
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49412-49420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19677]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 175

46 CFR Parts 160 and 169

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


Personal Flotation Devices Labeling and Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove references to type codes in 
its regulations on the carriage and labeling of Coast Guard-approved 
personal flotation devices (PFDs). PFD type codes are unique to Coast 
Guard approval and are not well understood by the public. Removing 
these type codes from our regulations would facilitate future 
incorporation by reference of new industry consensus standards for PFD 
labeling that will more effectively convey safety information, and is a 
step toward harmonization of our regulations with PFD requirements in 
Canada and in other countries.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our 
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before October 15, 
2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0263 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or email Ms. Brandi Baldwin, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-
1394, email Brandi.A.Baldwin@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing 
or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Barbara Hairston, 
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble

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

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2013-0263), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of 
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing 
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your 
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your 
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and 
insert ``USCG-2013-0263'' in the ``Search'' box. Press Enter and then 
click on the comment box in the row listing the NPRM. If you submit 
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound 
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and 
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to 
know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your 
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and 
insert ``USCG-2013-0263'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search'' and 
then click the ``Open Docket Folder'' icon. The following link will 
take you directly to the docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2013-0263. If you do not have access to the 
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket 
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department

[[Page 49413]]

of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a 
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting 
would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this 
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later 
notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

ASE Applied Safety and Ergonomics
DHS Department of Homeland Security
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NBSAC National Boating Safety Advisory Council
NPS National Park Service
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFD Personal flotation device
Pub. L. Public Law
RA Regulatory Analysis
RCC Regulatory Cooperation Council
Sec.  Section
STP Standards Technical Panel
UL Underwriters Laboratories
U.S.C. United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

III. Basis and Purpose

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

IV. Background

    Labeling of PFDs is an important safety matter, as it is the 
primary means by which the manufacturer communicates to the end user 
how to select the right PFD and use and maintain it properly. Based on 
the volume of queries to the Coast Guard including questions from NBSAC 
members in recent years, we believe that the current labels on Coast 
Guard-approved PFDs are confusing to the boating public and do not 
effectively communicate important safety and regulatory information to 
users and law enforcement personnel.
    As noted in the previous section, the Coast Guard is charged with 
establishing minimum safety standards, as well as procedures and tests 
required to measure compliance with those standards, for commercial and 
recreational vessels, and associated equipment. See 46 U.S.C. 3306, 
4302, and Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, section II, 
paragraph (92)(b). Under this authority, the Coast Guard has 
established requirements for the carriage of approved PFDs that meet 
certain minimum safety standards.
    The minimum requirements for Coast Guard-approved PFDs are codified 
in 46 CFR part 160, and include requirements for labeling. Our current 
regulations require that a type code be marked on each Coast Guard-
approved PFD. The Coast Guard historically has used type codes in its 
regulations to identify the level of performance of an approved PFD. 
Types I, II, and III refer to wearable PFDs (lifejackets) in decreasing 
order of performance; Type IV refers to throwable PFDs; and Type V 
refers to any PFD which is conditionally approved as equivalent in 
performance to Type I, II, III, or IV.
    Coast Guard regulations specify which Coast Guard-approved PFDs are 
acceptable for particular applications. Although most of the carriage 
requirements for inspected vessels identify the appropriate PFDs by the 
applicable approval series (see, for example, 46 CFR 199.10 and 
199.70(b)), our carriage requirements for recreational boats (33 CFR 
part 175), uninspected commercial vessels (46 CFR part 25) and sailing 
school vessels (46 CFR part 169) specify particular type codes. 
Approval series refers to the first six digits of a number assigned by 
the Coast Guard to approved equipment.
    In 2004, the consultant Applied Safety and Ergonomics (ASE) did a 
study of the current PFD classification and labeling system through the 
National Non-Profit Organization Recreational Boating Safety Grant 
Program. The ASE final report, entitled ``Revision of Labeling and 
Classification for Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs)'' (available in 
the docket), suggested that our current labels are inadequate and that 
users do not adequately understand our PFD type codes.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to remove references to longstanding PFD 
type codes from its requirements for the approval and carriage of Coast 
Guard-approved PFDs. Under these proposed amendments, the number and 
kind of PFDs required to be carried on a vessel would not change -- 
just the terminology used to refer to approved PFDs. Our current 
assigning of a type code to the PFD does not affect its suitability for 
meeting the applicable vessel carriage requirements. This proposed rule 
would remove regulatory barriers to the development of a new industry 
consensus standard for PFD labels, which would potentially allow 
manufacturers to use a more user-friendly label format on Coast Guard-
approved PFDs in the future.

