[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25525-25557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 159, 160, and 199

[CGD 85-205]
RIN 2115-AC51


Inflatable Liferafts

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its regulations for the approval 
and servicing of inflatable liferafts, and adding provisions for the 
approval of inflatable buoyant apparatuses. This final rule implements 
the 1983 Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of 
Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS), adds provisions for approval of a new 
``Coastal Service'' liferaft for use on certain uninspected fishing 
vessels, introduces requirements for the stability of liferafts, and 
reduces direct Coast Guard involvement in inspections of liferaft 
production and servicing. This final rule will bring liferafts approved 
by the Coast Guard into compliance with SOLAS, improve the 
seaworthiness of approved liferafts, and increase manufacturers' 
flexibility in scheduling liferaft inspections while reducing the 
associated burden on the Coast Guard.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 9, 1997. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register on June 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for 
inspection or copying at the office of the Executive Secretary, Marine 
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second 
Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 20593-0001, between 9:30 a.m. and 
2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-267-1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kurt J. Heinz, Lifesaving and Fire 
Safety Standards Division (G-MSE-4), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 
2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, telephone 202-267-
1444, fax 202-267-1069, E-mail ``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On October 18, 1994, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking entitled Inflatable Liferafts in the Federal Register (59 FR 
52590). The Coast Guard received 51 letters commenting on the proposed 
rulemaking. These comprised 12 letters from commercial fishermen and a 
commercial fishermen's association, 17 form letters also apparently 
from commercial fishermen, 9 letters from liferaft servicing 
facilities, 4 letters from marine inspection and District offices of 
the Coast Guard, 2 letters from marine suppliers, a letter from the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), letters from an 
association representing U.S. liferaft manufacturers and servicing 
facilities and an association representing European lifesaving 
appliance manufacturers, a letter from a liferaft manufacturer, a 
letter from a vessel classification society, and a letter from the 
Icelandic maritime

[[Page 25526]]

administration. One letter, from the vessel classification society, 
suggested a public meeting on whether third parties involved in 
liferaft inspections should have the qualifications and quality control 
required for membership in IACS (International Association of 
Classification Societies). The Coast Guard does not believe that such a 
public meeting would aid this rulemaking, and accordingly will not 
conduct one.

Background and Purpose

    On June 17, 1983, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 
Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) approved the 1983 Amendments to the 
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS). 
The amended SOLAS, commonly referred to as ``SOLAS 74/83,'' included a 
new Chapter III, ``Life-saving Appliances and Arrangements.''
    Since no contracting governments objected, SOLAS 74/83 was deemed 
to be accepted on January 1, 1986, and subsequently came into force for 
the United States and all other contracting governments on July 1, 
1986. Ships whose keels were laid or which were at a similar stage of 
construction on or after that date must comply with SOLAS 74/83 in 
order to qualify for a SOLAS Safety or Safety Equipment Certificate. 
Coast Guard-approved inflatable liferafts on these ships are also 
required to meet the inflatable liferaft requirements of SOLAS 74/83. 
In addition, any ship with a SOLAS Safety or Safety Equipment 
Certificate replacing a liferaft on or after July 1, 1986, is required 
to replace the raft with one meeting SOLAS 74/83.
    Implementation of SOLAS 74/83 (hereinafter referred to simply as 
SOLAS for clarity) has been the subject of a series of Coast Guard 
rulemaking documents and public meetings, culminating in an NPRM 
published on October 18, 1994. This NPRM reflected most of the comments 
submitted in response to the previous rulemaking documents and those 
discussed at public meetings.
    The Coast Guard announced the first series of meetings in the July 
30, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 30339) (CGD 84-051). These meetings 
were held in conjunction with the U.S. Lifesaving Manufacturers 
Association (now the United States Marine Safety Association) to 
discuss the impending implementation of SOLAS, including the 
implications of the new Chapter III requirements for Coast Guard-
approved lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and their launching 
equipment. Guidelines were also developed for lifesaving equipment 
manufacturers regarding the additions and deviations from current Coast 
Guard regulations necessary to meet the new Chapter III requirements.
    On December 31, 1984, the Coast Guard published an Advance Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (49 FR 50745) describing major changes 
under consideration for implementation of SOLAS. The ANPRM proposed a 
revision of the regulations involving inflatable liferafts, but did not 
describe the revisions in detail.
    On September 27, 1984, the Coast Guard published an NPRM which 
proposed rules for the approval and production testing of lifeboats, 
liferafts, and lifeboat launching equipment (49 FR 38151) (CGD 83-030). 
A public hearing on the proposal was also held at Coast Guard 
Headquarters in Washington, DC, on February 19, 1985. The NPRM 
published on October 18, 1994, incorporated the written comments 
submitted in response to CGD 83-030 and the comments made at the public 
hearing, and consequently, included approval and production testing 
procedures which replaced proposals made for inflatable liferafts under 
CGD 83-030. Separate rulemaking documents, to be published at a later 
date, will propose revisions to regulations involving inspection of 
lifeboats, davits, and winches.
    Possible changes in liferaft servicing procedures were initially 
raised in an ANPRM published on August 14, 1986 (51 FR 29117) (CGD 81-
010), and discussed at public meetings held on January 27, 1987, and 
March 20, 1987. The primary objectives of the changes to inspection and 
servicing of liferafts were to minimize the role of Coast Guard 
inspectors while maintaining Coast Guard oversight for quality control, 
and to allow private industry the flexibility necessary to meet the 
changing needs of the marine industry. An additional objective was to 
update Coast Guard regulations by implementing the relevant SOLAS 
requirements related to servicing. The proposals related to liferaft 
servicing which were contained in the October 18, 1994, NPRM addressed 
the issues discussed in the 1986 ANPRM. The comments at the public 
meetings were also considered in the development of these proposals.
    Proposals concerning improved liferaft stability first appeared in 
an ANPRM in the Federal Register published on June 29, 1981 (46 FR 
33341) (CGD 80-113). That ANPRM presented a summary of research 
efforts, sea trials, and yachting casualties from the U.S. and Europe, 
and invited comments from the public. A public hearing was held on 
September 1, 1981. An NPRM published on January 11, 1985 (50 FR 1558) 
summarized the comments received on this ANPRM, and also proposed 
specific design and testing requirements to improve stability of 
inflatable liferafts. The proposals contained in the January 11, 1985, 
NPRM, as well as the comments to such proposals were refined and used 
as a basis for those contained in the October 18, 1994, NPRM. The Coast 
Guard notes that all subsequent references to an NPRM relate to the 
October 18, 1994, NPRM.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

General Approval Procedures

Confidentiality of Information
    Proposed Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4) required that a manufacturer 
submitting commercial information that could cause substantial 
commercial harm if released to the public, include a statement to that 
effect with the information. One comment suggested that a system should 
be developed within the Coast Guard to ensure that such information 
remains confidential. It is unclear what sort of a system the comment 
envisions; however, the Coast Guard does not and will not release 
proprietary commercial information to any party other than the original 
submitting party, except as may be required under the Freedom of 
Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552]. Exemption b(4) of the Freedom of 
Information Act, which is specifically referred to in Sec. 159.005-
5(a)(4), clearly exempts the release of material that could cause 
substantial competitive harm to the party submitting it. Consequently, 
in this final rule, new Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4) is retained as proposed in 
the NPRM.
Approval of Equivalents
    One comment questioned whether, in view of the lengthy and 
comprehensive process by which regulations are drafted, the Coast Guard 
needed provisions allowing for approval of equipment and material not 
meeting the letter of the regulations but having ``equivalent 
performance characteristics.'' It further recommended that, in 
instances where the Coast Guard does approve materials or equipment on 
the basis of equivalency to the regulatory requirements, the Coast 
Guard notify members of the industry holding similar approvals to allow 
them the opportunity to exercise the same equivalency determination in 
their products if they desire.
    The current situation in the liferaft industry is a good example of 
the need

[[Page 25527]]

to approve equivalents. The existing specifications for structural 
fabrics of liferafts are a combination of design and performance 
requirements. A majority of liferaft manufacturers currently use 
fabrics in their approved products that do not meet all of the design 
requirements specified in the regulations but provide equivalent 
performance. Those manufacturers have chosen to use these recently 
developed fabrics to reduce weight and manufacturing cost and to 
improve the performance of their products. The Coast Guard fully 
expects that future research may lead to the development of new fabrics 
and other materials and designs that, although they do not specifically 
comply with the design requirements in the regulations, have at least 
equivalent performance characteristics. By allowing the approval of 
equivalents, the Coast Guard can accommodate technological improvements 
without the need for cumbersome and lengthy regulatory changes. 
However, at the same time, the Coast Guard is working with the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and other 
consensus standards organizations to develop suitable performance 
standards to replace existing design (and combined design-and-
performance) standards to the extent possible, with the expectation of 
making approval of equivalents obsolete.
    The Coast Guard already had the authority to approve equivalents to 
inflatable liferafts and liferaft components in existing regulations 
(46 CFR 160.051-2). The new Sec. 159.005-7 merely streamlines the 
regulations by allowing a provision applicable to many items of 
approved equipment to be stated in a single location.
    Concerning the suggestion that equivalency determinations be 
disseminated to the industry to allow a ``level playing field,'' the 
Coast Guard agrees, and will develop a system internally to disseminate 
them. In view of the importance of dissemination as a means to ensure 
uniform application of the regulations by the Coast Guard, 
manufacturers should be aware that designs and materials submitted as 
``equivalents'' cannot be considered confidential in terms of new 
Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4).

Inflatable Buoyant Apparatuses

Design and Performance Requirements
    The NPRM specified design and performance requirements for 
inflatable buoyant apparatuses in terms of the differences between it 
and the Coastal Service inflatable liferaft, the requirements for which 
were, in turn, defined in terms of the differences between it and the 
SOLAS liferaft. This convention of defining inflatable buoyant 
apparatuses in terms of exceptions to exceptions was confusing, and so 
in this final rule, the design and performance requirements for 
inflatable buoyant apparatuses in Sec. 160.010-3(a) are specified as 
direct exceptions to the corresponding SOLAS liferaft requirements in 
subpart 160.151. There are some editorial and paragraph numbering 
changes as a result of this change, but the substance of the affected 
paragraphs is unchanged.
Floor Drains
    Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(3) required that every inflatable 
buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons be equipped 
with self-bailing floor drains. Citing the requirement for functionally 
similar inflatable liferafts to be equipped with bailers but not with 
floor drains, and the added cost of providing floor drains, one comment 
suggested that the Coast Guard permit inflatable buoyant apparatuses to 
be equipped with either bailers or floor drains.
    The Coast Guard contends that it is not valid to compare a large 
inflatable liferaft, which is almost completely sheltered by a canopy, 
with an open inflatable buoyant apparatus, which has no protection 
against waves. It is very easy for an inflatable buoyant apparatus to 
be swamped by a single wave, after which a large apparatus (for 
example, one of 25 persons or more capacity) can have a substantial 
depth of water (well in excess of 1 meter) in its center. Bailers are 
of little use in removing such a quantity of water, particularly as 
more water is likely to be coming in during the process. However, floor 
drains, which are generally in the form of simple fabric tubes secured 
through the floor, are capable of quickly removing such a quantity of 
water on a continuous basis. In calm seas, where such heavy water-
removing capability is not needed, the floor drains can be secured to 
prevent small quantities of water from entering the buoyant apparatus 
through them. Because floor drains are not capable of removing all 
water from the buoyant apparatus, bailers are needed as well.
    The proposed requirement for floor drains is less stringent than 
the only corresponding international requirement, which is that for 
``open reversible liferafts'' contained in the IMO International Code 
Of Safety For High-Speed Craft (HSC Code). The HSC Code requires an 
apparatus with a capacity of up to 30 persons to be equipped with one 
floor drain, and an apparatus with a capacity of greater than 30 
persons to be equipped with two floor drains. Since there is no 
evidence that water depth in an inflatable buoyant apparatus when 
swamped is a significant problem for an apparatus with a capacity of 
less than 25 persons, Sec. 160.010-3(a)(7) in the final rule retains 
the floor drain requirements as proposed in the October 18, 1994, NPRM.
Boarding Ladders
    One comment suggested that boarding ladders on inflatable buoyant 
apparatuses should meet construction standards similar to those 
required for SOLAS inflatable liferafts. They already do, since 
Sec. 160.010-3(a) in the NPRM (the substance of which remains unchanged 
in the final rule) requires an inflatable buoyant apparatus to 
generally meet the design and performance requirements for SOLAS 
inflatable liferafts in subpart 160.151.
Position-Indicating Lamps
    Several comments suggested that the wording of Sec. 160.010-
3(a)(8)(ii) was unclear as to whether one or two lamps are required on 
each side of a reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus. The Coast Guard 
agrees that the wording is ambiguous, and Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) in the 
final rule clarifies that one lamp is required on each of the two 
reversible sides of the apparatus.
Sea Anchors
    Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(10), which prescribed required equipment 
for an inflatable buoyant apparatus, did not include a sea anchor. 
However, all manufacturers of currently approved inflatable buoyant 
apparatuses include sea anchors with those apparatuses, although the 
Coast Guard has not specifically required them. In addition, a sea 
anchor is required for ``open reversible liferafts'' under the IMO HSC 
Code. Therefore, in keeping with longstanding industry practice, and 
the comments on the NPRM supporting consistency with international 
requirements, Sec. 160.010-3(a)(12) in the final rule includes a 
requirement that inflatable buoyant apparatuses be fitted with a sea 
anchor.
``Overloading'' of Inflatable Buoyant Apparatuses
    Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) required that the IMO Swamp Test be 
conducted on an inflatable buoyant apparatus with the apparatus loaded 
to 50% in excess of its rated capacity, rather than just to its rated 
capacity (as specified in the test procedure). This requirement was

[[Page 25528]]

proposed in anticipation of rulemaking projects (since completed) 
establishing, for some protected routes, carriage requirements based on 
the possibility of such overloading contained in 46 CFR subchapters K, 
T, and W.
    Citing National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations 
in the wake of the grounding of the PILGRIM BELLE in 1985 and the 
sinking of the COUGAR in 1988, one comment opposed this concept on the 
grounds that it would ``make the out-of-water flotation device an in-
water flotation device.'' The comment cautioned that overloading of 
survival equipment should not be acceptable in any waters, no matter 
how protected.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the premise of the comment 
concerning the effect of 50 percent overloading on an inflatable 
buoyant apparatus. The cases cited in the comment involved rigid 
buoyant apparatuses, not the inflatable type. Like an inflatable 
liferaft, an inflatable buoyant apparatus is designed with at least 100 
percent excess buoyancy. Consequently, it remains an out-of-water 
flotation device even in conditions of overload far more extreme than 
anticipated in the proposed rule. Multiple swamp tests of inflatable 
buoyant apparatuses which have been conducted under the conditions 
specified in the proposed rule have verified that the devices remain 
effective under such conditions.
    However, subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, the IMO MSC 
approved a change to Resolution A.689(17) which would effectively 
render the proposed overload test meaningless. Specifically, in order 
to address the potential personnel hazard and logistical problems 
associated with swamp testing of a large survival craft loaded with 
people, the Committee revised the Swamp Test procedure to require that 
the device be completely swamped, but without people inside, during the 
test. In view of the buoyancy of people wearing lifejackets, this test 
is considered to be at least as strenuous a test of the device in the 
swamped condition as the previous test. However, since the revised 
procedure calls for the device to be completely swamped, it is not 
possible to ``overload'' it as specified in the NPRM. Consequently, in 
view of the extensive successful test experience already obtained for a 
variety of inflatable buoyant apparatuses under overload conditions, 
and in the interest of remaining consistent with internationally 
accepted testing procedures, proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) has not 
been included in this final rule. This will have the effect of 
requiring an inflatable buoyant apparatus to be subjected to the same 
Swamp Test as an inflatable liferaft.
``Open Reversible Liferafts'' Under the IMO HSC Code
    On January 1, 1996, the IMO HSC Code entered into force. Annex 10 
to the HSC Code contains requirements for an ``open reversible 
liferaft'' which are similar, but not identical to the requirements for 
inflatable buoyant apparatuses as specified in this final rule. 
Although the timing of the publication of the HSC Code did not allow 
for discussion of it in the NPRM, a new Sec. 160.010-3(e) has been 
added to this final rule to provide guidance to those who wish to 
obtain approval for inflatable buoyant apparatuses which also comply 
with the requirements for open reversible liferafts under the HSC Code. 
This new section merely provides an alternative path to approval which 
manufacturers may utilize as they see fit.

Inflatable Liferafts

Incorporation by Reference
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-1 incorporated a number of technical 
documents by reference. One comment suggested that all material 
incorporated by reference should be published as an appendix with the 
final rules.
    The Coast Guard contends that the purpose of incorporating lengthy 
technical documents by reference is to reduce repetition and, in 
keeping with ongoing government reinvention initiatives, to reduce the 
bulk of the Code of Federal Regulations. It would completely defeat the 
purpose of incorporating materials by reference to publish them as 
annexes to the final rule. Consequently, proposed Sec. 160.151-1 is 
retained unchanged as Sec. 160.151-5 (due to editorially interchanging 
Sec. 160.151-1 and Sec. 160.151-5) in the final rule.
Definitions
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-3 contained a definition of ``SOLAS'' which 
incorporated all amendments through the 1983 amendments. In the final 
rule, this definition has been revised to incorporate amendments 
through the 1988 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) 
amendments. This will simplify SOLAS references for the user, since the 
most common published version of SOLAS is a 1992 Consolidated Edition 
which includes the 1988 amendments. The only substantive effect is 
that, as was discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, the GMDSS 
amendments removed the requirement for liferafts to be fitted with 
portable lifeboat radio siting and securing arrangements as of August 
1, 1993. The paragraph numbering in SOLAS regulation III/38.3 was 
slightly altered as a result.
Liferaft Capacity
    One comment questioned why capacity requirements for liferafts were 
not included in the standards for design, performance, and construction 
contained in proposed Secs. 160.151-7 and 160.151-15. The comment also 
questioned whether Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 1-
92 would remain valid for capacity conversion of unapproved liferafts 
``grandfathered'' for use on commercial fishing vessels.
    Like many of the requirements in the NPRM, the capacity 
requirements for liferafts are included by reference to the 
corresponding SOLAS regulation--in this case, by reference to 
regulation III/39 in proposed Sec. 160.151-7(c), which remains 
unchanged for this final rule. The standards for design, performance, 
and construction in the final rule apply only to new construction of 
approved liferafts, so all issues pertaining to the ``grandfathering'' 
of unapproved liferafts on commercial fishing vessels will continue to 
be covered by NVIC 1-92.
Liferafts of Less Than 6 Persons Capacity
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-7 prescribed construction requirements for 
SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts. By reference to SOLAS 
regulation III/38 (specifically regulation III/38.2.1), this section 
restricted inflatable liferafts to a minimum capacity of 6 persons, 
except as otherwise specified in the subpart (for example, for coastal 
service liferafts).
    One comment noted that the Coast Guard has long approved, and that 
there continues to be a need for, 4-person liferafts as capable as 
SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts. These liferafts have particular 
application on some commercial fishing vessels, which are technically 
required to carry SOLAS A or SOLAS B liferafts but which have been 
permitted to carry approved 4-person liferafts if they carry 4 or fewer 
persons on board. In the past, the Coast Guard has allowed 4-person 
liferafts with the equivalent of SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs to 
be marked as having ``A'' or ``B'' packs, avoiding the use of the term 
``SOLAS''. These rafts were issued approval numbers in the 160.051/XXX 
series, as opposed to liferafts complying with SOLAS, which have been 
issued approval numbers in the 160.151/XXX series. The Coast Guard 
agrees that there continues to be

[[Page 25529]]

a need for approved 4-person liferafts comparable to SOLAS A and SOLAS 
B liferafts. Consequently, to maintain the longstanding approval-
numbering convention, the final rule does not completely remove 46 CFR 
subpart 160.051 as was proposed in the NPRM. Instead, in the final rule 
existing subpart 160.051 is replaced by a new subpart 160.051, which 
covers standards for design, construction, performance, and equipment 
for liferafts not complying with SOLAS but which are approved for use 
in some domestic services. These include ``A'' and ``B'' inflatable 
liferafts of less than 6 persons capacity, and coastal service 
inflatable liferafts, which were addressed in Secs. 160.151-19, 
160.151-23, and portions of 160.151-27 in the NPRM. This is merely an 
editorial change; it does not affect the substance of the moved 
sections.
Oversight of Approval Testing
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-13 (c)-(f) required that approval testing of 
prototype liferafts be carried out under the oversight of a Coast Guard 
marine inspector. One comment suggested that this oversight be provided 
by qualified third parties such as classification societies that are 
members of the IACS, and noted that such third parties were competent 
to perform this function.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the proposed rules struck a careful 
balance between delegation of suitable functions to third parties under 
Coast Guard oversight and direct Coast Guard participation in certain 
critical areas in order to fulfill our responsibility for the approval 
of equipment used on U.S. ships and for maintaining the knowledge and 
experience necessary to provide adequate oversight. The proposed rules 
allow for third-party involvement in inspection of prototype 
construction and in production inspection after approval. However, in 
light of the other proposed changes to the approval procedures, it is 
essential that the Coast Guard maintain its direct involvement in the 
required prototype testing to validate the basic design submitted for 
approval. Consequently, Secs. 160.151-13 (c) through (f) are retained 
in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM.
Liferaft Design and Performance
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(c) required that a protective liner or 
baffling arrangement be provided inside each inflatable compartment at 
the inflation gas inlet in order to protect the compartment fabric from 
the damaging effects of cold inflation gas. One comment suggested that 
advances in the technology of thermoplastic-coated fabrics may result 
in the development of fabrics not as susceptible to damage from cold 
exposure as the fabrics currently used. Consequently, a liner or 
baffling arrangement would not necessarily be needed on rafts 
constructed of such fabrics. The comment suggested that the Coast Guard 
adopt a performance criterion to allow approval of such designs, but 
did not propose a specific test.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the requirement as proposed is 
unnecessarily design-restrictive, and has revised the wording of 
Sec. 160.151-15(c) in the final rule to allow means other than a liner 
or baffling arrangement to achieve the performance objective of 
protecting the compartment fabric from damaging effects of cold 
inflation gas. However, the Coast Guard does not have sufficient data 
to specify in this final rule a particular test to evaluate the 
adequacy of designs not incorporating a liner or baffling arrangement. 
The Coast Guard will evaluate such designs on a case-by-case basis to 
ensure that they provide performance equivalent to that of conventional 
designs using liners or baffling arrangements. It will be the 
responsibility of the manufacturer, in consultation with the Coast 
Guard, to develop a suitable test protocol to demonstrate such 
equivalence. The Coast Guard will notify all manufacturers of any 
designs approved under this system, and of the testing performed to 
validate them.
Color
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(e) required that the exterior of the 
liferaft canopy be of a highly visible color, such as vivid reddish 
orange. However, in a departure from existing Sec. 160.051-4(e), which 
requires that the underside of the floor be of a dark color, the NPRM 
did not address the color of the outside of the raft other than the 
canopy. One comment, citing SOLAS regulation III/30.2.6, which requires 
that life-saving appliances be of a highly visible color ``on all parts 
where this will assist detection,'' commented that both sides of the 
raft, and not just the canopy, should be of a color contrasting with 
the marine environment. The comment mentioned instances where a rescue 
unit was not able to detect a liferaft, because it had overturned.
    The Coast Guard agrees that application of a highly visible color 
to the bottom of a liferaft can assist in detection if the liferaft is 
overturned. This concept recently gained the support of the 
international community as well. In the wake of the sinking of the 
Baltic ferry ESTONIA in September 1994, where a number of casualties 
occurred due to difficulty in locating overturned liferafts, the 26th 
session of the IMO Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee in March 
1995, adopted a proposal to require that water pockets affixed to the 
bottom of liferafts be of a highly visible color. This new requirement 
will take effect in July 1998, as part of the latest set of amendments 
to SOLAS Chapter III, and has been incorporated in Sec. 160.151-
17(a)(2)(vii) of this final rule. The effective date of the requirement 
in this final rule has been deferred to coincide with the effective 
date of the corresponding provision of SOLAS Chapter III.
Towing Connections
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(g), like existing Sec. 160.051-7(b)(12), 
required towing connections at opposite ends of the inflatable 
liferaft. SOLAS regulation III/38.1.4 does not specify a number of 
towing connections, but rather requires only that the raft be so 
constructed as to enable it to be towed under specified conditions. 
Several comments suggested that there is no need for more than one 
towing connection on a liferaft since liferafts are maneuverable and 
can be repositioned for towing if necessary. One of these comments also 
noted that a requirement for two towing locations would add unnecessary 
costs and require further testing of the product.
    The Coast Guard contends that one towing connection is not 
sufficient. Under SOLAS regulation III/20.3, the lifesaving 
arrangements for passenger ships include the ``marshalling'' of 
liferafts, i.e., using a rescue boat to gather liferafts together for 
the purpose of connecting them in order to facilitate their detection 
and long-term survival. In some cases, a single rescue boat can be 
assigned to marshall up to nine liferafts. However, it can be unwieldy 
to connect a liferaft with only one towing connection to many other 
liferafts. A second towing connection would considerably facilitate 
marshalling.
    The Coast Guard also contends that the provision of a second towing 
connection would not necessitate any further testing of the product, or 
add any significant additional cost. Where multiple towing connections 
are provided, they are generally identical in design, and testing of 
one (which is required in any case) can stand for testing of both, or 
all. The only cost associated with a second towing connection is the 
cost of the materials involved and their assembly and installation. 
This cost would not represent any increase over present requirements, 
since existing 46 CFR 160.051-7(b)(12) already requires a

