the individuals in charge of 
these vessels to maintain a record of equipment maintenance, required 
instruction and drills, and regulations that require dockside 
examinations and the issuance of certificates of compliance for these 
vessels. The Coast Guard has been granted the exclusive authority to 
promulgate regulations within the fields of training \58\ and 
certification of individuals in charge, record-keeping, dockside 
examinations, and the issuance of certificates of compliance for 
subpart C CFVs, and consequently these regulations are also within 
fields foreclosed from state or local regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Because regulations on training require the exercise of the 
Coast Guard's discretion, and this proposed rule would be confined 
to implementing those statutory mandates that do not require the 
exercise of discretion, training will be the subject of future Coast 
Guard regulatory action and is not covered by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress also established a new subsection in 46 U.S.C. 4502 that 
requires documented and undocumented uninspected fishing vessels, fish 
processing vessels, or fish tender vessels, that operate beyond 3 
nautical miles from the baseline, operate with more than 16 individuals 
on board, or that is a fish tender vessel that engages in the Aleutian 
trade, to meet a level of safety equivalent to the minimum safety 
standards established by the Coast Guard for recreational vessels, 
promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 4302, so long as these commercial fishing 
vessels are less than 50 feet overall in length and are built after 
January 1, 2010. Regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 4302 are 
within fields that Congress gave the Coast Guard the exclusive 
authority to regulate, and therefore, these regulations are within 
fields foreclosed from state or local regulation.
    Additionally, Congress expanded the applicability of 46 U.S.C. 4503 
for survey and classification requirements to documented or 
undocumented uninspected fishing vessels, fish processing vessels, or 
fish tender vessels, that operate beyond 3 nautical miles from the 
baseline, operate with more than 16 individuals on board, or that is a 
fish tender vessel that engages in the Aleutian trade, and that are 
also at least 50 feet overall in length and are built after July 1, 
2013. The Coast Guard has been granted the exclusive authority to 
promulgate regulations for survey and classification requirements for 
these specific vessels and, consequently, these regulations are within 
fields foreclosed from state or local regulation.
    Furthermore, Congress amended 46 U.S.C. 5102, so that fishing 
vessels built after July 1, 2013, must now be assigned a load line. The 
Coast Guard has been granted the exclusive authority to promulgate load 
line requirements for fishing vessels built after July 1, 2013. The 
regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 5104 with respect to load lines 
for these vessels are within a field foreclosed from state or local 
regulation.
    Lastly, Congress enacted 46 U.S.C. 2117, which grants the Coast 
Guard the authority to terminate a commercial fishing vessel's 
operations if an authorized individual determines that unsafe 
conditions exist. For these specific vessels, Congress granted to the 
Coast Guard the exclusive authority to enforce this section and to 
issue regulations pertaining to the termination of unsafe operations. 
These regulations, therefore, would be within a field foreclosed from 
state or local regulation.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a 
vessel's obligations, 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 rule has implications for 
federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble.

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 proposed rule would not 
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 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 40466]]

I. Protection of Children

    This rule is neither economically significant under Executive Order 
12866 nor does it create an environmental risk to health or a risk to 
safety within the meaning of Executive Order 13045, Protection of 
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
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 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. Though it is a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their 
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through 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 does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 
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 proposed rule is categorically excluded under section 
2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(c), (d), and (e) of the Instruction, 
and under sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the ``Appendix to National 
Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical 
Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR 48243, July 23, 
2002). This proposed rule involves training of personnel, inspection 
and equipping of vessels, equipment approval and carriage requirements, 
vessel operation safety equipment and standards, and congressionally 
mandated regulations that protect the environment. An environmental 
analysis checklist is available in the docket where indicated under 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 28

    Alaska, Fire prevention, Fishing vessels, Incorporation by 
reference, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 46 CFR part 28 as follows:

Title 46--Shipping

PART 28--REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY VESSELS

0
1. The authority citation for part 28 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3316, 4502, 4505, 4506, 6104, 10603; 
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II 
(92.a), (92.b), (92.d), (92.g).

0
2. Amend Sec.  28.65 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows and 
by removing paragraph (c).


Sec.  28.65  Termination of unsafe operations.

    (a) A Coast Guard Boarding Officer is an individual authorized to 
enforce Title 46 of the United States Code for the purposes of 46 
U.S.C. 2117 and may--
    (1) Remove a certificate required by Title 46 from a vessel that is 
operating in a condition that does not comply with the provisions of 
the certificate;
    (2) Order the master of a vessel that is operating that does not 
have onboard the certificate required by Title 46 to return the vessel 
to a mooring and to remain there until the vessel is in compliance with 
that title; and
    (3) Direct the master of a vessel to which Title 46 applies to 
immediately take reasonable steps necessary for the safety of 
individuals onboard the vessel if the Boarding Officer observes the 
vessel being operated in an unsafe condition that the official believes 
creates an especially hazardous condition, including ordering the 
master to return the vessel to a mooring and remain there until the 
situation creating the hazard is corrected or ended.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  28.110 by revising Table 28.110 to read as follows:


Sec.  28.110  Life preservers or other personal flotation devices.