Carriage Requirements

    The carriage requirements for PFDs vary based on the kind of 
vessel.
    As noted in Section IV, for commercial vessels, many of the 
carriage requirements in the CFR specify the applicable approval 
series, as defined in 46 CFR 199.30, rather than the type code. This 
proposed rule does not affect those regulations because they do not 
contain a specific reference to PFD type. The only exceptions are 46 
CFR 169.539, pertaining to sailing school vessels, and 46 CFR 25.25-5, 
pertaining to uninspected vessels, which do refer to type codes. In 
this NPRM, the Coast Guard is proposing to remove references to the 
type codes in 46 CFR 169.539. References in 46 CFR 25.25-5 to type 
codes for PFD requirements for uninspected commercial vessels are 
already being addressed in a separate rulemaking; see RIN 1625-AB83, 
Lifesaving Devices on

[[Page 49414]]

Uninspected Vessels, in the 2013 Spring Unified Agenda on 
www.reginfo.gov.
    The carriage requirements for recreational vessels do specify type 
codes. However, PFDs currently labeled Type I, II, or III all meet the 
same regulatory carriage requirements, so our regulations for 
recreational vessels need not differentiate PFDs based on type codes. 
The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR part 175 subpart B--Personal 
Flotation Devices to remove the references to type codes in the 
carriage requirements. In Sec.  175.15, the terms ``Type I PFD,'' 
``Type II PFD,'' and ``Type III PFD'' would be replaced with the term 
``wearable PFD'' and the term ``Type IV PFD'' would be replaced by the 
term ``throwable PFD.'' In proposed Sec.  175.13, we define the terms 
``wearable PFD'' and ``throwable PFD.''
    These changes would impose no burdens on users. Coast Guard-
approved PFDs which are marked as ``Type I,'' ``Type II,'' ``Type 
III,'' or ``Type V with Type [I, II, or III] performance'' would be 
considered wearable PFDs and would meet the same carriage requirements 
as Coast Guard-approved wearable PFDs without a type code marking. 
Likewise, PFDs marked as ``Type IV'' would be considered throwable PFDs 
and would meet the same carriage requirements as throwable PFDs without 
a type code marking.
    Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  175.15 so 
that it would require that PFDs be used in accordance with any 
limitations specified on the approval label, and with the 
manufacturer's instructions. This language is taken from the existing 
text of Sec.  175.17(a), which permits the carriage of conditionally 
approved (Type V) PFDs in lieu of Type I, II, III, or IV PFDs.
    The Coast Guard proposes conforming changes to 33 CFR 175.19 and 
175.21 to replace language referring to PFD type codes I-IV and 
conditionally approved (Type V) PFDs.

Marking Requirements

    The Coast Guard also proposes to revise the PFD marking 
requirements contained in 46 CFR part 160, Lifesaving Equipment, to 
remove the requirement that Coast Guard-approved PFDs be marked as Type 
I, II, III, IV, or V. As discussed, the marking of a type code on a PFD 
has no practical effect on its compliance with the carriage 
requirements applicable to a given vessel.
    For many of the affected subparts (see for example proposed edits 
to 46 CFR 160.002-6, 160.005-6, and 160.047-6), we accomplish this by 
deleting the line in the marking requirements which refers to the PFD 
approval type. However, the regulations pertaining to marine buoyant 
devices and inflatable recreational PFDs, 46 CFR subparts 160.064 and 
160.076 respectively, rely on industry consensus standards in addition 
to the regulatory text. In these two subparts, the Coast Guard proposes 
to remove references to PFD approval type and refer to the relevant 
industry standard for the marking requirements, with the provision that 
all labels contain the following information:
     Size information, as appropriate;
     The Coast Guard approval number;
     Manufacturer's contact information;
     Model name/number;
     Lot number, manufacturer date; and
     Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special 
instructions for use.
    The Coast Guard is aware that the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 
Standards Technical Panel (STP), the consensus body responsible for 
maintaining the industry consensus standards for PFDs, is considering a 
proposal to revise the industry standards for labeling PFDs which would 
remove reference to type codes. Once the revised standard is available, 
the Coast Guard will consider incorporating it by reference into its 
regulations.
    This rulemaking supports the efforts of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory 
Cooperation Council (RCC), a high-level bilateral effort coordinated by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The current RCC workplan 
calls for the development of a ``North American Standard for 
lifejackets.'' This NPRM will enable the STP to complete development of 
the North American standard for wearable PFDs without including 
unnecessary references to type codes. Thus, this rulemaking to adopt 
the revised labeling standard would allow for the future harmonization 
of U.S. and Canadian PFD approvals, which supports one of the 
initiatives of the RCC's Joint Action Plan of December 2011 (available 
in the docket).
    While we cannot anticipate the timing for the adoption and 
accreditation of the revised labeling standard, we recognize the 
benefits of harmonizing Coast Guard approval standards with the 
relevant industry consensus standards, and minimizing confusion and 
burden on the industry. Our proposed rule would not prohibit the use of 
the type code in the marking, so currently approved markings would be 
able to remain in use while the manufacturers design new labels 
conforming to the new standard under development by the UL STP.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (''Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies 
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives 
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both 
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of 
promoting flexibility.
    This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant regulatory 
action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the 
NPRM has not been reviewed by OMB. A combined preliminary Regulatory 
Analysis (RA) and Threshold Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows:
    The RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated 
with this proposed rule. The table which follows provides a summary of 
the proposed rule costs and benefits.