[[Page 25530]]

towing connection at each end of a liferaft.
    Despite the above discussion, the Coast Guard has amended 
Sec. 160.151-15(g) in the final rule to remove the requirement for 
towing connections at both ends of a liferaft in keeping with its 
policy of not imposing unilateral requirements in excess of SOLAS. 
However, the Coast Guard does intend to approach IMO with the concerns 
discussed above in order to generate discussion whether a future 
amendment to the relevant IMO requirement may be warranted.
Weight
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(h) would limit the weight of liferafts not 
served by launching appliances to 185 kilograms (kg) (407.8 pounds 
(lb)), a very slight increase from the 400-lb limit in existing 46 CFR 
160.051-3(b). One comment noted the problems associated with manually 
launching a heavy liferaft, citing an NTSB recommendation pursuant to 
the fire and explosion on the tankship PUERTO RICAN in 1984, that 
liferafts be installed so that manual launching does not require any 
unnecessary lifting, such as over a railing. The Coast Guard is aware 
of the difficulties associated with launching liferafts near the weight 
limit when they are not served by launching appliances. However, the 
proposed increase in the allowable weight is trivial, essentially 
resulting from a metric conversion. Consequently, in the final rule 
Sec. 160.151-15(h) is not changed from the NPRM. The issue of 
installing liferafts to avoid the necessity of lifting was addressed in 
the Subchapter W rulemaking project (CGD 84-069), and is now covered in 
46 CFR 199.130(a)(7).
Strength of Lifeline Attachments
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(i) required that lifeline attachment 
patches have a minimum breaking strength of 1.5 kN (350 lb) pull 
exerted in a direction perpendicular to their bases. One comment 
contended that this breaking strength is excessive, since liferafts 
should be lifted out of the water by the towline rather than the 
lifelines, and since the buoyancy of human bodies reduces a liferaft's 
weight in the water.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. This is not a new requirement, stemming 
as it does from paragraph 3.6.19 of military specification MIL-L-19496, 
which is referred to (for design guidance) in existing Sec. 160.051-
1(a)(1). In addition, the comment does not take into account that 
buoyancy effects are minimal when a person in the water pulls himself 
into a liferaft using the internal lifelines, that external lifelines 
may be used to carry an inflated liferaft, and that the weight of a 
liferaft can make it difficult to handle (for example, while placing it 
in the water) by a towline attached at a single point. Although SOLAS 
does not specifically discuss using lifelines to carry a liferaft, the 
ability to do so is required by other responsible maritime safety 
administrations, such as in the European Free Trade Association's 
(EFTA) Scheme for the Reciprocal Recognition of Tests and Inspections 
Carried Out on Ships' Equipment. That document requires that, beyond 
being suitable for use as a lifeline, the grablines ``be suitably 
arranged for carrying the inflated raft.'' For all of these reasons, 
Sec. 160.151-15(i) is retained in the final rule as proposed in the 
NPRM.
Painter Length
    The preamble to the NPRM discussed a pending change to SOLAS 
Chapter III which would reduce the painter length required by SOLAS to 
the greater of 15 meters or the liferaft's stowage height plus 10 
meters. The NPRM indicated that if the change received final approval 
by the IMO MSC, it would be incorporated into the final rule. The 
change was approved as part of the most recent set of SOLAS amendments, 
to take effect July 1, 1998, and has been incorporated into the final 
rule as Sec. 160.151-15(j). The effective date of the requirement is 
July 1, 1998, which conforms to the SOLAS effective date. However, 
manufacturers are encouraged to comply at the earliest possible date so 
as to reduce the operational problems associated with excessive painter 
lengths.
Boarding Ladders
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(l) required that the steps of a boarding 
ladder ``be of rigid or semi-rigid tubing and secured against rotation 
to provide a suitable foothold.'' One comment suggested that this 
requirement is unnecessarily design restrictive, and that boarding 
ladders should be evaluated by their performance rather than on certain 
design properties. The comment noted that more critical than the design 
of the footholds themselves is that they be placed to prevent the 
user's legs from going underneath the hull, thereby preventing a 
vertical climb into the liferaft. The comment also noted that, although 
boarding ladders are required, they are a secondary boarding aid to the 
required boarding ramp.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the general approach proposed in the 
comment. In the final rule, proposed Sec. 160.151-15(l) has been 
replaced by a general performance requirement in Sec. 160.151-15(m) 
that the steps of the boarding ladder ``must provide a suitable 
foothold.'' As suggested in the comment, a new Sec. 160.151-27(c)(4) 
has been added to the final rule to require that the IMO Boarding Test 
be performed using the boarding ladder (if installed) as well as the 
boarding ramp. The IMO Boarding Test is considerably more stringent 
than that in current Sec. 160.051-5(e)(7) and so will ensure, through 
demonstrated performance, that boarding arrangements are adequate for 
those liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses for which the 
boarding ladder is the primary means of boarding.
Liferaft Stability
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-17(a), and the associated requirements on 
prototype testing in proposed Sec. 160.151-29(a) and (b), prescribed 
stability standards for SOLAS inflatable liferafts based upon the 
performance of currently approved designs of ``heavily ballasted'' 
liferafts. A number of comments disagreed with the proposed stability 
standards in their entirety. The comments questioned whether the 
benefits of improved liferaft stability would outweigh the costs, cited 
the adverse effect the proposed stability standards would have upon the 
cost-competitiveness of U.S.-manufactured liferafts in the 
international market, and questioned whether the available casualty 
history indicates that the stability of existing liferaft designs is 
inadequate. One of the comments noted that adoption of the standards 
would increase the weight of liferafts substantially. In many cases, 
the weight could increase to the extent that some shipowners would need 
to install launching appliances or expensive rack-mounting arrangements 
when they replace their current rafts, for which such appliances are 
not needed.
    One comment agreed with the Coast Guard's position that 
international standards for liferafts are appropriate, and suggested 
that, if there is a stability problem with liferafts, it should be 
identified by the Coast Guard at the appropriate international forum 
and a solution reached based on input from the international community. 
Several related comments suggested adoption of the ``European Liferaft 
Stability System'' detailed in the EFTA Scheme for the Reciprocal 
Recognition of Tests and Inspections Carried Out on Ships' Equipment. 
Finally, one comment proposed that, if the Coast Guard were to 
unilaterally adopt a stability standard, it should be based on the 
volume (a minimum of 25 percent of buoyancy-tube volume) currently 
required for Coastal Service liferafts.

[[Page 25531]]

    The Coast Guard agrees with the view that any regulatory 
requirements for liferaft stability should be based upon standards 
developed and accepted internationally. This is consistent with the 
Coast Guard's general position that U.S. requirements should not exceed 
the requirements of SOLAS. Until recently, however, SOLAS has been 
vague on the issue of liferaft stability, requiring only that liferafts 
be ``stable in a seaway.''
    In that regard, the proposals made in the NPRM have been overtaken 
by international events. At its 26th session in March 1995, the IMO 
Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee approved standards for 
liferaft stability to include in the latest set of SOLAS amendments, 
which will become effective in 1998. These requirements are based upon 
a proposal by the United Kingdom (UK), and are generally consistent 
with those in the EFTA Scheme, which have been in effect in many 
countries (including most of Northern Europe) since the 1980-81 UK/
Icelandic stability testing discussed in the NPRM. By U.S. 
intervention, the most design-restrictive portions of the original UK 
proposal were eliminated. The resulting SOLAS regulation requires 
stability appendages with an aggregate volume one fourth of that 
proposed in the NPRM, or 20 liters (.02 cubic meters) per person of 
capacity, for liferafts with a capacity of greater than 10 persons. 
This is around 20 percent of the required buoyancy-tube volume--
slightly less than was proposed in the comments. For smaller liferafts, 
the regulation requires a minimum aggregate capacity of 220 liters (.22 
cubic meters).
    In this final rule, in place of the stability requirements proposed 
in the NPRM in proposed Secs. 160.151-17(a) and 160.151-29(a)-(b), the 
Coast Guard has decided to incorporate the new SOLAS stability 
requirements, in their entirety, into Sec. 160.151-17(a). In doing so, 
the Coast Guard adopts the comments received supporting conformance 
with international standards. The SOLAS requirements also substantially 
conform to the specific proposals in the comments concerning stability 
appendage volume. The effective date of the domestic requirements is 
July 1, 1998, to conform with the SOLAS effective date.
    In addition to opposing the proposed stability requirements in the 
NPRM, several comments also opposed the Lift-Out Force Test and At-Sea 
Test, both of which were proposed to evaluate compliance with those 
requirements. Since the SOLAS requirements upon which the stability 
requirements in this final rule are based do not cover either test, 
neither test is retained in this final rule. Instead, there is a test 
in Sec. 160.151-29(a) to evaluate the filling time of the stability 
appendages against the standard in Sec. 160.151-17(a)(2)(vi). The Coast 
Guard intends to continue research into test methods to evaluate 
liferaft stability, perhaps including some variation of the Lift-Out 
Force and At-Sea Tests, so it can evaluate, for equivalence to the 
regulatory requirements, the performance of novel stability designs 
that may be developed in the future.
    One comment supported self-righting capability for liferafts ``as 
required by SOLAS, the righting test specified in IMO Resolution 
A.689(17), and proposed 46 CFR 160.151-27(a).'' However, none of those 
three documents requires self-righting capability, only the capability 
for the inverted liferaft to be righted by a single person in the 
water. Consistent with them, the final rule does not require that 
liferafts be self-righting. The same comment suggested that there 
should be a requirement that rafts always inflate right side up when 
deployed in water. This requirement already existed in proposed 
Sec. 160.151-27(a), by reference to the Drop Test in IMO Resolution 
A.689(17), para. 1/5.1, which requires that the tested rafts inflate 
upright. This requirement is retained in the final rule. It should be 
recognized, however, that even a raft that inflates upright during 
approval testing may not always inflate upright if it has subsequently 
been packed incorrectly, for example, during servicing.
    A number of identical comments suggested that the Coast Guard make 
a videotape of the various rafts in heavy seas available so that 
mariners can see how they react and select one they ``feel comfortable 
with.'' This suggestion has not been adopted in the final rule. Such a 
comparative demonstration would entail essentially the same costs and 
logistical difficulties as the heavy weather sea trial strongly opposed 
by the liferaft industry, and further, would focus on only one aspect 
of a liferaft's performance when there are others which are also very 
important. The Coast Guard's position is that liferaft manufacturers 
are in the best position to market and establish brand differentiation 
for their products based on all of their features, and in fact actively 
do so.
Boarding Arrangements for Coastal Service Liferafts
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-19(f) indicated that boarding ramps are not 
required on Coastal Service liferafts if the combined diameter of the 
buoyancy chambers is 500 millimeters (mm) or less. One comment 
suggested that, although boarding ramps may not be necessary under 
these circumstances, some sort of boarding aid, such as strategically 
placed hand holds, may be.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges the importance of adequate boarding 
arrangements for liferafts, particularly in light of the NTSB's 
investigation of the sinking of the bulk carrier MARINE ELECTRIC in 
1983. As suggested by the NTSB, the NPRM proposed, and the final rule 
requires, by reference to SOLAS regulation III/39 (specifically 
regulation III/39.4.3 thereunder) in Sec. 160.151-7, that ``there shall 
be means inside the liferaft to assist persons to pull themselves into 
the liferaft from the ladder.'' In addition, the IMO Boarding Test 
required by reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/5.8, in 
Sec. 160.151-27(a) is considerably more stringent than the existing 
test in Sec. 160.051-5(e)(7), and is rigorous enough to ensure that 
boarding arrangements are adequate.
Fabric Valise Containers
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-19(i) allowed the use of fabric valise-type 
containers with Coastal Service inflatable liferafts, and by extension, 
with inflatable buoyant apparatuses. This provision has been deleted 
from the final rule, since it was substantially similar to 
Sec. 160.151-15(n)(7) in the NPRM (retained as Sec. 160.151-15(o)(7) in 
the final rule).
Liferaft Equipment
    In an editorial change throughout Sec. 160.151-21, for internal 
consistency and consistency with the terminology in Subchapter W, all 
references to specific subparts under which particular items of 
equipment are approved have been replaced with references to the 
``approval series'' under which the item is approved.
    One comment suggested that proposed Sec. 160.151-21 may lead to 
confusion because it lists all of the equipment required for SOLAS A 
liferafts and implies that the same equipment is needed for SOLAS B 
liferafts. The comment suggested a clarification of the difference 
between SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs, much as SOLAS regulation
III/38.5.3 identifies those items in a SOLAS A Pack not required for a 
SOLAS B Pack.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 was not intended to set forth a list of 
the required contents of equipment packs. The required contents of the 
SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs are specified in proposed 
Sec. 160.151-7(b), by reference to SOLAS regulation III/38.

[[Page 25532]]

Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 is intended only to facilitate compliance by 
liferaft manufacturers and servicing facilities by supplementing the 
minimal descriptions of the various individual items of equipment in 
the SOLAS regulation. Consequently, it is retained generally intact in 
the final rule, subject to revisions to various individual subsections 
as discussed below.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(b) contains requirements for jackknives 
carried in equipment packs. One comment questioned whether folding 
knives complied with the SOLAS requirements, since SOLAS regulation 
III/38.5.1.2 specifically requires a non-folding knife.
    By reference in Sec. 160.151-7, the proposed rules incorporated all 
of regulation III/38, including regulation III/38.5.1.2, which requires 
a buoyant non-folding knife. However, regulation III/38.5.1.2 also 
requires that liferafts of 13 persons or more capacity be equipped with 
a second knife, which may be of the folding variety. The requirement in 
Sec. 160.151-21(b), which is retained unchanged in the final rule, 
applies only to situations where these allowable folding knives are 
permitted.
    Proposed Secs. 160.051-21(f) and 160.151-23(f) required that two 
paddles of the type used to pass the IMO Maneuverability Test be 
included in the equipment packs. A number of identical comments 
objected to the inclusion of paddles, since they provide no 
maneuverability on ocean waters and will only increase the pack size 
and increase the purchase price.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. Paddles are essential to move away from 
burning wreckage, to avoid the turbulence associated with a sinking 
ship, and to assemble with other liferafts to facilitate survival. The 
fact that the required paddles are of the size and type used to pass 
the Maneuverability Test clearly demonstrates that they do provide for 
a degree of maneuverability. Since paddles have always had to be 
provided with inflatable liferafts, their inclusion in the equipment 
required by the NPRM does not represent any increase in the cost or the 
size of the equipment pack over those of existing liferafts. 
Consequently, Secs. 160.051-9(f) (which was Sec. 160.151-23(f) in the 
NPRM) and 160.151-21(f) are retained in the final rule as proposed in 
the NPRM.
    Regulation III/38.5.1.7 of SOLAS, which was incorporated by 
reference into the NPRM, with a minor modification, in proposed 
Sec. 160.151-21(g), requires the equipment pack of a SOLAS A liferaft 
to include three tin openers. One comment, while supporting the 
modification in proposed Sec. 160.151-21(g) requiring sharp parts of 
tin openers to be fitted with guards, commented that tin openers should 
not be required unless a manufacturer specifies the carriage of canned 
water in its liferaft.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. SOLAS does not provide for such an 
exemption; and in discussions on this issue at IMO it was agreed that, 
even if canned water is not packed in a liferaft, it is reasonable to 
assume that persons abandoning ship into liferafts will attempt to 
bring along as much canned food as possible, whereupon a tin opener 
will be indispensable. Consequently, the requirements for tin openers, 
and the associated modification, are retained in this final rule as 
originally proposed.
    Pursuant to IMO MSC Circular (Circ.) 447, proposed Sec. 160.151-
21(n) waived the SOLAS requirement for liferafts to be equipped with an 
``efficient radar reflector.'' The reason for the effective waiver in 
the 1983 IMO document was that no radar reflector suitable for packing 
in inflatable liferafts was known to be available at that time. One 
comment suggested that MSC/Circ. 447 is an ``antiquated ruling that has 
been overcome by time and technology,'' and that a radar reflector 
should be a fundamental piece of required equipment for all liferafts.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. There have not been any significant 
advances in radar reflector technology since 1983. The Coast Guard is 
still not aware of any ``efficient'' radar reflectors suitable for 
extended storage in the tight confines of packed inflatable liferafts, 
and several proposals to cancel MSC/Circ. 447 have been rejected by the 
IMO Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee for that reason. It 
should be noted as well that, since 1983, the implementation of the 
GMDSS, incorporating portable satellite Emergency Position Indicating 
Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and Search and Rescue Transponders (SARTs) on 
many ships, has largely overshadowed radar reflectors as locating aids.
    A number of identical comments suggested requiring a ``tape'' on 
liferaft canopies that would make them more visible to radar. This 
suggestion has not been adopted in the final rule, since the principles 
of radar propagation and reflection would render such a product 
ineffective as a radar reflector.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(u) required that the anti-seasickness 
medicine required by SOLAS regulation III/38.5.1.21 be one of two 
specified medicines carried onboard. Several comments noted that, 
because the two specified medicines are available only by prescription, 
this provision would require a servicing facility to obtain DEA 
registration to distribute controlled substances. The comments also 
noted that the specified medicines can have serious side effects making 
their use dangerous without medical supervision.
    The Coast Guard agrees that it would be impracticable to require 
liferaft-servicing facilities to handle controlled substances, and has 
amended Sec. 160.151-21(u) in the final rule to remove the requirement 
for specific medicines. Any readily available over-the-counter medicine 
for motion sickness such as dimenhydrinate (generic formulation of 
Dramamine) will be suitable.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 (v) and (w) required instructions for 
survival and immediate action to be provided in English. One comment 
noted that in many areas the crews do not read or speak English, and 
suggested that the required instructions be in a language the crew 
understands.
    The Coast Guard is very aware of the linguistic diversity of ships' 
crews, particularly in the fishing industry. However, it would not be 
practical to require liferaft manufacturers to make the required 
instructions available in whatever language a particular customer (or 
his crew) may be able to read, particularly in view of the fact that 
the manufacturer generally does not know who the customer (let alone 
his crew) is until long after the liferaft is packed. We encourage 
liferaft manufacturers to make practical efforts to satisfy the 
linguistic needs of their customers, and have revised Sec. 160.151-21 
(v) and (w) in the final rule to make it clear that providing 
instructions in other languages along with English is acceptable.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(x) required SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
liferafts to be equipped with thermal protective aids approved under 
approval series 160.174. One comment noted that these aids provide 
critical survival capability not currently available in Ocean Service 
or Limited Service equipment packs. The same comment further 
recommended either that those packs be replaced by the SOLAS A and 
SOLAS B packs, respectively, or that they have to be upgraded by the 
addition of thermal protective aids.
    While the Coast Guard agrees that thermal protective aids can 
significantly enhance survival prospects in certain situations, the 
upgrading of existing approved liferafts is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. Consequently, the final rule does not include any 
requirement to upgrade such liferafts. At present, a liferaft owner 
desiring to add thermal