* * * * *

                          Table 28.110--Personal Flotation Devices and Immersion Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Applicable waters                  Vessel type            Devices required        Other regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond 3 nautical miles from the       Documented.............  Immersion suit or        28.135; 25.25-9(a);
 baseline from which the territorial                             exposure suit.           25.25-13; 25.25-15.
 sea of the U.S. is measured and
 north of 32[deg]N or south of
 32[deg]S; and Lake Superior.
Coastal waters on the west coast of    All....................  Immersion suit or        28.135; 25.25-9(a);
 the U.S. north of Point Reyes, CA;                              exposure suit.           25.25-13; 25.25-15.
 beyond coastal waters, cold water;
 and Lake Superior.
All other waters (includes all Great   40 feet (12.2 meters)    Type I, Type V           28.135; 25.25-5(e);
 Lakes except Lake Superior).           or more in length.       commercial hybrid,       25.25-5(f); 25.25-
                                                                 immersion suit, or       9(a); 25.25-13; 25.25-
                                                                 exposure suit.\1\        15.

[[Page 40467]]

 
                                       Less than 40 feet (12.2  Type I, Type II, Type    28.135; 25.25-5(e);
                                        meters) in length.       III, Type V commercial   25.25-5(f); 25.25-
                                                                 hybrid, immersion        9(a); 25.25-13; 25.25-
                                                                 suit, or exposure        15.
                                                                 suit.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Certain Type V personal flotation devices are approved for substitution for Type I, II, or III personal
  flotation devices when used in accordance with the conditions stated in the Coast Guard approval table.

0
4. In Sec.  28.120, add paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  28.120  Survival craft.

* * * * *
    (i) On any vessel to which subpart C of this part applies, a 
survival craft described in this section must ensure that no part of an 
individual is immersed in water.
0
5. Amend Sec.  28.130 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  28.130  Survival craft equipment.

* * * * *
    (e) On any vessel to which subpart C of this part applies, a 
survival craft described in this section must ensure that no part of an 
individual is immersed in water.
0
6. Add Sec.  28.170 to read as follows:


Sec.  28.170  Load lines.

    Each fishing vessel built after July 1, 2013, must be assigned a 
load line in accordance with Subchapter E (Load Lines) of this chapter 
if it is 79 feet in length or greater, and operates outside the 
Boundary Line (per part 7 of this chapter).
0
7. Revise the heading for 46 CFR part 28, subpart C, to read as 
follows:

Subpart C--Requirements for Vessels Operating Beyond 3 Nautical 
Miles, or With More Than 16 Individuals Onboard, or As Fish Tender 
Vessels Engaged in the Aleutian Trade

0
8. Amend Sec.  28.200 as follows:
0
a. Revise the section heading;
0
b. Designate the introductory text as new paragraph (a) and remove the 
word ``documented,'' and redesignate existing paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c) as paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3), respectively;
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1), remove the words ``the 
Boundary Lines'' and add, in their place, the words ``3 nautical miles 
from the baseline by which the territorial sea of the U.S. is 
measured''; and
0
d. Add new paragraph (b).
    The revision and addition to read as follows:


Sec.  28.200  Applicability; documentation of maintenance, training, 
and drills.

* * * * *
    (b) The individual in charge of a vessel described in paragraph (a) 
of this section must keep a record of equipment maintenance, and 
required instruction and drills for three years.
0
9. Add Sec.  28.201 to read as follows:


Sec.  28.201  Examination and certification.

    (a) Each vessel to which this subpart applies must be examined at 
dockside at least once every 5 years. Topics and equipment covered by 
the examination are listed on the Coast Guard Web site, 
www.fishsafe.info/, and generally cover lifesaving equipment, required 
documentation, bridge and engine room equipment, and miscellaneous 
required items. Each vessel meeting the applicable requirements of 46 
U.S.C. chapter 45, ``Uninspected Commercial Fishing Vessels,'' is 
issued a Coast Guard certificate of compliance following examination.
    (b) Each vessel to which this subpart applies that is at least 50 
feet overall in length and built after July 1, 2013, must--
    (1) Meet all survey and classification requirements prescribed by 
the American Bureau of Shipping, available at http://homeport.uscg.mil, 
or another similarly qualified organization approved by the Coast 
Guard; and
    (2) Have onboard a certificate issued by the American Bureau of 
Shipping or that other organization evidencing compliance with 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (c) A vessel to which this subpart applies that is at least 50 feet 
overall in length and was classed before July 1, 2012, must remain 
subject to the requirements of a classification society approved by the 
Coast Guard and have onboard a certificate from that society.
0
10. Add Sec.  28.202 to read as follows:


Sec.  28.202  Construction requirement for smaller vessels.