               Table 1--Summary of the Proposal's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population..........  66 PFD manufacturers.
                               6 Federal agencies.
                               Up to 56 State/territorial jurisdictions.
Costs ($, 7% discount rate)..  $14,992 (annualized: $710 private sector,
                                $14,283 government).
                               $105,301 (10-year: $4,985 private sector,
                                $100,316 government).
Unquantified Benefits........  * Improve effectiveness of PFD marking/
                                labels without compromising safety.

[[Page 49415]]

 
                               * Prevent misuse and misunderstandings of
                                PFDs.
                               * Remove impediment to future
                                harmonization with international
                                standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would revise the existing regulations regarding 
labeling of PFDs, by removing requirements for type codes to be 
included on PFD labels.
Affected Population
    Based on the Coast Guard Guard's Marine Information for Safety and 
Law Enforcement database, we estimate that this proposed rule would 
affect approximately 66 PFD manufacturers. There are six Federal 
governmental agencies--the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA); the Department of the Interior's 
Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service (NPS), and United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); the Department of Agriculture's 
Forest Service; and the Department of Defense--which may have to adjust 
their regulations or policy documents because they incorporate Coast 
Guard standards which mention PFD type codes. Of these six, the only 
agency we have identified that specifically references Coast Guard type 
codes in their regulations is OSHA. We are coordinating with the OSHA 
Directorate of Standards and Guidance to ensure that the relevant 
regulations align with the revisions to the Coast Guard regulations. We 
have also reached out to NPS, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and USFWS, via the Interagency Working 
Group for Visitor Safety, and they have not expressed any objections to 
our proposed action.
Costs
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule, if promulgated, will result 
in one-time costs of approximately $105,301 (7% discount).\1\ The Coast 
Guard estimates that $4,085 (7% discount) is attributable to the 
private sector. We estimate that this proposed rule would affect 66 
manufacturers of PFDs. No additional equipment would be required by the 
rule. PFD manufacturers would need to reprogram stitching machines or 
silk screen machines to conform with the new label requirements. This 
rule only would affect labeling on PFDs manufactured after the 
effective date of this rule. The Coast Guard seeks comment from PFD 
manufacturers regarding the costs associated with changing PFD labels 
in response to the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As derived by the equation: [(1 hour * $78.74/hour * 66 PFD 
manufacturer managers + 0.5 hour * $73.76/hour * 56 State managers + 
0.5 hour * $78.82/hour * 6 Federal managers) + 10 hours * $73.76/
hour State managers * 36 States + 100 hours * $73.76/hour State 
managers * 5 States + 10 hours * $78.82/hour * 6 Federal managers]* 
7% discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal agencies which incorporate these Coast Guard regulations by 
reference would need to review their regulations to assure consistency 
with the proposed change. Some States and Federal agencies may need to 
initiate rulemakings to update their regulations or statutes to remove 
unnecessary references to type codes.
    Recreational boaters would experience no cost increase because of 
the rulemaking. Existing PFDs may continue to be used. No action would 
be required by recreational boaters.
    The table which follows presents the estimated cost of compliance 
with the rulemaking.