[[Page 25533]]

protective aids to its equipment pack may, so long as the addition is 
addressed in the manufacturer's servicing manual. Even notwithstanding 
such optional carriage, the Coast Guard anticipates that the proportion 
of liferafts equipped with thermal protective aids will slowly increase 
as existing Ocean and Limited Service liferafts are taken out of 
service and replaced by SOLAS A or SOLAS B liferafts equipped with 
these aids. It should be noted, however, that these aids are not a 
panacea for exposure, since a SOLAS liferaft need carry them for only 
ten percent of its rated capacity.
    One comment questioned who would decide how many thermal protective 
aids would be provided in each liferaft, and how the addition of these 
protective aids would affect the re-packing of the liferaft. As 
discussed briefly above, the number of these aids in a SOLAS liferaft 
is specified by SOLAS regulation III/38.5.24 as the greater of ten 
percent of its rated capacity or two. This information would be 
included in the manufacturer's service manual, along with instructions 
for packing the aids in the equipment pack. The manufacturer would have 
performed all approval testing of a SOLAS liferaft with the required 
aids packed in the equipment pack.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(y) required a repair kit called for by 
SOLAS regulation III/39.10.1.1 to include six or more sealing clamps or 
serrated conical plastic plugs, along with patches, cement, and a 
roughing tool for making more permanent repairs. The NPRM specifically 
requested comments concerning appropriate contents for repair kits, 
since SOLAS does not specify its contents.
    One comment suggested that a combination of serrated plugs and 
sealing clamps should be accepted. The comment added that the serrated 
plugs should not have to be of plastic material, and that the Coast 
Guard should consider the possibility of using a quick-repair material 
such as a suitable self-adhesive tape in lieu of tube patches and 
cement. Two comments contended that tube patches and cement are 
virtually useless for making repairs on the water. One comment 
suggested that conical plugs should not be approved as substitutes for 
sealing clamps until they have been proven as effective as the clamps. 
Another comment suggested that sealing clamps are superior to serrated 
repair plugs, and should be used.
    The Coast Guard does not agree that sealing clamps are superior to 
plugs in all instances. The thickness and textures of fabrics of tubes 
of inflatable liferafts vary widely. In light of the disparate 
effectiveness of sealing clamps and plugs with different fabrics for 
inflatable tubes, the Coast Guard contends that liferaft manufacturers 
are best able to determine a suitable combination for use with their 
liferafts through testing and operational experience. It expects that 
manufacturers will take effectiveness as well as economics into account 
when determining suitable contents for a repair kit. It agrees that 
wooden plugs should be accepted as well as plastic ones (and may be 
desirable in some cases), and that a suitable quick-repair material 
such as self-adhesive tape would be an acceptable and perhaps 
preferable substitute for patches, cement, and a roughing tool. 
Consequently, the wording of Sec. 160.151-21(y) has been revised in the 
final rule to require six or more sealing clamps or serrated conical 
plugs, or a combination of the two; five or more tube patches at least 
50 mm (2 inches (in.)) in diameter, compatible with the liferaft 
fabric; a roughing tool, if necessary to apply the patches; and, unless 
the patches are self-adhesive, cement as specified in the NPRM. The 
Coast Guard would like to be kept informed of the progress of 
manufacturers in developing or identifying suitable self-adhesive 
patches.
Float-Free Arrangements
    One comment noted that there is no specific reference to float-free 
arrangements in the proposed rules other than by reference to SOLAS 
regulation III/38 (specifically regulation 38.6 thereunder) in proposed 
Sec. 160.151-7, and that there is no mention of wire weak links for 
inflatable buoyant apparatuses. The comment also questioned whether 
hydrostatic release units used in float-free arrangements would have to 
be approved by the Coast Guard (as is the equipment in Sec. 160.151-
21).
    As is the case in the bulk of the proposed rules, the requirements 
for float-free arrangements are not explicitly stated, but rather are 
incorporated by reference to the corresponding SOLAS requirements. Weak 
links for inflatable buoyant apparatuses are covered in Sec. 160.010-
3(a) in the NPRM (retained substantially unchanged in the final rule), 
which requires an inflatable buoyant apparatus to generally meet the 
standards of design and performance for SOLAS inflatable liferafts 
contained in subpart 160.151. Since they are of similar function and 
packed buoyancy to inflatable liferafts, the NPRM and the final rule 
require that buoyant apparatuses be fitted with the same weak links 
used with inflatable liferafts, rather than the weaker weak links used 
with life floats and rigid buoyant apparatuses.
    The requirement that hydrostatic releases used in float-free 
arrangements be approved is a vessel requirement which is beyond the 
scope of this equipment subpart and this rulemaking, but appears in the 
recently updated vessel regulations at Secs. 28.125(c), 117.130 (b), 
180.130(b), and 199.130(c)(7) of this part.
Carriage of Additional Equipment
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-25 provided guidelines for the carriage of 
additional equipment, beyond that required by the regulations, in 
liferaft equipment packs. The proposed rule required that such 
equipment be covered in the liferaft manufacturer's approved drawings 
and servicing manual, and that specified items meet the applicable 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations in 47 CFR part 80.
    Two comments questioned the inclusion of the Class S EPIRB and the 
omission of the Class B EPIRB in the items specified in the proposed 
rule, since the class S EPIRB is not commonly used in liferafts. One 
comment questioned why only certain items were specified in the 
proposed rule, and two comments suggested substituting a generic 
statement that any additional equipment must meet any applicable Coast 
Guard or FCC requirements. The Coast Guard agrees that wording to that 
effect confers a more flexible approach. Accordingly, it has revised 
Sec. 160.151-25 to require that any additional equipment for which 
performance or approval standards are prescribed in 46 CFR part 160 or 
47 CFR part 80 must comply with those standards.
    Although the proposed regulations permitted optional carriage of an 
EPIRB, ten identical comments suggested that EPIRB's should be required 
to be included in liferaft equipment packs. These comments noted that 
adding an EPIRB would result in quicker location of the liferaft, so 
that stability would not be as significant a factor. Several comments 
suggested adding a waterproof VHF radio.
    The Coast Guard does not agree that EPIRBs and VHF radios should 
have to be included in liferaft equipment packs. As discussed above, 
the proposed rules allowed for adding equipment to that specifically 
required in the equipment pack. Anyone who wants to include an EPIRB, a 
VHF radio, or both in a liferaft may do so, provided that their packing 
is addressed in the liferaft manufacturer's service manual. However, 
portable versions of these

[[Page 25534]]

items generally already have to be carried on a ship outside of the 
liferaft, and a trained crew should know to retrieve them in the event 
of an emergency so as to be ready to carry them into the liferaft. 
Consequently, the final rule does not mandate the inclusion of EPIRBs 
or VHF radios in liferaft equipment packs.

Approval Inspections and Tests

    By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-
27(a) required that all liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatus be 
subjected to the same Cold Inflation Test, at a test temperature of 
-30 deg.C. The preamble to the NPRM solicited comments as to whether 
the Coast Guard should approve Coastal Service liferafts and inflatable 
buoyant apparatus tested at a higher temperature, such as -18 deg.C, 
since other countries approve them. One comment supported this 
suggestion, while another supported an increase in the testing 
temperature to -12 deg.C in order to reduce costs by reducing the sizes 
of inflation cylinders and the dimensions of raft containers.
    The Coast Guard agrees that an increase in the testing temperature 
for Coastal Service liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatus is 
warranted, but finds the proposal to increase the testing temperature 
to -12 deg.C excessive for the following reasons. These products are 
often used in areas where the temperature falls below -12 deg.C. In 
addition, the HSC Code specifies a range of operational temperatures 
down to -18 deg.C for open reversible liferafts, which are functionally 
similar to inflatable buoyant apparatus, and countries with climates 
similar to ours have substantial and successful operational experience 
with the test temperature of -18 deg.C. Therefore, Sec. 160.051-5(l) of 
the final rule has been revised to require the Cold Inflation Test in 
IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/5.17.3.3.2, to be conducted at a test 
temperature of -18 deg.C for Coastal Service inflatable liferafts, and 
Sec. 160.010-3(a)(16) allows the same for inflatable buoyant apparatus.
    The Cold Inflation Test in IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/
5.17.3.3.2, requires that the liferaft be exposed to the test 
temperature for at least 24 hours before the test. The Hot Inflation 
Test in para. 1/5.17.3.3.3 requires that the liferaft be exposed to the 
test temperature for at least 7 hours before the test. The existing 
procedures for these tests in 46 CFR 160.051-5(e)(11) require that the 
liferaft be fitted with thermocouples and exposed to the appropriate 
test temperature until the interior of the liferaft reaches that test 
temperature, which often takes considerably in excess of 24 hours. One 
comment suggested that this ``weakening'' of the test procedure is 
unjustified and may not be an accurate determinant of the raft's 
ability to inflate hot or cold.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The tests in the IMO recommendation have 
been used worldwide for approval of liferafts for many years, and there 
has been no indication that the liferafts approved according to those 
or similar tests are deficient in hot or cold performance. In fact, it 
is misleading to evaluate these tests in terms only of the changes in 
the required temperature exposures. The IMO Cold Inflation Test, for 
example, is a more stringent test than the test in existing regulation, 
since it requires the raft to reach design pressure (as opposed to 
design shape) in the specified time. Most rafts approved to existing 
U.S. requirements will fail this test without upgrading of the gas 
charge. Similarly, the IMO Hot Inflation Test requires that the 
pressure-relief valves be sufficient to prevent the liferaft from 
reaching twice working pressure. There was no corresponding requirement 
in existing regulations. For these reasons, the Hot and Cold Inflation 
Tests are retained in the final rule as proposed by Sec. 160.151-27(a), 
with reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), paragraph 5.17.
    Also with reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed 
Sec. 160.151-27(a) would require a Towing Test at a speed of 3 knots, 
rather than 5 knots as at present. One comment questioned the validity 
of revising the requirement since no justification was provided for 
lowering the speed.
    The Coast Guard does not agree that the lower speed of the Towing 
Test as proposed represents a drop of standards. The existing test in 
46 CFR 160.051-5(e)(8) requires towing at 5 knots, but does not include 
any minimum distance. The IMO test, while at a lower specified speed, 
also includes a stringent minimum distance. Especially since it is 
extremely unlikely that a loaded liferaft would ever be towed at speeds 
in excess of 3 knots, the IMO test is a more realistic and more 
repeatable test. The test is retained in the final rule as proposed.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-27(c)(5) would require that, when the Canopy 
Closure Test is performed, the accumulated water in the liferaft must 
not exceed 4 liters. One comment suggested that this requirement is 
extreme and unnecessary, since this quantity of water is so 
insignificant that it cannot even be bailed from the liferaft. The 
comment proposed that the wording in the IMO testing recommendation, 
that there be no ``significant accumulation'' of water within the 
liferaft, be retained by reference without any elaboration.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The term ``significant accumulation'' is 
subjective and so is essentially meaningless. The Coast Guard considers 
that SOLAS regulation III/38.1.5.3, which requires that the canopy 
``exclude seawater,'' dictates that the canopy closure be watertight. 
The Coast Guard realizes, however, that complete watertightness is 
practically impossible for a product constructed of fabric, and that 
the nature of the test procedure dictates that a small amount of water 
will likely enter the raft if only as the canopy is opened to check the 
raft at the conclusion of the test. The specified 4-liter maximum is 
intended to be a generous allowance for this inevitable minor leakage, 
not to define the limit of a dangerous amount. The suggestion in the 
comment that this would not even be enough water to bail indirectly 
supports the choice of this figure, since the presence of enough water 
to require bailing would, based on experience with numerous tests 
performed in conjunction with other maritime safety administrations, 
certainly constitute a failure of the test. For these reasons, proposed 
Sec. 160.151-27(c)(5) is retained unchanged in the final rule.
Production Tests and Inspections
    By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-
31(d) would require each production liferaft to undergo an overpressure 
test at 1.5 times working pressure. The preamble to the NPRM noted that 
a change to this test, to make it consistent with the ``Necessary 
Additional Pressure (NAP) Test'' done during servicing, had been 
tentatively approved by the Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee 
of IMO, and would be incorporated in the final rule if it obtained 
final approval. That approval was given by the 66th session of the IMO 
MSC in Resolution MSC.54(66) of 30 May 1996.
    One comment supported the reference to the existing overpressure 
test in Resolution A.689(17), and commented that the Coast Guard should 
ensure that the NAP Test is at least equivalent to that test before 
adopting it. Since the overpressure test currently in the IMO 
recommendation is at 1.5 times working pressure, and the NAP Test is at 
a minimum of twice working pressure, the Coast Guard is confident that 
the NAP Test is at least equivalent, and has incorporated it in this 
final rule by updating the incorporation by reference of Resolution 
A.689(17) to include amendments through and including Resolution 
MSC.54(66). Consequently,

[[Page 25535]]

the reference to Resolution A.689(17), part 2, paragraph 5.1.4 in 
Sec. 160.151-31(d) now covers the updated test.
    By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-31 
(d) and (e) would require inflatable compartments of liferafts to 
undergo a 1-hour air-holding test with an allowable pressure drop of 5 
percent, rather than the 6-hour, 10 percent test in existing 46 CFR 
160.051-5(c)(3). One comment suggested that the existing test should be 
retained unless the Coast Guard can show that the revised test will 
provide the same assurance of the liferaft's airtightness.
    The Coast Guard has several years of experience with the IMO test, 
because it has been allowed for liferafts approved to the SOLAS 
requirements since its adoption by the IMO. The Coast Guard knows of no 
problems associated with the reduction of the testing period, and 
believes that the 1-hour test is an adequate measure of the 
airtightness of a liferaft, especially combined with the required NAP 
test. Consequently, the test is retained in the final rule in 
Secs. 160.151-31 (d) and (e) as proposed in the NPRM.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-31(a) would require that liferaft production 
inspections be performed under the oversight of an accepted independent 
laboratory. One comment strongly supported the use of third parties for 
this purpose, and suggested that such parties should be required to 
have the qualifications and quality control required for IACS 
membership.
    Section 160.151-31(a) has been retained in this final rule as 
proposed. The Coast Guard does not intend to restrict acceptance as 
third parties for production inspections to classification societies or 
IACS members. The Coast Guard considers that the existing independent 
laboratory acceptance standards in Sec. 159.010, which have been used 
successfully for years to accept numerous third parties to inspect a 
variety of approved products, are sufficient to evaluate and accept 
third parties for liferaft production inspections.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that manufacturers will likely not be 
able to comply immediately with the requirement in proposed 
Sec. 160.151-31(g) to arrange for periodic inspections by an accepted 
independent laboratory. Consequently, Sec. 160.151-31(g) in the final 
rule has been revised to give manufacturers up to one year to comply 
with this requirement. A new Sec. 160.151-31(h) has been added to the 
final rule to address procedures for the transitional period while 
manufacturers arrange for independent laboratory inspection. This 
paragraph is similar to existing Sec. 160.051-5(a), except that it 
allows the OCMI the option of attending or not when notified of final 
production inspections.

Liferaft Servicing

Servicing Intervals
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-35(a) would require that inflatable liferafts 
(and by extension, inflatable buoyant apparatus) be serviced 
``periodically'' at a servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard. 
One comment suggested that the servicing interval should be 
definitively stated, perhaps by reference to SOLAS regulation III/19, 
which requires servicing annually.
    A more definitive statement of servicing intervals appears in 
proposed Sec. 160.151-57(n). Under Sec. 160.151-57(n) in the NPRM and 
in this final rule, annual servicing is no longer applicable in all 
cases, since the first servicing of a new liferaft on a non-SOLAS ship 
can be delayed until the raft is two years old provided that dated 
survival equipment in the liferaft will not expire before the next 
servicing due date.
    Multiple comments suggested that that annual servicing is 
unnecessary and costly. In support of this view, several of these 
comments cited the fact that most of the equipment in a liferaft's 
equipment pack remains serviceable for far longer than a year. One 
comment suggested that servicing intervals could be extended 
considerably by the placement of the liferaft equipment in a waterproof 
container. Nine of the comments proposed alternative servicing 
intervals, ranging from biennially to once every 5 years; however, none 
of these comments provided any justification for the proposed intervals 
or any evidence that they would not adversely affect the performance of 
the liferaft. One letter cited the difficulty of removing the liferaft 
from the vessel for servicing, and the potential for damage when doing 
so. Several comments noted that the choice of servicing facilities is 
limited, and the prices they charge exorbitant.
    The Coast Guard does not agree that annual servicing is 
unnecessary. Servicing intervals do not derive exclusively from the 
need to examine and replace dated equipment, although some equipment, 
such as flashlight batteries and cement in repair kits, does typically 
require annual replacement. During servicing, in addition to having its 
emergency equipment examined, the liferaft itself is unfolded, inflated 
with air and tested for airtightness, and repaired if needed. The 
cylinder is weighed, and the liferaft fabric and structure examined for 
damage and deterioration. The liferaft is then refolded and repacked, 
which serves to extend the life of the liferaft fabric by relocating 
the creases. This procedure has been the requirement in the U.S. for 
some decades, and is also the norm internationally, required by SOLAS 
regulation III/19.8.1. Although some manufacturers have done some 
developmental work on methods of extending service intervals, the Coast 
Guard is not currently aware of any methods shown to provide the same 
level of assurance of a raft's operational readiness as the currently 
required annual servicing. The Coast Guard is also not aware of any 
other maritime safety administrations currently allowing extension of 
servicing intervals. Consequently, the final rule does not extend 
intervals for liferaft servicing beyond those contained in existing 
regulation and in SOLAS, except for new liferafts on ships not 
certificated under SOLAS. This minimal extension was first permitted by 
46 CFR 28.140(b) for new liferafts on commercial fishing vessels, as a 
way of mitigating the expense of compliance with the new regulations 
for safety of vessels in the commercial fishing industry. The Coast 
Guard considers this extension to be low-risk in view of the stringent 
production testing to which new liferafts are subjected, and so these 
final rules extend its application to new liferafts on all vessels not 
SOLAS-certificated. The Coast Guard may reexamine this position in the 
future with further experience and research by the industry.
    One comment opposed allowing the first servicing of new liferafts 
to be extended to two years, citing dated items in the liferaft. 
Section 160.151-57(n) in the NPRM and in this final rule addresses this 
comment by permitting such extensions only if dated survival equipment 
in the liferaft will not expire before the next due date for servicing.
Servicing Costs
    A number of comments discussed the limited choice of servicing 
facilities and the prices charged for servicing. The Coast Guard notes 
these comments, however the Coast Guard does not have any authority to 
regulate the economics of the liferaft-servicing industry. It would 
advise consumers to investigate the availability and suitability of 
servicing facilities before purchasing a liferaft. Although liferaft 
manufacturers are required as a condition of approval to demonstrate 
some reasonable geographic coverage of servicing facilities, the Coast 
Guard cannot require or guarantee that a servicing

[[Page 25536]]

facility will be conveniently located for every liferaft owner.
    One comment suggested that liferaft servicing should be performed 
by the manufacturer, with servicing costs and schedules provided at the 
time of liferaft purchase. The final rule does not shift the burden of 
service onto the manufacturer. Most liferaft manufacturers are equipped 
primarily to manufacture liferafts, not to service them, and the costs 
and time associated with transporting the liferafts to the manufacturer 
for servicing would be enormous. The existing system better serves the 
owner of the liferaft by providing for reasonably local access to 
liferaft servicing. Advance notice of recurring servicing costs would 
be impossible to provide with any degree of certainty, since these 
costs vary from liferaft to liferaft depending on how and where the 
liferaft is stored and numerous other factors that cannot be determined 
in advance with any certainty.
Manufacturers' Responsibilities
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) would require a manufacturer to make 
the servicing manual, servicing manual revisions, service bulletins, 
liferaft plans, and any unique parts and tools that may be necessary to 
service the manufacturer's liferafts available to each technician who 
has successfully completed the manufacturer's initial or refresher 
training course within the periods specified in Sec. 160.151-41(e). 
Several comments opposed this requirement, since it implies that the 
specified items are the property of the technician rather than the 
servicing facility (which likely paid for the training). Several of the 
comments further noted that individual technicians may have no vested 
interest in the liferaft-servicing business, since not all facility 
owners are qualified technicians, and that the manufacturer has no 
relationship with or recourse against an individual technician. One 
comment suggested that it would be unduly burdensome for manufacturers 
to have to provide each technician, rather than each approved servicing 
facility, with updates. Two comments proposed that the wording of 
Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) be changed to require that the manufacturer make 
the specified items available to approved service facilities staffed by 
technicians who have been trained within the specified periods, rather 
than to the technicians themselves.
    The Coast Guard agrees in concept with the suggested change to 
proposed Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3), since it will accomplish substantially 
the same end as the proposal in the NPRM. The change has been 
incorporated in Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule with one minor 
revision; since Sec. 160.151-41(e) already requires an approved 
servicing facility to employ at least one currently trained technician, 
it is not necessary to include that as a condition in this regulation. 
Consequently, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule requires that the 
items specified in the NPRM be made available to ``each approved 
servicing facility'' servicing the manufacturer's liferafts.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-39(b) would require that the manufacturer 
``conduct a refresher training program for recertification of 
previously trained servicing technicians.'' Several comments disagreed 
with this requirement, since they do not believe a technician should 
have a right in perpetuity to be trained. One of the comments proposed 
wording that would indicate that the manufacturer will conduct a 
refresher training program ``by invitation.'' Another comment suggested 
that manufacturers should have to open up their training courses to any 
technician from a facility approved by the Coast Guard, to ensure that 
the approval of servicing facilities is based upon the qualifications 
of the facility and its technicians, not upon business considerations. 
One comment suggested that a servicing technician's certification 
should be linked to a particular approved facility.
    As indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, the proposed rule did not 
intend to mandate who must receive training, or that a manufacturer 
must provide training on demand. It intended to require only that a 
manufacturer have an established refresher-training program so that it 
is possible to maintain an approved servicing network in compliance 
with the training requirements in Sec. 160.151-41(e). The Coast Guard 
does not intend to get involved in whom a manufacturer invites to 
attend the program. It has slightly refined the wording of 
Sec. 160.151-39(b) in the final rule to clarify its intent.
    The suggestion that a technician's certification be linked to a 
particular approved facility has not been adopted in the final rule. 
Subject to relevant legal considerations, a manufacturer can include 
such a linkage in its certifications, but the Coast Guard does not 
agree that there is any compelling reason why certification to service 
a particular make of liferaft should not be portable.
Approval Process for Servicing Facilities
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(b) would revise the process by which 
servicing facilities obtain Coast Guard approval. Rather than the 
manufacturer's designating a selected facility as at present under 46 
CFR 160.051-6(d), a servicing facility would apply directly to the OCMI 
for approval. There would no longer be an explicit requirement for 
advance authorization by a manufacturer of a servicing facility.
    A number of comments opposed this change. The reasons cited in the 
comments were that the proposed change does not allow for a 
manufacturer's ``approval'' of a servicing facility as is effectively 
the case at present, and does not require ``manufacturer support as 
outlined in IMO Resolution A.761(18), Annex 2.'' One of the comments 
noted that it appeared the proposed rules would mandate a reduction in 
the manufacturer's control over the servicing of its product. One 
comment noted that any manufacturer must retain the right to determine 
who will distribute its products. One comment suggested that 
technicians must have manufacturer training, and suggested that the 
manufacturer should periodically visit a servicing facility to train 
and observe the servicing technicians.
    The Coast Guard generally disagrees with all of the comments cited 
above. First, the IMO Resolution referred to does not require, as the 
comments wish, that servicing facilities be ``accredited'' by the 
manufacturer. The wording of the resolution was crafted carefully to 
avoid such a result. It does require that the manufacturer establish a 
servicing network by accrediting a sufficient number of servicing 
stations, that each of those stations be staffed with qualified 
personnel, and that the manufacturer provide the Administration with a 
list of them. However, it does not require that every facility approved 
by the Administration be so accredited.
    The proposed rules have no effect on a manufacturer's selection of 
distributors for its products. They address only servicing facilities, 
which may or may not also be distributors. Distribution and servicing 
are distinct activities.
    As it indicated in the NPRM, the Coast Guard desires to focus on 
the technical qualifications of the servicing facility, and not on the 
facility's business arrangements with the manufacturer. The IMO 
resolution upon which the proposed rules were based