    Each vessel to which this subpart applies that is less than 50 feet 
overall in length and built after January 1, 2010, must be constructed 
in a manner that provides a level of safety equivalent to the 
recreational vessel regulations in 33 CFR part 183.
0
11. Amend Sec.  28.205 by adding introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  28.205  Fireman's outfits and self-contained breathing apparatus.

    For any documented vessel to which this subpart applies:
* * * * *


Sec.  28.210  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  28.210 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``medicine chest of a size 
suitable for the number of individuals on board'', and add, in their 
place, the words ``medical supplies sufficient for the size and area of 
operation of the vessel, which on documented vessels must be in a 
readily accessible location'';
0
b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, before the words ``certification 
in first aid and CPR'', add the words ``On any documented vessel,'';
0
c. In paragraph (b), remove the word ``Certification'' and add in its 
place the word ``certification''; and
0
d. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), after the word ``Each'' and before 
the word ``vessel'', add the word ``documented''.
0
13. Amend Sec.  28.215 by adding introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  28.215  Guards for exposed hazards.

    For any documented vessel to which this subpart applies:
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  28.225 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c), 
respectively, and add new paragraph (a); and
0
b. In newly redesignated paragraph (b) introductory text and in newly 
redesignated paragraph (c) after the word ``Each'' and before the word 
``vessel'', add the word ``documented''.
    The addition to read as follows:


Sec.  28.225  Navigational information.

    (a) Each vessel must have navigation equipment, including 
compasses, nautical charts, and publications.
* * * * *


Sec.  28.230  [Amended]

0
15. In Sec.  28.230, after the word ``Each'' and before the word 
``vessel'', add the word ``documented''.
0
16. Amend Sec.  28.235 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c), 
respectively;

[[Page 40468]]

0
b. Add new paragraph (a);
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (b), remove the words ``Each 
vessel'' and add, in their place, the words ``Each documented vessel''; 
and
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), before the word 
``nonmetallic'', add the word ``documented''.
    The addition to read as follows:


Sec.  28.235  Anchors and radar reflectors.

    (a) Each vessel must have ground tackle sufficient for the vessel.
* * * * *


Sec.  28.240  [Amended]

0
17. In Sec.  28.240, in paragraph (a), after the word ``each'' and 
before the word ``vessel'', add the word ``documented''.
0
18. Amend Sec.  28.245 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. In paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) after the word 
``Each'' and before the word ``vessel'', add the word ``documented''; 
and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i).
    The revisions to read as follows:


Sec.  28.245  Communication equipment.

    (a) Each vessel must have marine radio communications equipment 
sufficient to effectively communicate with land-based search and rescue 
facilities; and except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of 
this section, each documented vessel must be equipped as follows:
* * * * *
    (f) On each documented vessel, the principle operating position of 
the communication equipment must be at the operating station.
    (g) On each documented vessel, communication equipment must be 
installed to ensure safe operation of the equipment and to facilitate 
repair. It must be protected against vibration, moisture, temperature, 
and excessive currents and voltages. It must be located so as to 
minimize the possibility of water intrusion from windows broken by 
heavy seas.
    (h) On each documented vessel, communication equipment must comply 
with the technical standards and operating requirements issued by the 
Federal Communications Commission, as set forth in 47 CFR part 80.
    (i) On each documented vessel, all communication equipment must be 
provided with an emergency source of power that complies with Sec.  
28.375 of this part.


Sec.  28.250  [Amended]

0
19. In Sec.  28.250, in the introductory text, before the word 
``vessel'', add the word ``documented''.
0
20. Amend Sec.  28.255 by adding introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  28.255  Bilge pumps, bilge piping, and dewatering systems.

    For any documented vessel to which this subpart applies:
* * * * *


Sec.  28.260  [Amended]

0
21. In Sec.  28.260, after the word ``Each'' and before the word 
``vessel'', add the word ``documented''.
0
22. Amend Sec.  28.265 by adding introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  28.265  Emergency instructions.

    For any documented vessel to which this subpart applies:
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec.  28.270 as follows:
0
a. Add a new introductory paragraph; and
0
b. Revise the first sentence of paragraph (a).
    The additions and revisions to read as follows:


Sec.  28.270  Instruction, drills, safety orientation, and training.

    The master or individual in charge of any documented vessel to 
which this subpart applies must ensure compliance with this section, 
but may delegate the actual conduct of instruction and drills required 
by paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section to a person who may or 
may not be a member of the crew.
    (a) Drills and instruction. Drills must be conducted and 
instruction must be given to each individual onboard at least once each 
month. * * *
* * * * *


Sec.  28.500  [Amended]

0
24. Amend Sec.  28.500 introductory text by removing the words ``that 
is not required to be issued a load line under subchapter E of this 
chapter and''.

    Dated: June 10, 2016.
Paul F. Zukunft,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2016-14399 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