                                   Table 2--Total Estimated Cost of Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Discounted 7%     Discounted 3%     Undiscounted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1....................................................          $105,301          $109,390          $112,672
Year 2....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 3....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 4....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 5....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 6....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 7....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 8....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 9....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 10...................................................                 0                 0                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................           105,301           109,390           112,672
Annualized................................................            14,992            12,824            11,267
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard estimates that reprogramming stitching machines or 
silk screen machines would take approximately 1 hour per manufacturer. 
This estimate comports with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) 
estimated cost of compliance for relabeling of sunscreens to comply 
with new labeling requirements.\2\ This is the most similar Federal 
rulemaking we found in our research that involves a regulatory 
requirement on labels. Both the FDA's and this rulemaking involve 
changes to labeling. The FDA estimated that it would take 0.5 hours to 
prepare, complete, and review the labeling for each product. The Coast 
Guard used a higher value than FDA: 1 hour per product to prepare, 
complete and review the new labeling. The higher value accounts for 
possible involvement of more than one type of machine (i.e., stiching 
or silk screen), more complex machiney for PFD labels and the need for 
management communication to multiple factories or stitching machine 
designers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Labor costs are estimated at $78.74 per hour (fully loaded) for a 
manager based on a mean wage rate of $46.87;

[[Page 49416]]

this estimate is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data Occupational 
Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, for 
Industrial Production Managers (11-3051, May 2012).\3\ From there, we 
applied a load factor (or benefits multiplier) of 1.68, to determine 
the actual cost of employment to employers and industry.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The reader may review the source data at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#11-0000.
    \4\ This was calculated using data found on the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' Web site. The load factor is calculated specifically for 
Production, transportation and material moving occupations, Full-
time, Private Industry (Series ID: CMU2010000520610D, 2012, 2nd 
Quarter). This category was used as it was the closest available 
corresponding to the industry being analyzed in this regulatory 
analysis. Total cost of compensation per hour worked: $26.61, of 
which $15.84 is wages, resulting in a load factor of 1.6799 ($26.61/
$15.84). We rounded this factor to 1.68. (Source: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv) Using similar applicable industry groups 
and time periods results in the same estimate of load factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other costs, States would need to review their laws and 
regulations to assure comportment with the proposed change. In turn, 
some States may need to initiate rulemakings or make statutory changes 
to remove references to type codes; we discuss this further in this 
section. The Coast Guard estimates that these agencies would take 
approximately 0.5 hour to review their laws and regulations. Their 
review task is estimated by the loaded wage rate of $73.76 
(Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2012 11-1021 General and 
Operations Managers Local Government). The average cost for a State to 
perform this task would be approximately $37.
    In addition, the proposal would impact some Federal agencies and 
they would need to review their regulations or policy documents to 
determine if any change were needed. The Coast Guard estimates that it 
would take 0.5 hour to do this task. The Coast Guard estimates the 
labor cost to be $78.82 per hour for a Federal manager (Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, ``Occupational Employment and Wages, First-Line Supervisors 
of Transportation and Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle Operators, 
Federal Executive Branch and a load factor of 1.65) \5\ and there are 
an estimated six Federal agencies potentially impacted. Based on these 
data, this task would cost Federal agencies less than $50 to review 
regulations or policy documents. To update a policy document, we 
estimate that 10 hours would be expended by a Federal agency to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This load factor is calculated specifically for Public 
Administration, State and Local Government occupations, Full-time, 
Private Industry (Series ID: CMU3019200000000D,CMU3019200000000P, 
2012, 2nd Quarter. Total cost of compensation per hour worked: 
$39.642, of which $23.97 is wages, resulting in a load factor of 
1.653734 ($39.64/$23.97). We rounded this factor to 1.65 (rounded to 
the nearest hundredth). (Source: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/data.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       Table 3--Estimated Rulemaking Activities for States and Territories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number of states   Level of effort
                     Level of activity                       or territories   required (hours)     Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporate by Reference..................................                 6                 0                $0
Rulemaking by State Commission............................                36                10            26,552
Rulemaking by Statute or Legislative Process..............                10               100            73,755
No change necessary.......................................                 4                 0                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................  ................  ................           100,307
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that costs to a given State or territory for this step 
would range from no cost to $7,412. Some costs may be offset because 
some States may have already started this process in anticipation of 
the new industry standard for PFD labeling. The Coast Guard seeks 
comment from States and Federal agencies regarding the costs associated 
with making the requisite changes to their laws or regulations.
    In addition to the costs noted in the previous paragraphs, the 
Coast Guard may experience some costs in subsequent years to augment 
existing boater education efforts to include information associated 
with this proposed rule. However, the Coast Guard may be able to use 
existing partnerships, Internet resources, and other technologies which 
offer more cost effective solutions.
Benefits
    The proposed rule would amend existing regulations regarding 
labeling of PFDs. The Coast Guard is pursuing this amendment to 
existing standards to prevent misuse, misunderstandings, and