[[Page 25537]]

clearly spells out the technical requirements for approval of a 
servicing facility: a suitable space, parts, tools, manuals, and 
appropriately trained personnel. If those requirements are met, there 
is no significant value added by an explicit business relationship with 
the manufacturer. Since such a relationship is not essential to the 
adequate functioning of a servicing facility, the Coast Guard sees no 
need to allow the liferaft manufacturing industry to control which 
members of the servicing industry have access to the program of Coast 
Guard approval.
    Manufacturers' support of approved servicing facilities is required 
by the IMO recommendation on servicing and by Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of 
the NPRM and the final rule. This rule actually represents a 
strengthening of the requirements for such support, not, as several 
comments implied, an abandonment of them.
    One comment noted that ``to remove the manufacturer approval would 
remove the manufacturer's quality control abilities.'' However, neither 
existing regulations nor the proposed rules give the manufacturer any 
explicit responsibility for control of quality of facilities servicing 
their liferafts. In fact, to do so, or to require, as suggested in one 
comment from a facility, that manufacturers visit all of their 
servicing facilities periodically to train and observe servicing 
technicians, could be burdensome to manufacturers. Under such 
requirements, manufacturers would have to give the same degree of 
attention to remote and overseas facilities that they give to local 
ones. Quality control is the responsibility of the facility itself, and 
the Coast Guard intends to continue adequate oversight over the 
facilities to ensure that quality control is adequate. Note that 
nothing in this final rule prevents a manufacturer from entering into 
or maintaining a relationship with an approved facility, which 
relationship may include quality-control arrangements.
    Several comments suggested that if all servicing facilities had to 
compete with each other, a black market for manuals and parts would 
appear, and facilities would cut corners to maintain profits.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard has no authority or 
desire to restrict competition among liferaft-servicing facilities, and 
believes that the oversight required by these final rules will serve to 
inhibit those facilities from cutting corners for financial reasons. 
Concerning the creation of a black market for servicing manuals and 
parts, Sec. 160.151-37(c) in the NPRM and in the final rule requires 
each manual to bear the original signature of a manufacturer's 
representative attesting its consistency with the manual approved by 
the Commandant. Consequently, ``bootleg'' copies of manuals of 
questionable accuracy, as may be in circulation at present, should no 
longer exist. Provided that replacement parts used are genuine parts as 
specified in the manual, the Coast Guard is not concerned with where a 
facility obtains them. However, this should not be a problem in any 
case since, as discussed above, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule 
requires that the manufacturer make unique parts or tools required for 
servicing available to each facility approved by the Coast Guard to 
service the manufacturer's liferafts.
    One comment noted that it appeared the proposed changes to the 
approval process for facilities may be driven in part by Coast Guard 
concern that current regulations may foster a monopoly in the servicing 
industry, and explained in detail how this is not the case at all at 
present. However, the premise of the comment is incorrect, since the 
Coast Guard is not concerned with nor has any authority over the 
regulation of business practices in the servicing industry.
    One comment suggested that the proposed rules appeared to indicate 
that the Coast Guard would hold a facility qualified to service one 
manufacturer's rafts qualified to service all manufacturer's rafts, and 
supported retaining the manufacturer in the approval process to ensure 
that proper repair techniques are used. The same comment pointed out 
the importance of manufacturers' knowing the identity of the facilities 
that service their rafts.
    Under the proposed rules, servicing facilities would continue to be 
approved separately for each individual make of liferaft. For each make 
for which approval is sought, a facility would still need to have 
appropriately manufacturer-certified personnel, servicing manuals, and 
all parts and tools required by the manufacturer, and to demonstrate 
the proficiency of its technicians. The requirements for training would 
be strengthened from those at present by requiring that the training be 
current. Overall, the proposed rules strengthen the technical 
requirements for approval of a facility, so the Coast Guard is 
confident that the ability of facilities to properly service and repair 
liferafts will not be adversely affected by the removal of the 
requirement for a formal manufacturer's authorization. To keep 
manufacturers apprised of the facilities servicing their liferafts, the 
Coast Guard would continue the present practice of sending a copy of 
each facility-approval letter to the manufacturer whose rafts it is 
approving a facility to service.
    One comment suggested that facilities should submit a servicing 
report describing the servicing of liferafts performed outside of the 
United States to the Coast Guard. It offered no reason.
    The Coast Guard approves servicing facilities outside the United 
States, and their servicing activities are subject to supervision by 
OCMIs just the same as servicing at any other approved facility. The 
Coast Guard does not believe that reporting requirements for liferaft 
servicing should vary with the geographic location of a servicing 
facility. The paperwork burden of reporting servicing performed outside 
the United States would not serve any useful purpose.
    For the reasons discussed above, proposed Sec. 160.151-41(b) is 
retained unchanged in the final rule. The Coast Guard realizes that 
manufacturers will retain a good deal of practical control over 
facilities servicing their rafts under that rule, for example through 
non-compete clauses and control of access to training. However, there 
will no longer be any reason for the Coast Guard to get involved in 
these sorts of business arrangements.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(c) would require that, for a servicing 
facility to obtain Coast Guard approval, it would need to demonstrate 
the complete servicing of a liferaft of the type for which it seeks 
approval, in the presence of either the cognizant OCMI or a third-party 
inspector accepted by the OCMI. Several comments suggested that such a 
demonstration should not be necessary if a technician from the facility 
has already demonstrated his abilities to a Coast Guard inspector 
during initial or refresher training held at a different location (such 
as the manufacturer's plant).
    The Coast Guard agrees, and amends Sec. 160.151-41 in the final 
rule to indicate that certification by a Coast Guard inspector, or by a 
third-party inspector accepted by the OCMI, of completion of the 
specified demonstration at the time of initial or refresher training is 
acceptable in lieu of a demonstration at the facility seeking approval. 
In addition, this section in final form allows the certification to be 
made by the manufacturer's trainer, since the trainer would obviously 
be well enough qualified to be accepted by the OCMI in any case. 
However, the provision is not moved to Sec. 160.151-39 as proposed in 
two comments, since, although Sec. 160.151-39(c) requires notification 
of the cognizant OCMI before holding required training, that training 
may not

[[Page 25538]]

always be attended by a Coast Guard inspector. One comment suggested 
that a Coast Guard inspector should be present at every training course 
to ensure the thoroughness of the training and to enable the Coast 
Guard to better oversee liferaft servicing operations. However, 
resources and priorities of the Coast Guard do not always allow such 
attendance.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(c)(8) would require that, for the Coast 
Guard to approve a servicing facility, the facility would need to 
demonstrate that it can repair a leak in a liferaft's main buoyancy 
chamber and then subject the repaired chamber to ``the inflation test 
described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 2/5.1.5.'' One comment 
suggested that the repaired chamber should be subjected to an 
overpressure test rather than an inflation test.
    This comment stems in part from some imprecise wording in the NPRM, 
since para. 2/5.1.5 of Resolution A.689(17) is a test of leakage at 
working pressure, not an inflation test. The Coast Guard agrees that an 
inflation test is not necessary to ensure that a repair has been done 
properly, and that an overpressure test is a more appropriate test of a 
repair than either an inflation test or a test of leakage at working 
pressure. Section 160.151-41(c)(8) in the final rule requires that the 
repaired chamber be subjected to the Necessary Additional Pressure test 
in Sec. 160.151-57(k).
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-45(a) would require a servicing facility to 
maintain ``a complete set of the manufacturer's plans for each 
inflatable liferaft to be serviced.'' Two comments noted that complete 
sets of plans are generally not held by facilities, and that it is 
sufficient to have service manuals that give ``all relevant 
information.''
    The Coast Guard agrees that a requirement for a servicing facility 
to hold a complete set of manufacturing plans would constitute an 
unnecessary record-keeping burden. The intention is made clearer in 
Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the NPRM and in the final rule. To eliminate 
any ambiguity, Sec. 160.151-45(a) in the final rule has been revised to 
refer to the description of the necessary plans in Sec. 160.151-
35(b)(3).
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-47 contains requirements for the owner or 
operator of an approved servicing facility. Two comments suggested that 
the requirements should include an annual letter from the liferaft 
manufacturer(s) for which the facility is approved demonstrating their 
continued technical and consultative support.
    The Coast Guard believes that such a letter would serve no useful 
purpose, and would therefore represent an unnecessary paperwork burden. 
As discussed above, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule requires 
that a manufacturer make certain items available to facilities approved 
by the Coast Guard. Demonstration by an approved facility that it has 
those items is more substantive evidence of the required technical and 
consultative support than a letter. Consequently, the suggested 
requirement for an annual letter has not been incorporated into the 
final rule.
Servicing at Remote Sites
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-49 would allow for approval of servicing 
facilities to perform servicing at remote sites, such as on board ships 
or offshore facilities, rather than at the facilities themselves. One 
comment suggested that a facility must be specifically authorized in 
its letter of approval from the manufacturer to conduct servicing at 
remote sites.
    As discussed above, in a change from the current regulation, this 
final rule does not require explicit manufacturer authorization as a 
condition for approval of a servicing facility. Consequently, the 
``letter of approval from the manufacturer'' on which the comment 
proposes to require an authorizing endorsement for remote servicing 
does not exist. Therefore, the suggested requirement for manufacturer 
authorization to conduct servicing at remote sites has not been 
incorporated in this final rule. However, Sec. 160.151-49 in the final 
rule now requires that a facility conducting servicing at remote sites 
be specifically authorized to do so in its letter of approval from the 
Coast Guard.
    One comment suggested that the provisions on remote-site servicing 
should be deleted in their entirety, since the intended beneficiaries 
of those provisions (such as MODUs and quick-turnaround vessels) would 
in reality see little benefit under the proposed rules. The comment 
noted that the same difficulties faced by the raft owner in shipping 
the raft to an approved facility would be faced by the remote-site 
technician, who would have to import his tools, manuals, parts, etc. at 
great transportation cost. The comment also cited the difficulty of 
obtaining work permits in some areas.
    The Coast Guard agrees that remote-site servicing may not be 
practicable or advantageous in many cases. However, the NPRM does not 
require remote-site servicing; it merely permits it as an option. The 
argument that it is inherently impracticable is belied by the fact that 
the Coast Guard has allowed remote-site servicing at the special 
request of owners of offshore facilities and servicing facilities under 
existing regulations. Consequently, the suggestion to delete the 
provisions on remote-site servicing has not been incorporated in the 
final rule.
    Referring to proposed Sec. 160.151-49, one comment suggested that 
servicing facilities outside the United States should be specifically 
approved by the manufacturer since they will not be by the Coast Guard. 
This is incorrect, since the Coast Guard does and will continue to 
approve facilities outside the United States. For servicing at remote 
sites such as oil rigs, the facility performing the work will still 
have to be approved by the Coast Guard, and the provisions in the 
facility's letter of approval authorizing it to perform servicing at 
remote sites will signify that the Coast Guard has evaluated the 
facility's ability to perform proper servicing in the field.
Supervision of Liferaft Servicing
    The NPRM proposed replacing the current system of universal Coast 
Guard witnessing of liferaft servicing with a system of Coast Guard 
supervision by means of periodic spot checks, with the frequency of the 
spot checks at the discretion of the OCMI.
    One comment suggested that, rather than change its current system 
of inspection of servicing to use its resources more efficiently, the 
Coast Guard should ask Congress for additional personnel.
    The Coast Guard does not believe it is realistic or desirable to 
maintain an existing inspection program that can be carried out just as 
effectively with a more efficient use of fewer resources of the Coast 
Guard. The proposed conversion from universal inspection of servicing 
to spot checks would not take place in a vacuum. Although Coast Guard 
presence at actual servicing would become less frequent under the rules 
proposed in the NPRM, the technical requirements for facility approval 
would be significantly strengthened, as would the training requirements 
for servicing technicians. Overall, the Coast Guard expects that the 
changes proposed in the NPRM, taken together, will ensure that liferaft 
servicing continues to be done properly and under adequate supervision.
    One comment completely supported the conversion to spot checks, 
since servicing technicians at facilities are well trained and 
qualified, and scheduling a Coast Guard inspector to witness every 
liferaft servicing is not only burdensome on the Coast Guard's 
personnel resources but also a financial burden to facilities and an 
operational burden on ship operators awaiting

[[Page 25539]]

liferaft servicing. The comment also noted that the NPRM is consistent 
with ongoing efforts toward Maritime Regulatory Reform and with the 
shifting of appropriate activities to the private sector.
    One comment suggested that there should be a stated minimum 
frequency of spot checks, and that in no case should the number of spot 
checks be less than two a year. Another comment suggested that Coast 
Guard inspectors should observe the servicing or oversee the 
performance of third-party inspectors in some reasonable percentage of 
instances.
    The Coast Guard agrees that spot checks by the OCMI must be at some 
minimum frequency to provide adequate oversight. However, the Coast 
Guard does not believe that it is appropriate to impose an inflexible 
requirement upon itself through these regulations. It intends that, 
when this final rule takes effect, the Commandant will provide 
appropriate internal guidance to field units to implement the system of 
supervision by spot checks. In this way, the Coast Guard can take into 
account any unusual requirements or conditions of particular OCMI 
zones, and can refine its administration of the program as it gains 
experience with the new system.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(a) would require that a servicing facility 
taking in a liferaft to be serviced under its Coast Guard approval 
notify the OCMI of the make, size, and age of the liferaft, and whether 
the liferaft is due for a 5-year inflation test. Acting on that 
information, the OCMI would decide whether the servicing of the 
liferaft must be witnessed by an inspector.
    One comment suggested that providing the specified information 
before servicing would be unnecessarily costly, since many vessels 
operate on extremely tight schedules. The comment proposed that the 
facility be required only to notify the OCMI of its intent to service a 
liferaft, and to provide any information available at the time of 
notice (but not any particular information). Two comments suggested 
that proposed Sec. 160.151-53 adds uncertain costs to the servicing of 
a liferaft, since a facility has no way of knowing in advance whether 
an individual raft will be subject to inspection where a user fee or 
third-party-inspection fee will be added. One of these comments 
suggested that the Coast Guard perform random inspections of every 
facility at no cost to that facility. Another comment suggested that, 
to make costs involved with servicing inspections predictable, the 
Coast Guard make periodic (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual) inspections, 
with or without notice.
    None of these comments have been incorporated in the final rule. 
Because of constraints on the resources of the Coast Guard, the NPRM 
proposed to replace the current system of universal Coast Guard 
witnessing of liferaft servicing for inspected vessels with a system of 
spot checks by the OCMI. Overall, that system should substantially 
decrease, for all servicing facilities, the burden associated with 
scheduling of Coast Guard inspectors for every liferaft servicing and, 
for foreign facilities, the travel and subsistence expenses of Coast 
Guard inspectors. However, for spot checks to provide effective 
supervision of liferaft servicing, it is essential that the Coast Guard 
focus its resources in the areas of greatest risk. In the case of 
liferaft servicing, the greatest risk will likely be in the areas of 
the oldest rafts, particularly those undergoing the five-year inflation 
test, and perhaps on makes of liferafts that have demonstrated 
reliability problems in the past. The required information should not 
be difficult to obtain, since it is all marked on the outside of the 
liferaft container. A facility called by a ship for the servicing of 
one of its liferafts would merely need to request that the ship provide 
the information marked on the outside of the container, whereupon the 
facility would pass that information to the OCMI when giving the 
required notice of servicing.
    The suggestions for random periodic inspections have not been 
adopted, because they do not allow for the Coast Guard's resources to 
be focused on the areas of highest risk. In addition, such a system 
would result in the lowest-volume facilities' being subjected to a 
proportionally much greater degree of supervision than the higher-
volume facilities.
    One comment questioned whether a servicing facility must notify the 
OCMI when it plans to service a liferaft from a commercial fishing 
vessel. The NPRM and the final rule require notice whenever a facility 
is to service a liferaft for which it is approved by the Coast Guard, 
regardless of the source of the liferaft.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(c)(2) would allow a servicing facility, 
when a Coast Guard marine inspector is not available in a timely manner 
to witness a servicing that needs to be witnessed, to engage a third-
party inspector accepted by the OCMI to witness the servicing on behalf 
of the OCMI. Third-party inspection would be at the expense of the 
facility.
    Two comments suggested that the OCMIs should retain sole 
responsibility for supervision of servicing of liferafts in their 
respective zones to maintain the Coast Guard's level of expertise in 
this area. Another comment stressed the importance of maintaining the 
Coast Guard's expertise, and suggested that Coast Guard inspectors 
should observe the servicing or oversee the performance of third-party 
inspectors in some reasonable percentage of instances.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the comments that it is essential that 
the Coast Guard maintain its base of knowledge and experience in this 
highly specialized area. It is anticipated that most spot checks would 
in fact be conducted by Coast Guard marine inspectors. However, the 
nature of the spot-check system, in targeting areas of greatest risk, 
means there may be instances when the witnessing of a particular event 
is necessary and yet when the Coast Guard does not have adequate 
resources to attend in a timely manner. To minimize the scheduling 
burden on servicing facilities and ship operators, the proposed rule 
affords some flexibility in those instances. Therefore, the suggestion 
that all spot checks be conducted by a Coast Guard inspector has not 
been incorporated in the final rule.
    One comment opposed third-party inspections, since unlike the Coast 
Guard, third-party inspectors would have an economic interest in the 
outcome of the inspection. A ship operator could influence a third-
party inspector's decision about whether the liferafts fail the 
inspection because, if the liferafts fail the inspection, the operator 
may not hire the inspector again.
    This comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what was 
proposed in the NPRM. A third-party inspector as described in the NPRM 
would be hired not by a ship operator but rather by the servicing 
facility; an operator might not even be aware that a third-party 
inspector is involved. The third-party inspector's function would be to 
oversee the performance of the facility, not to evaluate the condition 
of the liferaft. The presence of an independent third-party inspector 
during liferaft servicing would be expected to discourage a facility 
from allowing economic considerations to influence its evaluation of a 
liferaft, since the inspector would ensure adherence of the facility to 
the objective and quantitative criteria in the relevant regulations and 
in the manufacturer's servicing manual.
    Four comments suggested that third-party inspection based on fee 
for profit

[[Page 25540]]

would greatly increase the cost of liferaft servicing, and one further 
commented that it would be an unfair system in terms of fees unless a 
nationwide fee could be agreed upon.
    These rules have no effect on the cost of Coast Guard inspections; 
inspections at domestic servicing facilities continue to be provided at 
no charge, and foreign facilities continue to be billed for the 
inspector's travel and subsistence. The cost of any third-party 
inspections as allowed by these rules will be borne by the facility in 
all cases. However, these rules do not require such inspections; they 
are merely an option available to facilities in cases where constraints 
on resources of the Coast Guard may not allow response in time to meet 
a facility's desired delivery schedule. The Coast Guard does not have 
the authority to regulate fees for such services, and does not believe 
a uniform fee would be reasonable given the wide variety of parties who 
could be accepted as inspectors and the worldwide distribution of 
approved facilities in sometimes-remote locations.
    Three comments expressed concern that untrained personnel might be 
assigned to oversee liferaft servicing, and asked what training or 
qualifications a third-party inspector would have to have in order to 
be able to perform this work.
    As was discussed in the NPRM, third-party inspectors engaged to 
oversee liferaft servicing would be subject to acceptance by the OCMI. 
Like the proposed rule, this final rule does not require a third-party 
inspector to necessarily represent an independent laboratory fully 
compliant with 46 CFR subpart 159.010. Individuals such as experienced 
marine surveyors with appropriate practical training or background 
could be employed. And, like the proposed rule, this final rule gives 
OCMIs the authority to accept third-party inspectors in their 
respective zones (as opposed to central approval by the Commandant), 
since OCMIs will be better able, taking into account their local 
knowledge and conditions, to evaluate prospective local third-party 
inspectors of less-than-national scope. To maintain some uniformity of 
requirements, the Commandant will provide OCMIs with general guidelines 
for use in evaluating and accepting third-party inspectors where they 
are used.
    One comment suggested that performance monitoring of accepted 
third-party organizations would have to be done by the OCMI, and 
questioned how this relationship would be any different from the 
current situation between facilities and the OCMI. The difference is 
that, under the current system, the OCMI is in the facility for every 
servicing of a liferaft from an inspected vessel. Under the system 
proposed in the NPRM, the Coast Guard would be in the facility only for 
periodic spot checks, at which time it could audit records pertaining 
to any third-party inspections that may have been performed.
    The same comment noted that problems may arise between a facility 
and third-party inspector, such as conflicts over personality, 
scheduling, and payment. Obviously, the Coast Guard has neither any 
intention nor any authority to regulate these areas. Since the facility 
selects and hires a third-party inspector, it can ``fire'' the 
inspector as well in the event of an irreconcilable conflict.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard would need to establish 
a ``complaint board'' to address instances of ``unfair actions taken by 
third party inspectors.'' The Coast Guard does not agree that such a 
dedicated body is needed in view of established appeal procedures in 
current regulations. Allegations of actions taken by a third-party 
inspector that are contrary to the terms of the OCMI's acceptance of 
the inspector would be evaluated by the OCMI, and corrective action 
(which could include termination of acceptance) taken as appropriate. A 
party reporting such allegations who is not satisfied with the OCMI's 
response can appeal the OCMI's decision to the District Commander and 
then to the Commandant, if necessary.
    One comment suggested that the Coast Guard should attend every 
servicing of a ``grandfathered'' liferaft whose carriage on an 
uninspected commercial-fishing-industry vessel is permitted under 46 
CFR part 28, because these rafts were not manufactured under 
supervision of the Coast Guard and thus their construction is suspect. 
The comment also suggests that the Coast Guard should assume the 
responsibility for monitoring the condition of these rafts, since it is 
allowing them to continue in use until they are no longer serviceable.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The guidelines used by the Coast Guard 
to allow grandfathering of these liferafts are very stringent, 
including a gas inflation test and a Necessary Additional Pressure 
Test, both at the first servicing. The Coast Guard considers these 
tests sufficient to screen out any rafts of questionable construction. 
In addition, although grandfathered rafts themselves are not formally 
approved by the Coast Guard, they have to be serviced at servicing 
facilities approved by the Coast Guard. Since proposed Sec. 160.151-
53(a) would require a servicing facility to notify the OCMI of every 
liferaft taken in for servicing under its Coast Guard approval, 
grandfathered liferafts would be just as subject to an OCMI's spot 
check as any other liferaft.
    The Coast Guard also disagrees that grandfathered rafts should be 
subject to special supervision because it lets them be used until they 
are no longer serviceable. This condition is not unique to 
grandfathered liferafts, since any liferaft may continue to be used 
until it is no longer serviceable.
Deviations From Procedures in the Servicing Manual
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(d) would allow servicing facilities to 
deviate from servicing manual procedures with the approval of the OCMI. 
As discussed in the NPRM preamble, this provision would include 
substitution of comparable equipment when survival equipment approved 
by the Coast Guard is not available for some reason. One comment 
suggested that equipment substitution should be permitted only if the 
substituted equipment meets or exceeds the Coast Guard-approved 
equipment, and also meets SOLAS approval requirements.
    The Coast Guard agrees in principle with this comment. It is the 
Coast Guard's intention that any substitute survival equipment be at 
least comparable to Coast Guard-approved equipment. As was discussed in 
the NPRM, however, the wide variety of equipment available and the 
approval requirements for some types of equipment do not always allow 
for a definitive determination in the field whether a particular piece 
of equipment would meet all applicable requirements of the Coast Guard. 
Although it is anticipated that equipment substitutions will be quite 
rare in any case, there will no doubt be instances where the OCMI has 
to use his judgment and experience in determining whether a particular 
deviation is acceptable. Section 160.151-53(d) is retained in the final 
rule as proposed, since it adequately describes the general procedure 
for handling deviations subject to the OCMI's discretion.
Suspension and Withdrawal of Approval of Servicing Facilities
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-55 specifies conditions under which the Coast 
Guard can suspend or withdraw the approval of a servicing facility. Two 
comments suggested that this section should be revised to give 
manufacturers the right to withdraw approvals from facilities.