[[Page 49417]]

inappropriate selection of PFDs without compromising the existing level 
of safety. The proposed rule would promote maritime safety by 
eliminating confusion associated with type codes, and by improving 
understanding of PFD performance and use.
    The rulemaking would improve the relevance of markings on PFDs. The 
Coast Guard believes that removing irrelevant information would 
increase the likelihood that the user will read and understand the 
label, and thus select the proper PFD and be able to use it correctly. 
This would also provide benefits by reducing confusion among 
enforcement officers and the boating public over whether a particular 
PFD is approved and meets the relevant carriage requirements.
    The rulemaking also would harmonize our regulations with industry 
standards for label requirements. For recreational PFDs, which comprise 
about 97 percent of the U.S. PFD market, the approvals are based on 
industry consensus standards that contain marking requirements. By 
referring to those standards directly, the Coast Guard reduces 
regulatory redundancy and minimizes the risk of conflict between 
regulatory requirements and industry standards.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 
50,000 people.
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on small entities. As described in the ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review'' section, the Coast Guard expects this rule to 
result in low costs to industry (approximately $78 per PFD 
manufacturer). An estimated 92.4 percent of all PFD manufacturers are 
considered small by the Small Business Administration size standards. 
The compliance costs for this rulemaking amount to less than 1 percent 
of revenue for all small entities. Costs would be incurred in the first 
year of the final rule's enactment for PFD manufacturers. No additional 
costs for labor or equipment would be incurred in future years. No 
small governmental jurisidctions are impacted by the rulemaking.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think 
that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction 
qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant 
economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management 
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why 
you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would 
economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Ms. Brandi Baldwin 
at the address listed at the beginning of this preamble. The Coast 
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or 
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As 
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises 
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other 
similar actions. The proposal would not require a change to existing 
OMB-approved collection of information (1625-0035 Title 46 CFR 
Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and Navigation 
Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (33 
CFR 159)). The proposed rule would not require relabeling of PFDs, but 
instead would remove minor data elements from existing labeling 
requirements. Labeling of PFDs is an automated process, and the change 
in content would not result in any appreciable change in burden hours.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 
(``Federalism'') if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that 
order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental 
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in the 
Executive Order. Our analysis follows.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled 
that all of the categories covered for inspected vessels in 46 U.S.C. 
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, 
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning 
of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other 
category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole 
source of a vessel's obligations are within the field foreclosed from 
regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the 
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) In this rule, the Coast 
Guard proposes to replace unnecessary references to type codes in 
labeling and carriage requirements for Coast Guard-approved PFDs on 
inspected vessels and recreational vessels. With regard to these 
regulations promulgated under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306 
concerning inspected vessels, they fall within fields foreclosed from 
regulation by State or local governments. Therefore, this proposed rule 
is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption 
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    With regard to regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 4302 
concerning recreational vessels, under 46 U.S.C. 4306, those Federal 
regulations that establish minimum safety standards for recreational 
vessels and their associated equipment, as well as regulations that 
establish procedures and tests required to measure conformance with 
those standards, preempt State law, unless the State law is identical 
to a Federal regulation or a State is specifically provided an

[[Page 49418]]

exemption to those regulations, or permitted to regulate marine safety 
articles carried or used to address a hazardous condition or 
circumstance unique to that State. As an exemption has not been 
granted, and because the States may not issue regulations that differ 
from Coast Guard regulations within these categories for recreational 
vessels, this proposed rule is consistent with the fundamental 
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in 
Executive Order 13132.
    Nevertheless, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role State and 
local governments may have in making regulatory or statutory 
determinations. Sections 4 and 6 of Executive Order 13132 require that 
for any rules with preemptive effect, the Coast Guard shall provide 
elected officials of affected State and local governments and their 
representative national organizations the notice and opportunity for 
appropriate participation in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult 
with such officials early in the rulemaking process.
    Therefore, we invite affected State and local governments and their 
representative national organizations to indicate their desire for 
participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by submitting 
comments on this NPRM. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the 
Coast Guard will provide a federalism impact statement to document (1) 
The extent of the Coast Guard's consultation with State and local 
officials that submit comments to this notice of proposed rulemaking, 
(2) a summary of the nature of any concerns raised by state or local 
governments and the Coast Guard's position thereon, and (3) a statement 
of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have 
been met. We will also report to OMB any written communications with 
the states.

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.

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 
(``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use''). We have determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of OMB's 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, codified as a 
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides 
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test 
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule 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 made a 
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of 
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis 
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket 
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' section of this preamble. This rule is likely to be 
categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 
(34)(a) and (e) of the Instruction and 6(a) of Coast Guard Procedures 
for Categorical Exclusions published July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48243). This 
rule involves regulations which are editorial and concern carriage 
requirements and vessel operation safety standards. We seek any 
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 175

    Marine safety.

46 CFR Part 160

    Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 169

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Schools, Vessels.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 175 and 46 CFR parts 160 and 169 as follows:

[[Page 49419]]

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

PART 175--EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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


Sec.  175.13  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    Personal flotation device or PFD means a device that is approved by 
the Commandant under 46 CFR part 160.
    Throwable PFD means a PFD that is intended to be thrown to a person 
in the water. A PFD marked as ``Type IV'' or ``Type V with Type IV 
performance'' is considered a throwable PFD. Unless specifically marked 
otherwise, a wearable PFD is not a throwable PFD.
    Wearable PFD means a PFD that is intended to be worn or otherwise 
attached to the body. A PFD marked as ``Type I'', ``Type II'', ``Type 
III'', ``Type V with Type I performance'', ``Type V with Type II 
performance'', or ``Type V with Type III performance'', is considered a 
wearable PFD.
0
3. Amend Sec.  175.15 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs 
(a) and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  175.15  Personal flotation devices required.

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


Sec.  175.17  Exemptions.

    (a) Canoes and kayaks 16 feet in length and over are exempted from 
the requirements for carriage of the additional throwable PFD required 
under Sec.  175.15(b) of this subpart.
    (b) Racing shells, rowing sculls, racing canoes and racing kayaks 
are exempted from the requirements for carriage of any PFD required 
under Sec.  175.15 of this subpart.
    (c) Sailboards are exempted from the requirements for carriage of 
any PFD required under Sec.  175.15 of this subpart.
    (d) Vessels of the United States used by foreign competitors while 
practicing for or racing in competition are exempted from the carriage 
of any PFD required under Sec.  175.15 of this subpart, provided the 
vessel carries one of the sponsoring foreign country's acceptable 
flotation devices for each foreign competitor on board.
0
5. Revise Sec.  175.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  175.19  Stowage.

    (a) No person may use a recreational boat unless each wearable PFD 
required by Sec.  175.15 of this subpart is readily accessible.
    (b) No person may use a recreational boat unless each throwable PFD 
required by Sec.  175.15 of this subpart is immediately available.
0
6. Amend Sec.  175.21 by revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:


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

    No person may use a recreational boat unless each PFD required by 
Sec.  175.15 of this subpart is--
    (a) In serviceable condition as provided in Sec.  175.23 of this 
subpart;
* * * * *

TITLE 46--SHIPPING

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

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

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


Sec.  160.001-1  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.001-3  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.002-6  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.005-6  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.047-6  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.052-8  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.055-8  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.060-8  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  160.060-8(a) by removing the words ``Type II Personal 
Flotation Device.''.
0
16. Revise Sec.  160.064-4 to read as follows:


Sec.  160.064-4  Marking.

    (a) Each water safety buoyant device must be marked in accordance 
with the recognized laboratory's listing and labeling requirements in 
accordance with Sec.  160.064-3(a) of this subpart. At a minimum, all 
labels must include:
    (1) Size information, as appropriate;
    (2) The Coast Guard approval number;
    (3) Manufacturer's contact info;
    (4) Model name/number;
    (5) Lot number, manufacturer date; and
    (6) Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special 
instructions for use.
    (b) Durability of marking. Marking must be of a type which will be 
durable and legible for the expected life of the device.
0
17. Amend Sec.  160.076-5 by revising the definitions of ``Conditional 
approval'' and ``Performance type'' to read as follows, and by removing 
the definition of ``PFD Approval Type'':


Sec.  160.076-5  Definitions.

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


Sec.  160.076-7  [Removed and Reserved]

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


Sec.  160.076-9  Conditional approval.

* * * * *

[[Page 49420]]

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


Sec.  160.076-13  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.076-23  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.076-25  [Amended]

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


Sec.  160.076-39  Marking.

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


Sec.  160.176-23  [Amended]

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

PART 169--SAILING SCHOOL VESSELS

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

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

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


Sec.  169.539  Type required.

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

    Dated: August 2, 2013.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-19677 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