[[Page 25541]]

    The Coast Guard does not agree. As discussed earlier, SOLAS 
requires a servicing facility to be approved by the Administration 
(i.e., the Coast Guard), not by the manufacturer. Under Sec. 160.151-
35(b)(3) of this final rule (which varies from the NPRM language 
because of a comment by the same association commenting on this 
provision), a manufacturer must provide technical support to each 
service station approved by the Coast Guard to service that 
manufacturer's liferafts. If a manufacturer is aware that a facility is 
not properly servicing liferafts, the manufacturer can report that to 
the Coast Guard; the Coast Guard will take appropriate action under 
Sec. 160.151-55(a)(2). Alternatively, a manufacturer can discontinue 
providing refresher training for the facility's technician(s). However, 
this final rule does not allow a manufacturer to arbitrarily or 
unilaterally cause the withdrawal of a servicing facility's approval by 
the Coast Guard.
Servicing Procedures
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(b)(3) would require that, during annual 
servicing, an inflatable floor be inflated until firm, allowed to stand 
for one hour, then still be firm after two hours. Three comments 
suggested that this test is excessive, and proposed that the test 
should last one hour. The Coast Guard agrees that there is no reason 
why the floor test should last longer than the working pressure leakage 
test to which the rest of the liferaft is subjected, and Sec. 160.151-
57(b)(3) has been revised in the final rule to require only a one-hour 
test.
    In place of the annual test currently required by 46 CFR 160.051-
6(e), proposed Sec. 160.151-57(f) would require a davit-launched 
liferaft to be subjected to a launching-load test at every other 
servicing. This is the same interval specified in IMO Resolution 
A.761(18). One comment suggested that this interval would be sufficient 
for newer liferafts, but suggested that the requirement should be 
annual testing for rafts over ten years old due to the possibility of 
deterioration of the materials.
    The Coast Guard has not incorporated this comment in the final 
rule. Its policy is not to impose requirements in excess of SOLAS on 
U.S.-flag ships, and we are not aware of any data to suggest that the 
biennial test in Sec. 160.151-57(f) is inadequate to identify, in a 
timely manner, liferafts deteriorating due to age. Consequently, 
Sec. 160.151-57(f) is retained in the final rule as proposed in the 
NPRM.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(g) would require that the 5-year gas 
inflation test be conducted with the liferaft still secured in its 
container, rather than after being removed from its container as 
required by current 46 CFR 160.051-6(f)(2). Several comments suggested 
that, because of the increased bottle charges and higher nitrogen 
content in the gas mixture necessary to comply with the requirements of 
SOLAS, performing the test in this manner raises concerns about safety 
as well as about unnecessary damage to the liferaft. Both comments 
proposed that the final rule allow the raft to be removed from its 
container for this test as is the current practice.
    As was explained in the NPRM, the forces on a liferaft are 
significantly different when it is inflated in its container with the 
retaining bands in place from when it is removed from the container 
first. The Coast Guard continues to believe that performing the gas 
inflation test with the liferaft packed in its container is a useful 
means of detecting marginal or unsatisfactory structural connections in 
the liferaft in a realistic operating environment. However, the current 
IMO recommendation on servicing requires that the liferaft be removed 
from its container before performing the test. Because of concerns 
about the increased risk of damage to a liferaft when inflating it on 
the shop floor instead of in the water, there has been little support 
at IMO for modifying the test as proposed in the NPRM. Consequently, to 
remain consistent with the current internationally accepted 
requirement, Sec.  160.151-57(g) in the final rule requires removing 
the folded raft from its container before actuating the inflation 
system, as was suggested in the comments.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(i) would require that, when a liferaft ten 
or more years past its date of manufacture leaks extensively or shows 
fabric damage after a gas inflation test, it must be condemned. One 
comment suggested that ``fabric damage'' is a vague description, and 
that it is not unusual for liferafts exhibiting some signs of porosity 
to successfully pass all required testing.
    The Coast Guard agrees that minor porosity, although it might 
technically be considered to be ``fabric damage,'' should not 
necessarily mandate the condemnation of a liferaft that otherwise 
passes all of the required servicing tests. Particularly with the 
addition of the annual Necessary Additional Pressure test for liferafts 
over ten years old, the normal testing procedure between gas-inflation 
tests should be adequate to identify fabric deficiencies serious enough 
to adversely affect the operational performance of the liferaft. The 
Coast Guard is concerned, though, about fabric damage other than minor 
porosity, such as cold cracking. Such damage would tend to be more 
aggressive and more progressive than simple porosity, and the fact that 
a liferaft with cold cracking might pass all of the required servicing 
tests would not necessarily guarantee that it would not fail 
catastrophically at its next inflation by its gas inflation system.
    In view of the above, the Coast Guard has decided to partially 
adopt the suggestion in the comment. Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(i) in the 
final rule requires that a liferaft more than ten years old that leaks 
extensively or shows fabric damage ``other than minor porosity'' after 
the gas-inflation test must be condemned.
Liferaft Markings as an Aid to Search and Rescue
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) would require a servicing facility 
to mark the liferaft canopy, or the device required by proposed 
Sec. 160.151-17(c), with the name of the vessel on which the liferaft 
will be installed or the name of the vessel owner (if the information 
is known). One comment suggested that providing this marking can be a 
problem, since companies sometimes trade liferafts among different 
vessels. Another comment questioned how important it is to know what 
ship a liferaft is from, since generally only one ship sinks at any 
particular time. The same comment suggested that the ship 
identification could not be attached to the painter, since the painter 
is generally cut at the raft after deployment.
    As discussed in the NPRM under heading entitled ``Raft Markings as 
an Aid to Search and Rescue'', this requirement is pursuant to IMO 
Resolution A.759(18). Its main intent is to address the too-frequent 
situation of a liferaft being found adrift with no persons aboard and 
no identifying markings, e.g., a liferaft which is inadvertently 
released from a ship in heavy seas. Such a liferaft will obviously have 
no one aboard to cut the painter, and so an identification device 
attached to the painter will remain intact to serve its purpose.
    Knowing which ship a liferaft found adrift came from lets SAR 
forces check to ensure that the ship is safe. An unmarked and unmanned 
liferaft found adrift naturally leads to speculation whether the ship 
it is from experienced a sudden casualty with no opportunity

[[Page 25542]]

to signal distress, which can result in expensive and fruitless 
searches.
    Concerning the trading of liferafts by companies or cooperatives, 
Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) requires a servicing facility to apply the 
marking only if the information is known. However, manufacturers will 
have to include in their servicing manuals instructions for facilities 
to retrofit the device required by Sec. 160.151-17(c) on existing 
liferafts so that vessel operators will have a means of specifying the 
identity of the vessel on which a liferaft is fitted without the 
necessity of anyone's opening the liferaft container. Such 
identification could be easily changed as a liferaft is traded within a 
company or cooperative.
    In view of the above discussion, Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) is retained 
in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM. The effective date for the 
requirement is July 1, 1998, which is the date the requirement will 
become mandatory under SOLAS.
Inspection Stickers and Certificates
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3) would require a servicing facility 
to affix an inspection sticker to each liferaft it services, indicating 
the manufacturer of the liferaft, the identification of the facility, 
and the expiration date of the servicing. This sticker would replace 
the metal inspection plate currently required by 46 CFR 160.051-8(a).
    One comment opposed the replacement of the metal inspection plate 
by a sticker, since the sticker would not show what kind of equipment 
is in the liferaft, would wear or fade easily, and would come off the 
container easily. Two comments suggested that it was unsatisfactory 
that the sticker would not show the inspection record. Another comment 
cited the added cost to the customer and noted that, if the sticker 
were to replace the servicing certificate, the customer would not know 
the expiration dates of the equipment inside the liferaft.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the substance of these comments in 
their entirety. First, the sticker would not replace, but would be in 
addition to, the container markings otherwise required by SOLAS and by 
proposed Sec. 160.151-33(b), which include specification of the type of 
equipment pack in the liferaft. The inspection record will continue to 
appear on the liferaft itself per proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(1). The 
sticker would not replace the servicing certificate, which is required 
by proposed Sec. 160.151-57(p); however, the certificate need not 
indicate the expiration dates of the packed equipment in any case. Note 
that, notwithstanding the information required on the sticker, a 
manufacturer can require or allow the marking of any other relevant 
information by including it in the servicing manual. The durability of 
the sticker and its attachment to the liferaft container are 
specifically addressed in proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3), which 
requires the sticker to be of a type that will remain legible for two 
years in a marine environment and that cannot be removed without being 
destroyed. Such stickers are readily available, and their cost is 
nominal.
    One comment noted that, since the stickers do not require specific 
identification by Coast Guard inspector, they could be affixed to 
liferafts whose servicing was not witnessed by the Coast Guard. 
Consequently, a facility could affix a sticker to a liferaft that it 
had not even opened. The same comment also noted that not requiring a 
Coast Guard inspector's identification on the service record marking 
required by proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(1) would allow a facility to 
repack a raft without even inflating it.
    The Coast Guard believes that the vast majority of servicing 
facilities are professional organizations dedicated to high-quality 
liferaft servicing in accordance with all relevant laws, regulations, 
and manufacturers' instructions, who perform high-quality work whether 
the Coast Guard witnesses it or not. Nevertheless, there are documented 
instances where unscrupulous facilities have engaged in acts such as 
those described in the comment discussed above, even under existing 
regulations. A facility wishing to avoid supervision by the Coast Guard 
need only fail to notify the Coast Guard of a liferaft taken in for 
servicing. A requirement for Coast Guard identification on stickers or 
on servicing record markings has not deterred in the past, and would 
not deter in the future, a facility intent on not performing the work 
for which it is paid.
    In view of the above discussion, Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3) is retained 
in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM. The requirement has an 
effective date 6 months from the date of publication in the Federal 
Register, so as to allow those manufacturers who have not yet begun 
using the stickers to obtain and distribute them.
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(p) would require that a servicing facility 
issue a certificate to the liferaft owner or owner's agent for each 
liferaft it services. One comment proposed that this section be revised 
to require also that the facility provide a copy of the servicing 
certificate to the manufacturer.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. While it is obvious that providing the 
liferaft owner with a certificate facilitates demonstration to the 
relevant authorities that a liferaft has been properly serviced, the 
Coast Guard knows of no compelling reason (and the comment did not 
offer any) why the certificate should be required by regulation to be 
provided to the manufacturer as well. If the manufacturer wants a copy 
of each servicing certificate, that can be arranged by agreement 
between the manufacturer and the facilities servicing the 
manufacturer's rafts, or by requiring it in the manufacturer's approved 
servicing manual. Consequently, the proposal in the comment has not 
been adopted in the final rule.
    One comment suggested that servicing certificates should be 
supplied, controlled, and serialized by manufacturers to inhibit 
counterfeiting and to ensure that only approved and authorized 
facilities conduct servicing. The Coast Guard disagrees that it is 
necessary to regulate the form and substance of the certificates in 
such detail. As discussed above, manufacturers desiring to do so can 
accomplish the same end by agreement between themselves and the 
facilities servicing their rafts, or by specifying particular 
certificates in the approved servicing manuals. If a manufacturer 
demands in the manual particular certificates as part of the servicing 
procedure, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) will require that the manufacturer 
make those certificates available to approved facilities.
Reporting Damage and Defects
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(r) would require, in accordance with the 
IMO recommendation on liferaft servicing, that servicing facilities 
transmit to the OCMI, at least annually, information concerning damage 
and defects found in liferafts during servicing and repair. This 
information would be used by the OCMI and the Commandant to identify 
recurring problems, and to correct them by requiring manufacturers to 
make appropriate modifications to their equipment or their procedures.
    One comment suggested that the specified information should be 
provided to the affected manufacturer(s) as well. It also suggested 
that the information should be provided quarterly rather than annually, 
though it offered no reason for the increase in frequency.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that it is necessary or even desirable 
for servicing facilities to have to provide the same information to 
several different parties.

[[Page 25543]]

The IMO recommendation requires only that the information be made 
available to the ``Administration.'' As discussed above, a manufacturer 
desiring to obtain complete servicing records from facilities servicing 
its liferafts can accomplish that either by agreement with the affected 
facilities or by simply requiring it in the approved servicing manual. 
As was noted in another comment, the Coast Guard expects that OCMIs who 
identify recurring problems in liferafts or their servicing on the 
basis of the data submitted to them will inform the Commandant, who 
will evaluate the information and bring it to the attention of the 
affected manufacturer(s) for action as appropriate. Consequently, the 
suggestions in the comment have not been adopted in the final rule.
Penalty for Improper Servicing
    One comment noted that there is currently no civil penalty 
regulation associated with liferaft servicing, and asked what penalty 
is available for a facility performing improper servicing. When the 
NPRM was published, there was indeed no established penalty. Since 
then, section 310 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 amended 
46 U.S.C. 3318(b) to make servicing or alteration of lifesaving 
equipment so as to intentionally render that equipment unsafe or unfit 
for its purpose a Class D felony.

Instructions for Training and Maintenance

    Proposed Sec. 160.151-59 would require the manufacturer to prepare 
``training and maintenance instructions'' to comply with SOLAS 
regulations III/18.2, 19.3, 51, and 52. One comment suggested that all 
references to ``training'' in this section should be modified to 
``operating'' or ``operating and maintenance.'' The reason given was 
that liferaft manufacturers are not in the business of training, and 
should not be responsible for preparation of training materials.
    The Coast Guard believes the suggestion in the comment has merit, 
since the terminology used in the referenced SOLAS regulations may lead 
to some confusion. What is required by SOLAS regulation III/51 is the 
placement in a ship's training manual of not strictly training material 
but rather ``instructions and information, in easily understood terms 
illustrated wherever possible'': a simple set of operating instructions 
for the education and ready reference of the ship's crew. To minimize 
ambiguity, in the final rule proposed Sec. 160.151-59 is broken into 
both a new Sec. 160.151-59 (Operating instructions and information for 
the ship's training manual) and a new Sec. 160.151-61 (Maintenance 
instructions), and all references in the final rule to ``training 
material'' have been amended appropriately.

Consequential Revisions

    Currently, in 46 CFR 199.190(g)(3) refers to subpart 160.051 for 
servicing requirements for inflatable liferafts. This final rule 
revises the reference to subpart 160.151, and expands its application 
to include inflatable buoyant apparatuses.

Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 
Sec. 160.151-5 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 
CFR part 51. The material is available as indicated in that section.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory 
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 
FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    A draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the 
Evaluation follows.
    The draft evaluation estimated a total one-time cost of $710,000 
for liferaft manufacturers to comply with the proposed rule, including 
about $560,000 for them to individually complete the proposed at-sea 
test for stability. This final rule does not require the at-sea test 
proposed in the NPRM, and consequently the cost of the test is not 
included in this final regulatory evaluation. The total anticipated 
one-time cost for compliance with this rule is therefore $150,000, or 
approximately $60 per new SOLAS liferaft.
    This final rule should result in a net recurring annual cost of 
about $156,000. Annual saving of almost $500,000 in servicing costs are 
possible as a result of the revisions to the servicing procedures in 
this rule, but some of those savings are offset by an increase of 
$218,000 in the annual cost of new SOLAS equipment that will have to be 
replaced during annual servicings. New liferafts will incur an annual 
increase of $214,000 needed to comply with the new SOLAS requirements, 
and $22,000 in fees for inspections by independent laboratories. In 
addition, the NPRM projected a cost of $200,000 for stability 
appendages, which will be reduced to about $100,000 by the revisions to 
the stability requirements in this rule. All of these increases, 
totalling $336,000 or about $672 per new SOLAS liferaft, should fall on 
manufacturers and presumably be passed through to purchasers. With both 
one-time and recurring costs taken into account, the acquisition cost 
of a new SOLAS liferaft would be increased by about $732, still one-
third less than the $1156 increase projected in the NPRM. The average 
cost of annual servicing will drop by about $62 per year per liferaft, 
as projected in the NPRM. The regulatory evaluation discounts costs at 
7 percent to determine future costs. On the basis of this analysis, the 
evaluation estimates that the cost of compliance with this rule will be 
about $1,264,000 over 10 years. Economic research indicates that $2.7 
million per statistical life saved is a reasonable estimate of people's 
willingness to pay for safety. Therefore, this rule will be cost-
effective even if it saves only one life over a 10 year period. The 
recent history of casualties involving liferafts, such as the MARINE 
ELECTRIC in 1983 (with loss of life due to difficulty in boarding the 
liferaft), and the 1992 NETTIE H. and 1993 TRUE LIFE casualties (both 
with loss of life, where overturned liferafts could not be easily 
located due to dark bottoms), strongly suggest that liferaft 
improvements such as the boarding ramps, stability systems, and highly 
visible coloring on the underside mandated by SOLAS and by this rule 
will result in the saving of one or more lives.
    The regulatory evaluation also discusses other benefits than the 
saving of lives. First, liferafts approved by the Coast Guard will meet 
the requirements of SOLAS. This will ensure that U.S.-registered 
vessels are not being penalized or delayed in foreign ports because of 
non-compliance. Second, as a signatory to the SOLAS Convention, the 
United States is obligated to make sure its vessels comply. This final 
rule will also enhance the lifesaving potential and operational 
efficiency of inflatable liferafts by making them easier to board from 
the water, by increasing their stability in heavy seas, and by various 
other improvements required by the 1983 and subsequent SOLAS 
amendments.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 
Coast Guard considered whether this rule will have

[[Page 25544]]

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. ``Small entities'' include small businesses and not-for-
profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are 
not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations less than 50,000. All seven U.S. manufacturers of 
inflatable liferafts and all (approximately 105) U.S. facilities 
servicing inflatable liferafts qualify as small entities. (Foreign 
manufacturers and servicing facilities are not considered small 
entities for the purposes of this analysis.) This final rule would 
affect all manufacturers and servicing facilities to about the same 
degree. U.S. firms (the small entities) may already hold a small cost 
advantage over their foreign counterparts in that the Coast Guard does 
not require reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses to 
conduct inspections at their facilities. Any additional costs incurred 
as a result of this rule are expected to be passed through to the 
consumer, resulting in a negligible economic impact on manufacturers 
and servicing facilities.
    Most consumers of liferafts will probably be small entities as 
well. As discussed above, the acquisition cost of a new SOLAS 
inflatable liferaft should increase by less than 20 percent under this 
rule. This increase should not create a substantial hardship for most 
consumers. In fact, for the regulated market, liferaft production has 
shifted predominantly toward liferafts complying with SOLAS since 
approximately 1987, and the Coast Guard is unaware of any significant 
adverse effects of any price increases associated with SOLAS 
compliance. Further, as noted above, the average cost of annual 
servicing will drop by $62 over the life of the raft, resulting in a 
negligible difference in lifetime cost.
    The Coast Guard has developed these rules to provide for compliance 
with relevant international treaties and internationally accepted 
standards at the lowest possible cost to the regulated public. In 
response to the many comments received on the issue of cost, the most 
costly provisions in the NPRM, concerning stability testing, were 
practically eliminated in favor of compliance with relevant 
international standards. There were no public comments concerning the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis in the NPRM, which concluded 
that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. This final rule substantially 
reduces the financial burden on small entities relative to the proposed 
rules. The reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements 
of this rule are substantially similar to those which have been in long 
standing effect and industry practice, and require no particular 
professional skills for compliance. Therefore, the Coast Guard 
certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard 
offers to assist small entities in understanding the rule so it can 
evaluate its effects on them and allow them to participate in the 
rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is affected 
by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Kurt Heinz, at either telephone 
202-267-1444, fax 202-267-1069, or E-mail address 
``[email protected]''.

Collection of Information

    This final rule provides for a collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As required 
by 5 U.S.C. 3507(d) the Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this rule 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the 
collection of information. The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the 
Federal Register when they have been approved. There were no comments 
on the information collection requirements proposed in the NPRM, and 
this final rule does not impose any information collection requirements 
other than those which were proposed in the NPRM. The section numbers 
of information collection requirements which are either new or have not 
yet been approved by OMB are as follows:
    a. Sec. 160.151-21((n).
    b. Sec. 160.151-21(u).
    c. Sec. 160.151-21(y)(4).
    d. Sec. 160.151-33.
    e. Sec. 160.151-39(c).
    f. Sec. 160.151-41(b).
    g. Sec. 160.151-45.
    h. Sec. 160.151-53.
    i. Sec. 160.151-57(m).
    j. Sec. 160.151-57(p).
    k. Sec. 160.151-57(r).
    l. Sec. 160.151-59.
    m. Sec. 160.151-61 (was part of Sec. 160.151-59 in the NPRM).

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this final rule under the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that 
this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The authority to 
establish standards for the approval of lifesaving equipment to be 
carried on board vessels has been committed to the Coast Guard by 
Federal statutes. Further, because liferafts are distributed in a 
national marketplace, divergent requirements regarding their 
manufacture would lead to confusion, added expense, and reduced safety. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard intends to preempt State and local 
regulations on the same subject that are inconsistent with this rule. 
There were no comments concerning the federalism implications of this 
rule as proposed in the NPRM.

Environment

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this final 
rule and concluded that under section 2.B.2.e(34)(e) of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. The requirements in this final rule affect 
the design and servicing of inflatable liferafts. This rule will have a 
positive impact on safety, and clearly have no impact on the 
environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in 
the docket for inspection and copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. 
There were no comments concerning the environmental impacts of this 
rule as proposed in the NPRM.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 159

    Business and industry, Laboratories, Marine safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 160

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

46 CFR Part 199

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration, Passenger 
vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 
CFR parts 159, 160, and 199 as follows:

PART 159--APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS

    1. The authority citation for part 159 continues to read as 
follows:


[[Page 25545]]


    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46; Section 
159.001-9 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    2. In Sec. 159.005-5, add paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 159.005-5  Preapproval review: Contents of application.

    (a) * * *
    (4) If the material submitted under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section contains confidential commercial information that could cause 
substantial competitive harm if released to the public, a statement to 
the effect that the material is considered privileged and confidential 
under exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 
552), and that it should not be released to anyone other than the 
original submitter.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 159.005-7, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 159.005-7  Preapproval review: Coast Guard action.

* * * * *
    (c) An item of equipment or material that does not meet all of the 
requirements of this subchapter for design or performance may be 
approved by the Commandant if it has equivalent performance 
characteristics. The item has equivalent performance characteristics if 
the application and any approval tests prescribed by the Commandant, in 
place of or in addition to the approval tests required by this 
subchapter, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commandant that the 
item is at least as effective as one that meets the requirements of 
this subchapter.
    4. In Sec. 159.005-13, revise the introductory text of paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:


Sec. 159.005-13  Equipment or material: Approval.

    (a) If from analysis of the material and data required to be 
submitted under this subpart, the Commandant determines that the 
equipment or material meets the applicable subpart or has equivalent 
performance characteristics in accordance with Sec. 159.005-7(c), the 
Commandant--
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 159.007-9, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 159.007-9  Production inspections and tests.

* * * * *
    (d) The manufacturer shall admit a Coast Guard inspector to any 
place where approved equipment is manufactured, for the purpose of 
verifying that the equipment is being manufactured in accordance with 
the approved plans and the requirements of this subchapter.

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

    6. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, and 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 
FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.

    7. In Sec. 160.010-2, remove paragraph designators (a) through (d) 
and add the definition for inflatable buoyant apparatus at the end of 
the section to read as follows:


Sec. 160.010-2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Inflatable buoyant apparatus. An inflatable buoyant apparatus is 
flotation equipment that depends on inflated compartments for buoyancy 
and is designed to support a specified number of persons completely out 
of the water.
    8. Sections 160.010-3 and 160.010-4 are redesignated, as 
Secs. 160.010-4 and 160.010-5 respectively, and a new Sec. 160.010-3 is 
added to read as follows:


Sec. 160.010-3  Inflatable buoyant apparatus.

    (a) Design and performance. To obtain Coast Guard approval, an 
inflatable buoyant apparatus must comply with subpart 160.151, with the 
following exceptions:
    (1) Canopy requirements (SOLAS Chapter III, regulation 38, 
paragraph 1.5 (III/38.1.5)). It does not need a canopy.
    (2) Capacity (Regulation III/38.2.1). The carrying capacity must be 
not less than four persons.
    (3) Floor insulation (Regulation III/39.2.2). The floor may be 
uninsulated.
    (4) Stability (Regulation III/39.5.1). It does not need stability 
pockets.
    (5) Righting (Regulation III/39.5.2). A reversible one does not 
need arrangements for righting.
    (6) One with a capacity of 13 or more persons must be reversible, 
with the floor arranged between the buoyancy chambers so that the 
apparatus can, floating either side up, accommodate the number of 
persons for which it is approved. One with a capacity of 12 or fewer 
persons must either be reversible in the same manner, or be designed so 
that it can be readily righted by one person.
    (7) One with a capacity of 25 or more persons must be provided with 
self-bailing floor drains. If the floor of a reversible one includes 
one or more drains, each drain must be arranged to completely drain the 
floor of water when the device is fully loaded, and must prevent water 
from flowing back onto the floor.
    (8) If the buoyancy tubes are not vivid reddish orange, vivid 
yellow, or a fluorescent color of a similar hue, panels of such hue 
must be secured to the buoyancy chambers so that a minimum of 1 m\2\ 
(11 ft\2\) is visible from above the apparatus when it is floating 
either side up.
    (9) Boarding ramp (Regulation III/39.4.1). Boarding ramps are not 
required if the combined cross-section diameter of the buoyancy 
chambers is 500 millimeters (mm) (19.5 in.) or less. An apparatus with 
a combined cross-section diameter greater than 500 mm (19.5 in.) 
requires boarding ramps as follows:
    (i) For an apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, at 
least one ramp must be provided;
    (ii) For an apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons, at 
least two ramps must be provided; and
    (iii) The boarding ramps required by this paragraph must allow 
persons to board with either side of a reversible apparatus floating 
up, or the full number of ramps required must be installed on each 
side.
    (10) Boarding ladder (Regulation
III/39.4.2). Boarding ladders must be provided on each inflatable 
buoyant apparatus as follows:
    (i) One ladder must be provided on each apparatus with a capacity 
of less than 25 persons, except that, for an apparatus with a capacity 
of 13 or more persons that is not equipped with a boarding ramp, two 
ladders must be provided.
    (ii) Two ladders must be provided on each apparatus with a capacity 
of 25 or more persons.
    (iii) The ladders required by this paragraph must allow persons to 
board with either side of a reversible apparatus floating up, or the 
full number of ladders required must be installed on each side.
    (11) One or more exterior canopy lamps meeting the requirements of 
Sec. 160.151-15(n) of this subchapter must be provided such that--
    (i) On a non-reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus, one lamp is 
mounted so that it is on the uppermost surface of the floating 
apparatus; and
    (ii) On a reversible apparatus, two lamps are mounted so that one 
lamp is on the uppermost surface of the apparatus, whichever side is 
floating up.
    (12) Equipment (Regulation
III/38.5.1). All equipment required by this paragraph must be either 
packed in a container accessible to the occupants, or otherwise secured 
to the apparatus. Duplicate equipment must be provided, for each side 
of a reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus, if the equipment is

[[Page 25546]]

not accessible from both sides. In lieu of the equipment specified in 
Sec. 160.151-7(b) and Regulation III/38.5.1, each apparatus must be 
provided with--
    (i) Rescue quoit and heaving line. One rescue quoit and a heaving 
line as described in Sec. 160.151-21(a) on each apparatus with a 
capacity of less than 25 persons; or two on each apparatus for a 
capacity of 25 or more persons. The heaving line(s) must be mounted 
adjacent to a boarding ramp (or boarding ladder, if no ramps are 
installed), and ready for immediate use;
    (ii) Knives. Two buoyant safety knives ready for use near the 
painter attachment;
    (iii) Bailer. One bailer as described in Sec. 160.151-21(c) on each 
apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons; or two bailers on 
each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons, except that no 
bailers are necessary if both sides of the floor of a reversible 
apparatus are equipped with drains;
    (iv) Sponge. One sponge as described in Sec. 160.151-21(d) on each 
apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, or two sponges on 
each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons;
    (v) Paddles. Two paddles as described in Sec. 160.151-21(f) on each 
apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, or four paddles on 
each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons;
    (vi) Flashlight. One flashlight with spare batteries as described 
in Sec. 160.151-21(m);
    (vii) Signaling mirror. One signaling mirror as described in 
Sec. 160.151-21(o);
    (viii) Repair outfit. One set of sealing clamps or plugs as 
described in Sec. 160.151-21(y)(1);
    (ix) Pump or bellows. One pump or bellows as described in 
Sec. 160.151-21(z); and
    (x) Sea anchor. One sea anchor as described in Sec. 160.151-21(e), 
attached so as to be readily deployable when the apparatus inflates.
    (13) Marking and labeling (Regulations III/39.7.3.4, III/39.7.3.5, 
and III/39.8.6). Marking and labeling of inflatable buoyant apparatus 
must be in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 160.151-33, except 
that the device must be identified as an ``INFLATABLE BUOYANT 
APPARATUS'', and no ``SOLAS'' markings shall be placed on the container 
of the apparatus. The capacity marking specified in regulation III/
39.8.6 must be applied to the top of each buoyancy tube.
    (14) Drop test. The drop test required under paragraph 1/5.1 of IMO 
Resolution A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-27(a) may be from a lesser 
height, if that height is the maximum height of stowage marked on the 
container.
    (15) Loading and seating test. For the loading and seating test 
required under paragraph 1/5.7 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and 
Sec. 160.151-27(a), the loaded freeboard of the apparatus must be not 
less than 200 mm (8 in.).
    (16) Cold-inflation test. The cold-inflation test required under 
paragraph 1/5.17.3.3.2 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-
27(a) must be conducted at a test temperature of -18 deg.C (0 deg.F).
    (b) Production inspections and tests. Production inspections and 
tests for inflatable buoyant apparatus must be performed in accordance 
with the applicable requirements of Sec. 160.151-31.
    (c) Servicing. Inflatable buoyant apparatus must be serviced 
periodically at approved servicing facilities in accordance with the 
applicable requirements of Secs. 160.151-35 through 160.151-57.
    (d) Instruction placard. An instruction placard meeting the 
requirements of Sec. 160.151-59(c), giving simple procedures and 
illustrations for inflating, launching, and boarding the inflatable 
buoyant apparatus, must be made available to the operator or master of 
each vessel on which the apparatus is to be carried.
    (e) Requirements for ``open reversible liferafts'' under the IMO 
International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (HSC Code). To be 
approved as meeting the requirements for open reversible liferafts in 
Annex 10 to the HSC Code, an inflatable buoyant apparatus must meet all 
of the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, with 
the following exceptions:
    (1) The apparatus must be reversible regardless of size.
    (2) The surface of the buoyancy tubes must be of a non-slip 
material. At least 25 percent of the surface of the buoyancy tubes must 
meet the color requirements of Sec. 160.151-15(e).
    (3) The length of the painter should be such that the apparatus 
inflates automatically upon reaching the water.
    (4) An additional bowsing-in line must be fitted to an apparatus 
with a capacity of more than 30 persons.
    (5) The apparatus must be fitted with boarding ramps regardless of 
size.
    (6) An apparatus with a capacity of 30 or fewer persons must be 
fitted with at least one floor drain.
    (7) In addition to the equipment specified in Sec. 160.010-
3(a)(12), the apparatus must be provided with--
    (i) Sponge. One additional sponge as described in Sec. 160.151-
21(d) on each apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons;
    (ii) First-aid kit. A first-aid kit approved by the Commandant 
under approval series 160.054;
    (iii) Whistle. A ball-type or multi-tone whistle of corrosion-
resistant construction;
    (iv) Hand flares. Two hand flares approved by the Commandant under 
approval series 160.121.
    (8) Marking and labeling of the apparatus must be in accordance 
with Sec. 160.151-33, except that the device must be identified as a 
``NON-SOLAS REVERSIBLE'', and the equipment pack must be identified as 
an ``HSC Pack''.
    9. Subpart 160.051, consisting of Secs. 160.051-0 through 160.051-
9, is removed, and replaced with a new subpart 160.051 to read as 
follows:

Subpart 160.051--Inflatable Liferafts for Domestic Service

Sec.
160.051-1  Scope.
160.051-3  Definitions.
160.051-5  Design and performance of Coastal Service inflatable 
liferafts.
160.051-7  Design and performance of A and B inflatable liferafts.
160.051-9  Equipment required for Coastal Service inflatable 
liferafts.

Subpart 160.051--Inflatable Liferafts for Domestic Service


Sec. 160.051-1  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes requirements for approval by the Coast 
Guard of A, B, and Coastal Service inflatable liferafts for use only in 
domestic service. These liferafts must comply with all of the 
requirements for SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts in subpart 160.151 
except as specified in this subpart.


Sec. 160.051-3  Definitions.

    In this subpart, the term:
    A or B liferaft means an inflatable liferaft that meets the 
requirements prescribed in subpart 160.151 for a SOLAS A or SOLAS B 
liferaft, respectively, except that the capacity is less than 6 persons 
and the liferaft cannot contain SOLAS markings.
    Coastal Service liferaft means a liferaft that does not meet the 
all of the requirements prescribed in subpart 160.151 for a SOLAS A or 
SOLAS B liferaft, but that instead meets the requirements of this 
subpart and is approved for use on certain uninspected vessels under 
subchapter C of this chapter.


Sec. 160.051-5  Design and performance of Coastal Service inflatable 
liferafts.

    To obtain Coast Guard approval, each Coastal Service inflatable 
liferaft must comply with subpart 160.151, with the following 
exceptions:

[[Page 25547]]

    (a) Canopy requirements (Regulation III/38.1.5). The canopy may--
    (1) Be of a type that is furled when the liferaft inflates and that 
can be set in place by the occupants. A furled canopy must be secured 
to the buoyancy tubes over 50 percent or more of the liferaft's 
circumference;
    (2) Be of an uninsulated, single-ply design; and
    (3) Have an interior of any color.
    (b) Viewing port (Regulation III/38.1.5.5). The liferaft need not 
have the viewing port described in Regulation III/38.1.5.5.
    (c) Rainwater collection (Regulation III/38.1.5.6). The liferaft 
need not have the means of rainwater collection described in Regulation 
III/38.1.5.6.
    (d) Capacity (Regulation III/38.2.1). The carrying capacity must be 
not less than four persons.
    (e) Floor insulation (Regulation III/39.2.2). The floor may be 
uninsulated.
    (f) Boarding ramps (Regulation III/39.4.1). The liferaft need be 
provided with boarding ramps only if the combined cross-section 
diameter of the buoyancy chambers is greater than 500 mm (19.5 in).
    (g) Stability (Regulation III/39.5.1). Each Coastal Service 
inflatable liferaft must either meet the stability criteria in 
Sec. 160.151-17(a) or be fitted with water-containing stability pockets 
meeting the following requirements:
    (1) The total volume of the pockets must be not less than 25 
percent of the minimum required volume of the principal buoyancy 
compartments of the liferaft.
    (2) The pockets must be securely attached and evenly distributed 
around the periphery of the exterior bottom of the liferaft. They may 
be omitted at the locations of inflation cylinders.
    (3) The pockets must be designed to deploy underwater when the 
liferaft inflates. If weights are used for this purpose, they must be 
of corrosion-resistant material.
    (h) Lamp (Regulation III/39.6.3). The liferaft need not have the 
manually controlled interior lamp described in Regulation III/39.6.3.
    (i) Markings (Regulations III/39.7.3.4 and III/39.7.3.5). The words 
``COASTAL SERVICE'' must appear on the container, and the type of 
equipment pack must be identified as ``Coastal Service''. No ``SOLAS'' 
markings may appear on the container.
    (j) Drop test. The drop test required under paragraph 1/5.1 of IMO 
Resolution A.689(17) and 160.151-27(a) may be from a lesser height, if 
that height is the maximum height of stowage marked on the container.
    (k) Loading and seating test. For the loading and seating test 
required under paragraph 1/5.7 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and 
Sec. 160.151-27(a), the loaded freeboard of the liferaft must be not 
less than 200 mm (8 in.).
    (l) Cold-inflation test. The cold-inflation test required under 
paragraph 1/5.17.3.3.2 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-
27(a) must be conducted at a test temperature of -18 deg.C (0 deg.F).


Sec. 160.051-7  Design and performance of A and B inflatable liferafts.

    To obtain Coast Guard approval, each A and B inflatable liferaft 
must comply with the requirements in subpart 160.151, with the 
following exceptions:
    (a) Capacity (Regulation III/38.2.1). The carrying capacity must be 
not less than four persons.
    (b) Markings (Regulations III/39.7.3.4 and III/39.7.3.5). The type 
of equipment pack must be identified as ``A'' or ``B'', respectively, 
instead of ``SOLAS A'' or ``SOLAS B''. No ``SOLAS'' markings may appear 
on the container.


Sec. 160.051-9  Equipment required for Coastal Service inflatable 
liferafts.

    In lieu of the equipment specified in Sec. 160.151-21, the 
following equipment must be provided with a Coastal Service inflatable 
liferaft:
    (a) Rescue quoit and heaving line. One rescue quoit and a heaving 
line as described in Sec. 160.151-21(a).
    (b) Knife. One knife, of a type designed to minimize the chance of 
damage to the inflatable liferaft and secured with a lanyard.
    (c) Bailer. One bailer as described in Sec. 160.151-21(c).
    (d) Sponge. One sponge as described in Sec. 160.151-21(d).
    (e) Sea anchor. One sea anchor as described in Sec. 160.151-21(e).
    (f) Paddles. Two paddles of the same size and type as used to pass 
the maneuverability test in paragraph 1/5.10 of IMO Resolution 
A.689(17).
    (g) Whistle. One whistle as described in Sec. 160.151-21(i) of this 
part.
    (h) Flashlight. One flashlight with spare batteries as described in 
Sec. 160.151-21(m).
    (i) Signalling mirror. One signalling mirror as described in 
Sec. 160.151-21(o).
    (j) Survival instructions. Instructions on how to survive as 
described in Sec. 160.151-21(v).
    (k) Instructions for immediate action. Instructions for immediate 
action as described in Sec. 160.151-21(w).
    (l) Repair outfit. One set of sealing clamps or plugs as described 
in Sec. 160.151-21(y)(1).
    (m) Pump or bellows. One pump or bellows as described in 
Sec. 160.151-21(z).
    (n) Plugs for pressure-relief valves. Plugs for pressure-relief 
valves as described in Sec. 160.151-21(aa).
    10. Subpart 160.151, consisting of Secs. 160.151-1 through 160.151-
59, is added to read as follows:

Subpart 160.151--Inflatable Liferafts (SOLAS)

Sec.
160.151-1  Scope.
160.151-3  Definitions.
160.151-5  Incorporation by reference.
160.151-7  Construction of inflatable liferafts.
160.151-9  Independent laboratory.
160.151-11  Approval procedure.
160.151-13  Fabrication of prototype inflatable liferafts for 
approval.
160.151-15  Design and performance of inflatable liferafts.
160.151-17  Additional requirements for design and performance of 
SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts.
160.151-21  Equipment required for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
liferafts.
160.151-25  Additional equipment for inflatable liferafts.
160.151-27  Approval inspections and tests for inflatable liferafts.
160.151-29  Additional approval tests for SOLAS A and SOLAS B 
liferafts.
160.151-31  Production inspections and tests of inflatable 
liferafts.
160.151-33  Marking and labeling.
160.151-35  Servicing.
160.151-37  Servicing manual.
160.151-39  Training of servicing technicians.
160.151-41  Approval of servicing facilities.
160.151-43  Conditions at servicing facilities.
160.151-45  Equipment required for servicing facilities.
160.151-47  Requirements for owners or operators of servicing 
facilities.
160.151-49  Approval of servicing facilities at remote sites.
160.151-51  Notice of approval.
160.151-53  Notice to OCMI of servicing.
160.151-55  Withdrawal of approval.
160.151-57  Servicing procedure.
160.151-59  Operating instructions and information for the ship's 
training manual.
160.151-61  Maintenance instructions.

Subpart 160.151--Inflatable Liferafts (SOLAS)


Sec. 160.151-1  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes standards, tests, and procedures for 
approval by the Coast Guard of SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
liferafts, and for their periodic inspection and repair at approved 
facilities (``servicing''). Certain provisions of this subpart also 
apply to inflatable buoyant apparatus as specified in Sec. 160.010-3 
and to inflatable liferafts for domestic service as specified in 
subpart 160.051.

[[Page 25548]]

Sec. 160.151-3  Definitions.

    In this subpart, the term:
    Commandant means the Commandant (G-MSE), United States Coast Guard, 
2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
    Servicing means periodic inspection, necessary repair, and 
repacking by a servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard. 
Requirements for periodic inspection and repair of inflatable liferafts 
approved by the Coast Guard are described in Secs. 160.151-35 through 
160.151-57.
    SOLAS means the International Convention for the Safety of Life at 
Sea, 1974, as amended by the International Maritime Organization 
through the 1988 (GMDSS) amendments, dated 9 November 1988.
    SOLAS A Liferaft means a liferaft that meets the requirements of 
this subpart for an inflatable liferaft complying with SOLAS and 
equipped with a SOLAS A equipment pack.
    SOLAS B Liferaft means a liferaft that meets the requirements of 
this subpart for an inflatable liferaft complying with SOLAS and 
equipped with a SOLAS B equipment pack.


Sec. 160.151-5  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other 
than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard 
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and make the 
material available to the public. All approved material is on file at 
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 
700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and 
Engineering Standards (G-MSE), 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 
20593-0001, and is available from the sources indicated in paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this 
subpart and the sections affected are as follows:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1916 Race St., 
Philadelphia, PA 19103
    ASTM F1014--Standard Specification for Flashlights on Vessels, 
1986--160.151-21
International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications Section, 4 
Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England
    Resolution A.689(17)--Recommendation on Testing of Life-saving 
Appliances, 27 November 1991, including amendments through Resolution 
MSC.54(66), adopted 30 May 1996--160.151-21; 160.151-27; 160.151-31; 
160.151-57
    Resolution A.657(16)--Instructions for Action in Survival Craft, 19 
November 1989--160.151-21
    Resolution A.658(16)--Use and Fitting of Retro-reflective Materials 
on Life-saving Appliances, 20 November 1989--160.151-15; 160.151-57.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly National 
Bureau of Standards), c/o National Technical Information Service, 
Springfield, VA 22161
    NBS Special Publication 440 (Order No. PB265225) Color: Universal 
Language and Dictionary of Names, 1976--160.151-15
Naval Forms and Publications Center, Customer Service, Code 1052, 5801 
Tabor Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19120
    MIL-C-17415E--(Ships)--Cloth, Coated, and Webbing, Inflatable Boat 
and Miscellaneous Use--160.151-15


Sec. 160.151-7  Construction of inflatable liferafts.

    Except as specified in this subpart, each SOLAS A and SOLAS B 
inflatable liferaft must meet the requirements of Chapter III of SOLAS. 
To be approved under this subpart, inflatable liferafts must be 
constructed in accordance with the following provisions of SOLAS:
    (a) Chapter III, Regulation 30, paragraph 2 (III/30.2), General 
requirements for life-saving appliances.
    (b) Chapter III, Regulation 38 (III/38) General requirements for 
liferafts.
    (c) Chapter III, Regulation 39 (III/39) Inflatable liferafts.
    (d) Chapter III, Regulation 51 (III/51) Training manual.
    (e) Chapter III, Regulation 52 (III/52) Instructions for on-board 
maintenance.


Sec. 160.151-9  Independent laboratory.

    Tests and inspections that this subpart requires to be conducted by 
an independent laboratory must be conducted by an independent 
laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of part 
159 of this chapter to perform such tests and inspections. A list of 
accepted laboratories is available from the Commandant.


Sec. 160.151-11  Approval procedure.

    (a) A manufacturer seeking approval of an inflatable liferaft must 
comply with the procedures in part 159, subpart 159.005, of this 
chapter and in this section.
    (b) A manufacturer seeking approval of an inflatable liferaft must 
submit an application meeting the requirements of Sec. 159.005-5 of 
this chapter for preapproval review. To meet the requirements of 
Sec. 159.005-5(a)(2) of this chapter, the manufacturer shall submit--
    (1) General-arrangement drawing including principal dimensions;
    (2) Seating-arrangement plan;
    (3) Plans for subassemblies;
    (4) Plans for carriage and, in detail, stowage of equipment;
    (5) Plans for the inflation system;
    (6) Plans for the outer container;
    (7) Plans for any lifting shackle or ring, including diameter in 
cross-section, used for connecting the suspension tackle of a davit-
launched inflatable liferaft to the automatic disengaging device used 
for its hoisting and lowering;
    (8) Other drawing(s) necessary to show that the inflatable liferaft 
complies with the requirements of this subpart;
    (9) Description of methods of seam and joint construction;
    (10) Samples and identification of each material used in the 
buoyancy chambers, floor, and canopy, including the identity of their 
manufacturers, and segments of each type of seam made from such 
materials; and
    (11) Complete data pertinent to the installation and use of the 
proposed inflatable liferaft, including the maximum proposed height of 
its installation above the water, and the maximum length of the sea 
painter installed in the inflatable liferaft.


Sec. 160.151-13  Fabrication of prototype inflatable liferafts for 
approval.

    If the manufacturer is notified that the information submitted in 
accordance with Sec. 160.151-11 is satisfactory to the Commandant, 
fabrication of a prototype inflatable liferaft must proceed in the 
following sequence:
    (a) The manufacturer shall arrange for an independent laboratory to 
inspect the liferaft during its fabrication and prepare an inspection 
report meeting the requirements of Sec. 159.005-11 of this chapter. The 
independent laboratory shall conduct at least one inspection during 
layup of the buoyancy tubes of the liferaft, at least one inspection of 
the finished liferaft when fully inflated, and as many other 
inspections as are necessary to determine that the liferaft--
    (1) Is constructed by the methods and with the materials specified 
in the plans;
    (2) Passes the applicable inspections and tests required by 
Sec. 160.151-31; and
    (3) Conforms with the manufacturer's plans.
    (b) The manufacturer shall submit the independent laboratory's 
inspection report to the Commandant for review.

[[Page 25549]]

    (c) If, after review of the inspection report of the independent 
laboratory, the Commandant notifies the manufacturer that the liferaft 
is in compliance with the requirements of this subpart, the 
manufacturer may proceed with the approval tests required under 
Secs. 160.151-27 and 160.151-29.
    (d) The manufacturer shall notify the cognizant OCMI of where the 
approval tests required under Secs. 160.151-27 and 160.151-29 will take 
place and arrange with the OCMI a testing schedule that allows for a 
Coast Guard inspector to travel to the site where the testing is to be 
performed.
    (e) The manufacturer shall admit the Coast Guard inspector to any 
place where work or testing is performed on inflatable liferafts or 
their component parts and materials for the purpose of--
    (1) Assuring that the quality-assurance program of the manufacturer 
is satisfactory;
    (2) Witnessing tests; and
    (3) Taking samples of parts or materials for additional inspections 
or tests.
    (f) The manufacturer shall make available to the Coast Guard 
inspector the affidavits or invoices from the suppliers of all 
essential materials used in the production of inflatable liferafts, 
together with records identifying the lot numbers of the liferafts in 
which such materials were used.
    (g) On conclusion of the approval testing, the manufacturer shall 
comply with the requirements of Sec. 159.005-9(a)(5) of this chapter by 
submitting the following to the Commandant:
    (1) The report of the prototype testing prepared by the 
manufacturer. The report must include a signed statement by the Coast 
Guard inspector who witnessed the testing, indicating that the report 
accurately describes the testing and its results.
    (2) The final plans of the liferaft as built. The plans must 
include--
    (i) The servicing manual described in Sec. 160.151-37;
    (ii) The instructions for training and maintenance described in 
Secs. 160.151-59 and 160.151-61, respectively;
    (iii) The final version of the plans required under Sec. 160.151-
11(b), including--
    (A) Each correction, change, or addition made during the 
construction and approval testing of prototypes;
    (B) Sufficient detail to determine that each requirement of this 
subpart is met;
    (C) Fabrication details for the inflatable liferaft, including 
details of the method of making seams and joints; and
    (D) Full details of the inflation system.
    (h) A description of the quality-control procedures that will apply 
to the production of the inflatable liferaft. These must include--
    (1) The system for checking material certifications received from 
suppliers;
    (2) The method for controlling the inventory of materials;
    (3) The method for checking quality of seams and joints; and
    (4) The inspection checklists used during various stages of 
fabrication to assure that the approved liferaft complies with the 
approved plans and the requirements of this subpart.


Sec. 160.151-15   Design and performance of inflatable liferafts.

    To satisfy the requirements of the regulations of SOLAS indicated 
in Sec. 160.151-7, each inflatable liferaft must meet the following 
requirements of this section:
    (a) Workmanship and materials (Regulation III/30.2.1). Each 
liferaft must be constructed of the following types of materials 
meeting MIL-C-17415E, or materials accepted by the Commandant as 
equivalent or superior--
    (1) Type 2, Class B, for the canopy;
    (2) Type 8 for seam tape;
    (3) Type 11 for the inflatable floor; and
    (4) Type 16, Class AA, for all other inflatable compartments and 
structural components.
    (b) Seams (Regulation III/30.2.1). Each seam must be at least as 
strong as the weakest of the materials joined by the seam. Each seam 
must be covered with tape where necessary to prevent lifting of and 
damage to fabric edges.
    (c) Protection from cold inflation-gas (Regulation III/30.2.1). 
Each inflatable compartment must be provided with a protective liner or 
baffling arrangement at the inflation-gas inlet, or other equally 
effective means to prevent damage from exposure to cold inflation-gas.
    (d) Compatibility of dissimilar materials (Regulation III/30.2.4). 
Where dissimilar materials are combined in the construction of a 
liferaft, provisions must be made to prevent loosening or tightening 
due to differences in thermal expansion, freezing, buckling, galvanic 
corrosion, or other incompatibilities.
    (e) Color (Regulation III/30.2.6). The primary color of the 
exterior of the canopy must be vivid reddish orange (color number 34 of 
NBS Special Publication 440), or a fluorescent color of a similar hue.
    (f) Retroreflective material (Regulation III/30.2.7). Each 
inflatable liferaft must be marked with Type I retroreflective material 
approved under part 164, subpart 164.018, of this chapter as complying 
with SOLAS. The arrangement of the retroreflective material must comply 
with IMO Resolution A.658(16).
    (g) Towing attachments (Regulation III/38.1.4.) Each towing 
attachment must be reinforced strongly enough to withstand the towing 
strain, and marked to indicate its function.
    (h) Weight (Regulation III/38.2.2). The weight of the liferaft 
including its container and equipment may not exceed 185 kg (407.8 lb), 
unless the liferaft is intended for launching into the water directly 
from its stowed position using an inclined or hand-tilted rack, or is 
served by a launching appliance approved by the Commandant under 
approval series 160.163.
    (i) Lifelines (Regulation III/38.3.1). Each lifeline must be made 
of nylon tubular webbing with a minimum diameter of 14 mm (9/16-inch), 
rope with a minimum diameter of 10 mm (\3/8\-inch), or equivalent. Each 
lifeline-attachment patch must have a minimum breaking strength of 1.5 
kN (350 lb) pull exerted perpendicular to the base of the patch. Each 
bight of an exterior lifeline must be long enough to allow the lifeline 
to reach to the waterline of the liferaft when it is afloat.
    (j) Painter length (Regulation III/38.3.2). On or before July 1, 
1998, the length of the liferaft painter shall be not less than 10 
meters (33 feet) plus the liferaft's maximum stowage height, or 15 
meters (49 feet), whichever is greater.
    (k) Painter system (Regulation III/38.6.1). The painter protruding 
from the liferaft container must be inherently resistant, or treated to 
be resistant, to deterioration from sunlight and salt spray, and 
resistant to absorption and wicking of water.
    (l) Inflation cylinders (Regulation III/39.2.3). Each compressed-
gas inflation cylinder within the liferaft must meet the requirements 
of Sec. 147.60 of this chapter, and be installed so that--
    (1) Slings and reinforcements of sufficient strength retain the 
inflation cylinders in place when the liferaft is dropped into the 
water from its stowage height and during inflation; and
    (2) The painter and the inflation cylinders of the liferaft are 
linked to start inflation when the painter is pulled by one person 
exerting a force not exceeding 150 N (34 lb).
    (m) Boarding ladders (Regulation III/39.4.2). The steps of each 
boarding ladder must provide a suitable foothold.
    (n) Canopy lamps (Regulation III/39.6.2). The exterior liferaft 
canopy lamp must be approved by the Commandant under approval series 
161.101.

[[Page 25550]]

    (o) Containers (Regulation III/39.7.1). Each container for packing 
liferafts--
    (1) Must include a telltale made with a seal-and-wire, or 
equivalent, method for indicating whether the liferaft has been 
tampered with or used since packing;
    (2) Must be designed so that the liferaft breaks free of the 
container when inflation is initiated, without the need to manually 
open or remove any closing arrangement;
    (3) Must have an interior surface smooth and free from splinters, 
barbs, or rough projections;
    (4) Must be of rigid construction where the liferaft is intended 
for float-free launching or for exposed stowage on deck;
    (5) If rigid, must be designed to facilitate securing the 
inflatable liferaft to a vessel to permit quick release for manual 
launching;
    (6) If constructed of fibrous-glass-reinforced plastic, must be 
provided with a means to prevent abrasion of the liferaft fabric, such 
as by using a gel-coated interior finish of the container, enclosing 
the liferaft in an envelope of plastic film, or equivalent means; and
    (7) Except as provided in paragraph (o)(4) of this section, may be 
of fabric construction. Each container of fabric construction must be 
made of coated cloth, include carrying handles and drain holes, and be 
adaptable to stowage and expeditious removal from lockers and deck-
mounted enclosures adjacent to liferaft-launching stations. The weight 
of a liferaft in a fabric container including its container and 
equipment may not exceed 100 kg (220 lb).


Sec. 160.151-17  Additional requirements for design and performance of 
SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts.

    To satisfy the requirements of the indicated regulations of SOLAS, 
each SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferaft must be manufactured in 
accordance with Secs. 160.151-7 and 160.151-15, and must comply with 
the following additional requirements:
    (a) Stability (Regulation III/39.5.1). (1) Each liferaft with a 
capacity of more than 8 persons must have a waterplane of circular or 
elliptical shape. A hexagonal, octagonal, or similar outline 
approximating a circular or elliptical shape is acceptable.
    (2) Each liferaft manufactured under this subpart must have water-
containing stability appendages on its underside to resist capsizing 
from wind and waves. On or before July 1, 1998, these appendages must 
meet the following requirements:
    (i) The total volume of the appendages must not be less than 220 
liters (7.77 ft\3\) for liferafts approved to accommodate up to 10 
persons. The volume of an appendage is calculated using the bottom of 
the lowest opening in an appendage as the height of the appendage, and 
by deducting the volume of any objects inside the appendage. No opening 
designed to close as water is forced out of an appendage is an opening 
for the purpose of this calculation.
    (ii) The total volume of the appendages for liferafts approved to 
accommodate more than 10 persons must be not less than 20  x  N liters 
(0.706  x  N ft\3\), where N = the number of persons for which the 
liferaft is approved.
    (iii) The appendages must be securely attached and evenly 
distributed around the periphery of the exterior bottom of the 
liferaft. They may be omitted at the locations of inflation cylinders.
    (iv) The appendages must consist of at least two separate parts so 
that damage to one part will permit at least half of the required total 
volume to remain intact.
    (v) Openings in or between the appendages must be provided to limit 
the formation of air pockets under the inflatable liferaft.
    (vi) The appendages must be designed to deploy underwater when the 
liferaft inflates, and to fill to at least 60 percent of their capacity 
within 25 seconds of deployment. If weights are used for this purpose, 
they must be of corrosion-resistant material.
    (vii) The primary color of the appendages must be vivid reddish 
orange (color number 34 of NBS Special Publication 440), or a 
fluorescent color of a similar hue.
    (b) Boarding ramp (Regulation III/39.4.1). The boarding ramp must 
have sufficient size and buoyancy to support one person weighing 100 kg 
(220 lb), sitting or kneeling and not holding onto any other part of 
the liferaft.
    (c) Marking (Regulation III/39.8). On or before July 1, 1998, means 
must be provided for identifying the liferaft with the name and port of 
registry of the ship to which it is to be fitted, so that the 
identification can be changed without opening the liferaft container.


Sec. 160.151-21  Equipment required for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
liferafts.

    To obtain Coast Guard approval, the equipment in each SOLAS A and 
SOLAS B inflatable liferaft must meet the following specific 
requirements when complying with the indicated regulations of SOLAS:
    (a) Heaving line (Regulation III/38.5.1.1). The buoyant heaving 
line described by Regulation III/38.5.1.1 must have a breaking strength 
of not less than 1.1 kN (250 lb), and must be attached to the 
inflatable liferaft near the entrance furthest from the painter 
attachment.
    (b) Jackknife (Regulation III/38.5.1.2). Each folding knife carried 
as permitted by Regulation III/38.5.1.2 must be a jackknife approved by 
the Commandant under approval series 160.043.
    (c) Bailer (Regulation III/38.5.1.3). Each bailer described by 
Regulation III/38.5.1.3 must have a volume of at least 2 L (125 in\3\).
    (d) Sponge (Regulation III/38.5.1.4). Each sponge described by 
Regulation III/38.5.1.4 must have a volume of at least 750 cm\3\ (48 
in\3\) when saturated with water.
    (e) Sea anchors (Regulation III/38.5.1.5). Sea anchors without the 
swivels described by Regulation III/38.5.1.5 may be used if, during the 
towing test, a sea anchor of their design does not rotate when 
streamed. The sea anchors need not have the tripping lines described by 
Regulation III/38.5.1.5 if, during the towing test, a sea anchor of 
their design can be hauled in by one person.
    (f) Paddles (Regulation III/38.5.1.6).The paddles must be at least 
1.2 m (4 ft) long and must be of the same size and type as used to pass 
the maneuverability test in paragraph 1/5.10 of IMO Resolution 
A.689(17).
    (g) Tin-opener (Regulation III/38.5.1.7). Each sharp part of a tin-
opener described by Regulation III/38.5.1.7 must have a guard.
    (h) First-aid kit (Regulation III/38.5.1.8). Each first-aid kit 
described by Regulation III/38.5.1.8 must be approved by the Commandant 
under approval series 160.054.
    (i) Whistle (Regulation III/38.5.1.9). The whistle described by 
Regulation III/38.5.1.9 must be a ball-type or multi-tone whistle of 
corrosion-resistant construction.
    (j) Rocket parachute flare (Regulation III/38.5.1.10). Each rocket 
parachute flare described by Regulation III/38.5.1.10 must be approved 
by the Commandant under approval series 160.136.
    (k) Hand flare (Regulation III/38.5.1.11). Each hand flare 
described by Regulation III/38.5.1.11 must be approved by the 
Commandant under approval series 160.121.
    (l) Buoyant smoke signal (Regulation III/38.5.1.12). Each buoyant 
smoke signal described by Regulation III/38.5.1.12 must be of the 
floating type approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.122.
    (m) Electric torch (Regulation III/38.5.1.13). The waterproof 
electric torch

[[Page 25551]]

described by Regulation III/38.5.1.13 must be a Type I or Type III 
flashlight constructed and marked in accordance with ASTM F1014. Three-
cell-size flashlights bearing Coast Guard approval numbers in the 
161.008 series may continue to be used as long as they are serviceable.
    (n) Radar reflector (Regulation III/38.5.1.14). The radar reflector 
may be omitted if the outside of the container of the inflatable 
liferaft includes a notice near the ``SOLAS A'' or ``SOLAS B'' marking 
indicating that no radar reflector is included.
    (o) Signalling mirror (Regulation III/38.5.1.15). Each signalling 
mirror described by Regulation III/38.5.1.15 must be approved by the 
Commandant under approval series 160.020.
    (p) Lifesaving signals (Regulation III/38.5.1.16). If not provided 
on a waterproof card or sealed in a transparent waterproof container as 
described in Regulation III/38.5.1.16, the table of lifesaving signals 
may be provided as part of the instruction manual.
    (q) Fishing tackle (Regulation III/38.5.1.17). The fishing tackle 
must be in a kit approved by the Commandant under approval series 
160.061.
    (r) Food rations (Regulation III/38.5.1.18.) The food rations must 
be approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.046.
    (s) Drinking water (Regulation III/38.5.1.19). The fresh water 
required by Regulation III/38.5.1.19 must be ``emergency drinking 
water'' approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.026. The 
desalting apparatus described in Regulation III/38.5.1.19 must be 
approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.058. After July 1, 
1998, 1.0 liter/person of the required water may be replaced by an 
approved manually powered reverse osmosis desalinator capable of 
producing an equal amount of water in two days.
    (t) Drinking cup (Regulation III/38.5.1.20). The drinking cup 
described in Regulation III/38.5.1.20 must be graduated in ounces or 
milliliters or both.
    (u) Anti-seasickness medicine (Regulation III/38.5.1.21). The anti-
seasickness medicine required by Regulation III/38.5.1.21 must include 
instructions for use and be marked with an expiration date.
    (v) Survival instructions (Regulation III/38.5.1.22). The 
instructions required by Regulation III/38.5.1.22 on how to survive in 
a liferaft must--
    (1) Be waterproof;
    (2) Whatever other language or languages they may be in, be in 
English;
    (3) Meet the guidelines in IMO Resolution A.657(16); and
    (4) Be suspended in a clear film envelope from one of the arch 
tubes of the canopy.
    (w) Instructions for immediate action (Regulation III/38.5.1.23). 
The instructions for immediate action must--
    (1) Be waterproof;
    (2) Whatever other language or languages they may be in, be in 
English;
    (3) Meet the guidelines in IMO Resolution A.657(16);
    (4) Explain both the noise accompanying the operation of any 
provided pressure-relief valves, and the need to render them inoperable 
after they complete venting; and
    (5) Be suspended from the inside canopy, so they are immediately 
visible by survivors on entering the inflatable liferaft. They may be 
contained in the same envelope with the instructions on how to survive 
if the instructions for immediate action are visible through both faces 
of the envelope.
    (x) Thermal protective aid (Regulation III/38.5.1.24).
    Each thermal protective aid described by Regulation III/38.5.1.24 
must be approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.174.
    (y) Repair outfit (Regulation III/39.10.1.1). The repair outfit 
required by Regulation III/39.10.1.1 must include--
    (1) Six or more sealing clamps or serrated conical plugs, or a 
combination of the two;
    (2) Five or more tube patches at least 50 mm (2 in) in diameter;
    (3) A roughing tool, if necessary to apply the patches; and
    (4) If the patches are not self-adhesive, a container of cement 
compatible with the liferaft fabric and the patches, marked with 
instructions for use and an expiration date.
    (z) Pump or bellows (Regulation III/39.10.1.2). The pump or bellows 
required by Regulation III/39.10.1.2 must be manually operable and 
arranged to be capable of inflating any part of the inflatable 
structure of the liferaft.
    (aa) Plugs for pressure-relief valves. Plugs for rendering 
pressure-relief valves inoperable must be provided in any liferaft 
fitted with such valves, unless the valves are of a type that can be 
rendered inoperable without separate plugs. If provided, plugs for 
pressure-relief valves must be usable with hands gloved in an immersion 
suit, and must either float or be secured to the liferaft by a lanyard.


Sec. 160.151-25  Additional equipment for inflatable liferafts.

    The manufacturer may specify additional equipment to be carried in 
inflatable liferafts if the equipment is identified in the 
manufacturer's approved drawings and if the packing and inspection of 
the equipment is covered in the servicing manual. Any such additional 
equipment for which performance or approval standards are prescribed in 
this part or in 47 CFR part 80 must comply with those standards.


Sec. 160.151-27  Approval inspections and tests for inflatable 
liferafts.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, to satisfy 
the testing requirements of: IMO Resolution A.689(17), part 1, 
paragraphs 5.1 through 5.15 inclusive; paragraph 5.16 for a davit-
launched inflatable liferaft; and paragraph 5.17, a prototype 
inflatable liferaft of each design submitted for Coast Guard approval 
must meet the additional specific requirements and tests specified in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (b) The Commandant may waive certain tests for a liferaft identical 
in construction to a liferaft that has successfully completed the 
tests, if the liferafts differ only in size and are of essentially the 
same design.
    (c) Tests must be conducted in accordance with the indicated 
paragraphs of IMO Resolution A.689(17), except:
    (1) Jump test (Paragraph 1/5.2). One-half of the jumps must be with 
the canopy erect, and the remainder with the canopy furled or deflated. 
If a ``suitable and equivalent mass'' is used, it must be equipped with 
the shoes described in paragraph 1/5.2.1 of Resolution A.689(17), and 
arranged so the shoes strike the liferaft first.
    (2) Mooring-out test (Paragraph
1/5.5). Initial inflation may be with compressed air.
    (3) Loading and seating test (Paragraph 1/5.7). For a liferaft not 
intended for use with a launching or embarkation appliance, the persons 
used to determine seating capacity shall wear insulated buoyant 
immersion suits rather than lifejackets.
    (4) Boarding test (Paragraph 1/5.8). This test must be performed 
using each boarding ramp or boarding ladder which is installed on the 
liferaft.
    (5) Canopy-closure test (Paragraph
1/5.12). This test is required only for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
liferafts. For a davit-launched liferaft, any opening near the lifting 
eye should be sealed during the test to prevent the ingress of water. 
The water accumulated

[[Page 25552]]

within the liferaft at the end of the test must not exceed 4 liters (1 
gallon).
    (6) Detailed inspection (Paragraph 1/5.14). The independent 
laboratory's inspection of the prototype liferaft under Sec. 160.151-
13(a) satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1/5.14.
    (7) Davit-launched liferafts--strength test (Paragraph 1/5.16.1). 
The calculation of combined strength of the lifting components must be 
based on the lesser of--
    (i) The lowest breaking strength obtained for each item; or
    (ii) The component manufacturer's ultimate strength rating.
    (d) The boarding ramp on each liferaft equipped with one must be 
demonstrated capable of supporting one person weighing 100 kg (220 lb), 
sitting or kneeling and not holding onto any other part of the 
liferaft.


Sec. 160.151-29  Additional approval tests for SOLAS A and SOLAS B 
inflatable liferafts.

    To verify compliance with the requirements of Regulation III/
39.5.1, on or before July 1, 1998, the following test must be conducted 
for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts in addition to those 
required by Sec. 160.151-27 and IMO Resolution A.689(17):
    (a) Test of filling time for stability appendages. A representative 
sample of each type and size of stability appendage to be fitted to a 
liferaft must be tested as follows:
    (1) The appendage must be attached to a testing jig similar in 
material and construction to the appendage's intended location on a 
liferaft. The method of attachment must be the same as used on a 
liferaft. The appendage and jig must be attached to a scale capable of 
recording peak readings, and suspended over a pool of calm water. The 
dry weight must be recorded.
    (2) The appendage and jig must then be quickly lowered into the 
water until the appendage is completely submerged. When the appendage 
has been in the water for 25 seconds, it must be smoothly lifted 
completely out of the water, and the peak weight after the appendage is 
removed from the water recorded.
    (3) The difference in weights measured according to paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section must be at least 60 percent of the 
appendage's volume, calculated in accordance with Sec. 160.151-
17(a)(2)(i).
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec. 160.151-31  Production inspections and tests of inflatable 
liferafts.

    (a) Production inspections and tests of inflatable liferafts must 
be carried out in accordance with the procedures for independent 
laboratory inspection in part 159, subpart 159.007, of this chapter and 
with those of this section.
    (b) Each liferaft approved by the Coast Guard must be identified 
with unique lot and serial numbers as follows:
    (1) Each lot must consist of not more than 50 liferafts of the same 
design and carrying capacity.
    (2) A new lot must begin whenever the liferafts undergo changes of 
design, material, production method, or source of supply for any 
essential component.
    (3) The manufacturer may use a running-lot system, whereby the 
fabrication of the individual liferafts of a lot occurs over an 
extended interval under an irregular schedule. Each running lot must 
comprise not more than 10 liferafts of the same design and carrying 
capacity. Each running-lot system must be in accordance with a 
procedure proposed by the manufacturer and approved by the Commandant.
    (4) Unless a lot is a running lot, each lot must consist of 
liferafts produced under a process of continuous production.
    (c) Among the records required to be retained by the manufacturer 
under Sec. 159.007-13 of this chapter, are affidavits or invoices from 
the suppliers identifying all essential materials used in the 
production of approved liferafts, together with the lot numbers of the 
liferafts constructed with those materials.
    (d) Each approved liferaft must pass each of the inspections and 
tests described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), part 2, paragraphs 5.1.3 
through 5.1.6 inclusive, and prescribed by paragraphs (e) through (g) 
of this section. For a davit-launched liferaft, these tests must be 
preceded by the test described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), part 2, 
paragraph 5.2.
    (e) The test described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), Paragraph 2/
5.1.5, must be conducted under the following conditions:
    (1) The test must last 1 hour, with a maximum allowable pressure 
drop of 5 percent after compensation for changes in ambient temperature 
and barometric pressure.
    (2) For each degree Celsius of rise in temperature, 0.385 kPa must 
be subtracted from the final pressure reading (0.031 psig per degree 
Fahrenheit). For each degree Celsius of drop in temperature, 0.385 kPa 
must be added to the final pressure reading (again, 0.031 psig per 
degree Fahrenheit).
    (3) For each mm of mercury of rise in barometric pressure, 0.133 
kPa must be added to the final temperature-corrected pressure reading 
(0.049 psig per 0.1 inch of mercury). For each mm of mercury of drop in 
barometric pressure, 0.133 kPa must be subtracted from the final 
temperature-corrected pressure reading (again, 0.049 psig per 0.1 inch 
of mercury). Corrections for changes in ambient barometric pressure are 
necessary only if a measuring instrument open to the atmosphere, such 
as a manometer, is used.
    (f) One liferaft from each lot of fewer than 30 liferafts, and two 
from each lot of 30 to 50 liferafts, must pass the test described in 
IMO Resolution A.689(17), part 2, paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. If any 
liferaft fails this test--
    (1) The reason for the failure must be determined;
    (2) Each liferaft in the lot must be examined for the defect and 
repaired if reparable, or scrapped if irreparable; and
    (3) The lot test must be repeated, including random selection of 
the liferaft or liferafts to be tested. If any liferafts from the lot 
have left the place of manufacture, they must be recalled for 
examination, repair, and testing as necessary; or else the required 
actions must take place at an approved servicing facility.
    (g) On or before May 11, 1998, the manufacturer shall arrange for 
inspections by an accepted independent laboratory at least once in each 
calendar quarter in which production of liferafts approved by the Coast 
Guard takes place. The time and date of each inspection must be 
selected by the independent laboratory, to occur when completed 
liferafts are in the manufacturing facility and others are under 
construction. The manufacturer shall ensure that the inspector from the 
independent laboratory--
    (1) Conducts the inspection and witnesses the tests required by 
paragraph (f) of this section, and further conducts a visual inspection 
to verify that the liferafts are being made in accordance with the 
approved plans and the requirements of this subpart;
    (2) Examines the records of production inspections and tests for 
liferafts produced since the last inspection by an independent 
laboratory to verify that each required inspection and test has been 
carried out satisfactorily;
    (3) Conducts a design audit on at least one liferaft approved by 
the Coast Guard each year. If possible, different models of liferafts 
must be examined in the design audit from year to year. To retain Coast 
Guard approval, the manufacturer shall demonstrate to the inspector 
during each design audit that--

[[Page 25553]]

    (i) Each part used in the liferaft matches the part called for by 
the approved plans;
    (ii) Each part and subassembly are of the materials and components 
indicated on the approved plans or their bills of materials; and
    (iii) Each critical dimension is correct as shown either by 
measurement or by proper fit and function in the next-higher assembly.
    (h) Until such time as the manufacturer has arranged for 
inspections by an accepted independent laboratory in accordance with 
paragraph (g) of this section, the manufacturer shall notify the 
cognizant OCMI whenever final production inspections and tests are to 
be performed so that the OCMI may, at his option, assign a marine 
inspector to the factory to witness the applicable tests and satisfy 
himself that the quality assurance program of the manufacturer is 
satisfactory.


Sec. 160.151-33  Marking and labeling.

    (a) Whatever other languages they may be in, markings required on 
each inflatable liferaft and its container must be in English.
    (b) The markings required on the liferaft container under 
Regulation III/39.7.3 of SOLAS must be on a plate or label sufficiently 
durable to withstand continuous exposure to environmental conditions at 
sea for the life of the liferaft. In addition, the container must be 
marked with the--
    (1) Manufacturer's model identification; and
    (2) U.S. Coast Guard approval number.
    (c) In addition to the markings required on the inflatable liferaft 
under Regulation III/39.8 of SOLAS, the liferaft must be marked with 
the--
    (1) Manufacturer's model identification;
    (2) Lot number; and
    (3) U.S. Coast Guard approval number.


Sec. 160.151-35  Servicing.

    (a) Inspection and repair. Inflatable liferafts carried under the 
regulations in this chapter, and in chapter I of title 33 CFR, must be 
inspected periodically by a servicing facility approved by the Coast 
Guard, repaired as necessary, and repacked. Requirements for periodic 
inspection and repair of liferafts approved by the Coast Guard appear 
in Secs. 160.151-37 through 160.151-57.
    (b) Manufacturer's requirements. To retain Coast Guard approval of 
liferafts, the manufacturer must:
    (1) Prepare a servicing manual or manuals complying with 
Sec. 160.151-37 to cover each model and size of liferaft that the 
manufacturer produces. The manual or manuals must be submitted to the 
Commandant for approval.
    (2) At least once each year, issue a list of revisions to the 
manual or manuals, and issue a list of bulletins affecting the manual 
or manuals, that are in effect.
    (3) Make available to each servicing facility approved by the Coast 
Guard the manual or manuals, the revisions, the bulletins, the plans, 
and any unique parts and tools that may be necessary to service the 
liferaft. The plans may be either the manufacturing drawings, or 
special plans prepared especially for use by servicing technicians. 
They may be incorporated into the manual or manuals.
    (4) Have a training program complying with Sec. 160.151-39 for the 
certification of servicing technicians.
    (5) Notify the OCMI for the zone in which the servicing facility is 
located whenever the manufacturer becomes aware of servicing at 
approved facilities that is not in accordance with the requirements of 
this subpart, or aware of falsification by an approved facility of 
records required by this subpart.
    (c) A manufacturer of liferafts not approved by the Coast Guard may 
establish servicing facilities approved by the Coast Guard for such 
liferafts in the United States if the manufacturer meets the 
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.


Sec. 160.151-37  Servicing manual.

    (a) The servicing manual must provide instructions on performing 
the following tasks:
    (1) Removing the inflatable liferaft from the container for testing 
without damaging the liferaft or its contents.
    (2) Examining the liferaft and its container for damage and wear 
including deteriorated structural joints and seams.
    (3) Determining the need for repairs.
    (4) Performing each repair which can be made by a servicing 
facility.
    (5) Identifying repairs that the manufacturer must perform.
    (6) Determining when liferaft equipment must be replaced.
    (7) Conducting tests required by Sec. 160.151-57.
    (8) Repacking the liferaft.
    (9) Changing the maximum height of stowage of the liferaft by 
changing the length of the painter.
    (10) Special equipment limitations or packing instructions, if any, 
necessary to qualify the liferaft for a particular height of stowage.
    (11) Changing the service of the liferaft by changing the contents 
of the equipment pack.
    (12) Proper marking of the liferaft container, including approval 
number, persons' capacity, maximum height of stowage, service 
(equipment pack), and expiration date of servicing.
    (13) A list of parts for--
    (i) Survival equipment;
    (ii) Compressed-gas cylinders;
    (iii) Inflation valves;
    (iv) Relief valves; and
    (v) Repair equipment.
    (14) The necessary pressures for each size of approved liferaft for 
conducting the ``Necessary Additional Pressure'' test required by 
Sec. 160.151-57(k).
    (b) Each revision to a servicing manual, and each bulletin, that 
authorizes the modification of a liferaft, or that affects the 
compliance of a liferaft with any requirement under this subpart, must 
be submitted to and approved by the Commandant. Other revisions and 
bulletins need not be approved, but a copy of each must be submitted to 
the Commandant when issued.
    (c) Each manual provided under this section must bear the original 
signature of a representative of the manufacturer attesting that it is 
a true copy of the manual approved by the Commandant.


Sec. 160.151-39  Training of servicing technicians.

    (a) The training program for certification of servicing technicians 
must include--
    (1) Training and practice in packing an inflatable liferaft, 
repairing buoyancy tubes, repairing inflation-system valves, and other 
inspections and operations described in the approved servicing manual;
    (2) An evaluation at the end of the training to determine whether 
each trainee has successfully completed the training; and
    (3) Issuance of a certificate of competence to each technician who 
successfully completes the training.
    (b) The manufacturer shall maintain refresher training for 
recertification of previously trained servicing technicians. This 
training must include--
    (1) Checking the performance of the technicians in the inspections 
and operations described in the manual;
    (2) Retraining of the technicians in inspections and operations for 
which they are deficient;
    (3) Training and practice in new inspections and operations;
    (4) An evaluation at the end of the training to determine whether 
or not each trainee has successfully completed the training; and
    (5) Issuance of a certificate of competence to each technician who 
successfully completes the training.

[[Page 25554]]

    (c) Each time the manufacturer holds a course for servicing 
technicians who will perform servicing on liferafts approved by the 
Coast Guard, the manufacturer shall notify the cognizant OCMI 
sufficiently in advance to allow, at the option of the OCMI, for a 
Coast Guard inspector or inspectors to travel to the site where the 
training is to occur.


Sec. 160.151-41  Approval of servicing facilities.

    (a) To obtain and maintain Coast Guard approval as an ``approved 
servicing facility'' for a particular manufacturer's inflatable 
liferafts, a facility must meet the requirements, and follow the 
procedures, of this section.
    (b) The owner or operator of a servicing facility desiring Coast 
Guard approval shall apply to the cognizant OCMI. The application must 
include--
    (1) The name and address of the facility;
    (2) The name(s) of its competent servicing technician(s);
    (3) Identification of the manufacturer(s) of the liferafts the 
facility will service; and
    (4) Any limits or special conditions that should apply to the 
approval of the facility.
    (c) The owner or operator of the servicing facility shall arrange 
for an inspection with the OCMI to whom the owner or operator applied 
under paragraph (b) of this section. A currently trained servicing 
technician shall successfully demonstrate the complete service to each 
make and type of liferaft for which approval as a servicing facility is 
sought, in the presence of a Coast Guard inspector or of a third-party 
inspector accepted by the OCMI, or such technician shall present 
evidence of having performed such service at the time of initial or 
refresher training. The service must include:
    (1) Removing the liferaft from the container for testing without 
damaging the liferaft or its contents;
    (2) Examining the liferaft and its container for damage and wear;
    (3) Determining the need for repairs;
    (4) Determining whether equipment must be replaced;
    (5) Conducting the tests required by Sec. 160.151-57;
    (6) Repacking the liferaft;
    (7) Inflating the fully packed liferaft using its inflation 
mechanism; and
    (8) Repairing a leak in a main buoyancy chamber, and subjecting the 
repaired chamber to the Necessary Additional Pressure test described in 
Sec. 160.151-57(k). This repair may be done on a liferaft that actually 
needs it, on one condemned, or on an inflatable chamber fabricated of 
liferaft material specifically for this purpose. (An otherwise 
serviceable liferaft should not be damaged for this purpose.)
    (d) Whenever servicing of liferafts takes place, each servicing 
facility must allow Coast Guard inspectors or third-party inspectors 
accepted by the OCMI access to the place where the servicing occurs.
    (e) Each servicing facility must employ at least one servicing 
technician who has successfully completed the manufacturer's training 
described in Sec. 160.151-39 (a) or (b), including training in the 
servicing of davit-launched liferafts if the facility will service 
these. The training must have been completed within the preceding--
    (1) 12 months for the facility to obtain its approval to service 
the liferafts of a particular manufacturer; or
    (2) 36 months for the facility to retain approval to service the 
liferafts of a particular manufacturer.


Sec. 160.151-43  Conditions at servicing facilities.

    (a) Each facility must maintain a room to service inflatable 
liferafts that--
    (1) Is clean;
    (2) Is fully enclosed;
    (3) Has enough space to service the number of liferafts likely to 
be present for service at one time;
    (4) Has a ceiling high enough to hold and allow overturning of a 
fully inflated liferaft of the largest size to be serviced, or is 
furnished with an equally efficient means to facilitate the inspection 
of bottom seams;
    (5) Has a smooth floor that will not damage a liferaft, can be 
easily cleaned, and is kept clean and free from oil, grease, and 
abrasive material;
    (6) Is well lit but free from direct sunlight;
    (7) Is arranged to maintain an even temperature and low humidity in 
each area where liferafts are pressure tested, including by mechanical 
air-conditioning equipment in climates where it is necessary;
    (8) Is arranged so that stored liferafts are not subjected to 
excessive loads and, if stacked one directly on top of another, does 
not have them stacked more than two liferafts high;
    (9) Is efficiently ventilated but free of drafts; and
    (10) Is a designated no-smoking area.
    (b) In addition to the room required by paragraph (a) of this 
section, each facility must maintain areas or rooms for storage of 
liferafts awaiting servicing, repair, or delivery; for repair and 
painting of reinforced plastic containers; for storage of pyrotechnics 
and other materials, such as spare parts and required equipment; and 
for administrative purposes.


Sec. 160.151-45  Equipment required for servicing facilities.

    Each servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard must maintain 
equipment to carry out the operations described in the manufacturer's 
servicing manual approved in accordance with Sec. 160.151-35(b)(1), 
including--
    (a) A set of plans, as specified in Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3), for each 
inflatable liferaft to be serviced;
    (b) A current copy of this subpart;
    (c) A current copy of the manual approved in accordance with 
Sec. 160.151-35(b)(1), including all revisions and bulletins in effect 
as indicated on the annual list issued in accordance with Sec. 160.151-
35(b)(2);
    (d) Hot presses (if applicable);
    (e) Safety-type glue pots or equivalents;
    (f) Abrasive devices;
    (g) A source of clean, dry, pressurized air; hoses; and attachments 
for inflating liferafts;
    (h) A source of vacuum; hoses; and attachments for deflating 
liferafts;
    (i) Mercury manometer, water manometer, or other pressure-
measurement device or pressure gauge of equivalent accuracy and 
sensitivity;
    (j) Thermometer;
    (k) Barometer, aneroid or mercury;
    (l) Calibrated torque-wrench for assembling the inflation system;
    (m) Accurate weighing scale;
    (n) Repair materials and equipment, and spare parts as specified in 
the applicable manual, except that items of limited ``shelf life'' need 
not be stocked if they are readily available;
    (o) A complete stock of the survival equipment required to be 
stowed in the liferafts, except for items of equipment that are readily 
available;
    (p) A means for load-testing davit-launched liferafts, unless the 
facility services only non-davit-launched liferafts;
    (q) A supply of parts for all inflation components and valves 
specified in the applicable manual; and
    (r) A tool board that clearly indicates where each small tool is 
stored, or has an equivalent means to make sure that no tools are left 
in the liferaft when repacked.


Sec. 160.151-47  Requirements for owners or operators of servicing 
facilities.

    To maintain Coast Guard approval, the owner or operator of each 
servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard must--
    (a) Ensure that servicing technicians have received sufficient 
information and training to follow instructions for changes and for new 
techniques related

[[Page 25555]]

to the inflatable liferafts serviced by the facility, and have 
available at least one copy of each manufacturer's approved servicing 
manual, revision, and bulletin;
    (b) Calibrate each pressure gauge, mechanically-operated barometer, 
and weighing scale at intervals of not more than 1 year, or in 
accordance with the equipment manufacturer's requirements;
    (c) Ensure that each liferaft serviced under the facility's Coast 
Guard approval is serviced by or under the direct supervision of a 
servicing technician who has completed the requirements of either 
Sec. 160.151-39(a) or (b);
    (d) Ensure that each liferaft serviced under the facility's Coast 
Guard approval is serviced in accordance with the approved manual;
    (e) Specify which makes of liferafts the facility is approved to 
service when representing that the facility is approved by the Coast 
Guard; and
    (f) Ensure that the facility does not service any make of liferaft 
for an inspected vessel of the U.S. or any other U.S.-flag vessel 
required to carry approved liferafts, unless the facility is approved 
by the Coast Guard to service that make of liferafts.


Sec. 160.151-49  Approval of servicing facilities at remote sites.

    A servicing facility may be approved for servicing liferafts at a 
remote site, provided that appropriate arrangements have been made to 
ensure that each such site meets the requirements of Secs. 160.151-
41(e), 160.151-43, and 160.151-45. The facility must have a portable 
assortment of test equipment, spare parts, and replacement survival 
equipment to accompany the technician doing the servicing. However, if 
repair of liferafts will not be attempted at a remote site, equipment 
needed for repair does not need to be available at that site. A 
facility must be specifically authorized in its letter of approval to 
conduct servicing at a remote site.


Sec. 160.151-51  Notice of approval.

    If the cognizant OCMI determines that the servicing facility meets 
the applicable requirements of Secs. 160.151-39 through 160.151-47, the 
OCMI notifies the facility that it is approved and notifies the 
Commandant. The Commandant issues an approval letter to the servicing 
facility with copies to the OCMI and to the manufacturer(s) whose 
liferafts the facility is approved to service. The letter will specify 
any limits on the approval, and will assign the facility's approval 
code for use on the inspection sticker required by Sec. 160.151-
57(m)(3). The Commandant will maintain a current list of approved 
facilities.


Sec. 160.151-53  Notice to OCMI of servicing.

    (a) Before servicing an inflatable liferaft under the servicing 
facility's Coast Guard approval, the owner or operator of the facility 
must tell the cognizant OCMI for each liferaft to be serviced--
    (1) The make and size of the liferaft;
    (2) The age of the liferaft; and
    (3) Whether the liferaft is due for a five-year inflation test.
    (b) The OCMI will inform the servicing facility whether the 
servicing of the liferaft must be witnessed by an inspector.
    (c) If the OCMI requires the servicing of the liferaft to be 
witnessed by an inspector--
    (1) The servicing facility must arrange a schedule with the OCMI 
that will allow a Coast Guard inspector to travel to the site where the 
servicing is to occur;
    (2) The owner or operator of the servicing facility, by permission 
of the OCMI, may arrange for the servicing to be witnessed instead by a 
third-party inspector accepted by the OCMI if a Coast Guard marine 
inspector is not available in a timely manner; and
    (3) The servicing facility must not begin servicing the liferaft 
until the inspector arrives at the site.
    (d) No deviation from servicing-manual procedures may occur without 
the prior approval of the OCMI. To request the approval of a deviation, 
the owner or operator of the servicing facility shall notify the OCMI 
of the proposed deviation from the procedures, and must explain to the 
OCMI the need for the deviation.


Sec. 160.151-55  Withdrawal of approval.

    (a) The OCMI may withdraw the approval of the servicing facility, 
or may suspend its approval pending correction of deficiencies, if the 
Coast Guard inspector or accepted third-party inspector finds that--
    (1) The facility does not meet the requirements of Secs. 160.151-41 
through 160.151-47, or
    (2) The servicing is not performed in accordance with Sec. 160.151-
57.
    (b) A withdrawal of approval may be appealed in accordance with 
part 1, subpart 1.03, of this chapter.
    (c) The OCMI may remove a suspension pending correction of 
deficiencies if the servicing facility demonstrates that the 
deficiencies have been corrected.


Sec. 160.151-57  Servicing procedure.

    (a) Each inflatable liferaft serviced by a servicing facility 
approved by the Coast Guard must be inspected and tested in accordance 
with paragraphs (b) through (r) of this section, and the manufacturer's 
servicing manual approved in accordance with Sec. 160.151-35(b)(1).
    (b) The following procedures must be carried out at each servicing:
    (1) The working-pressure leakage test described in IMO Resolution 
A.689(17), paragraph 2/5.1.5, must be conducted.
    (2) Inflation hoses must be pressurized and checked for damage and 
leakage as part of the working-pressure leakage test, or in a separate 
test.
    (3) An inflatable floor must be inflated until it is firm, and let 
stand for one hour. The inflatable floor must still be firm at the end 
of the hour.
    (4) The seams connecting the floor to the buoyancy tube must be 
checked for slippage, rupture, and lifting of edges.
    (5) Each item of survival equipment must be examined, and--
    (i) Replaced if its expiration date has passed; and
    (ii) Otherwise, repaired or replaced if it is damaged or 
unserviceable.
    (6) Each battery must be replaced with a fresh one if--
    (i) Its expiration date has passed;
    (ii) It has no expiration date; or
    (iii) It is to return to service in an item of survival equipment, 
but its measured voltage is less than its rated voltage.
    (7) Each power cell for the top and inside canopy lights must be 
inspected and tested as prescribed in the servicing manual unless it is 
a battery serviced in accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 
Each cell that is tested and found satisfactory may be reinstalled. 
Each cell that is outdated, is not tested, or fails the test must be 
replaced.
    (8) If the liferaft is equipped with an Emergency Position-
Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) or a Search and Rescue Transponder 
(SART), the EPIRB or SART must be inspected and tested in accordance 
with the manufacturer's instructions. An EPIRB must be tested using the 
integrated test circuit and output indicator to determine whether it is 
operative. Each EPIRB or SART not operative must be repaired or 
replaced.
    (9) The manual inflation-pump must be tested for proper operation.
    (10) Each damaged, faded, or incorrect instruction label or 
identification label on the liferaft or its container must be replaced.
    (11) Each liferaft must be examined to ensure that it is properly 
marked with retroreflective material. The arrangement of the 
retroreflective material must meet the requirements of IMO Resolution 
A.658(16). Damaged or missing retroreflective material must be

[[Page 25556]]

replaced with Type I material approved under part 164, subpart 164.018, 
of this subchapter as complying with SOLAS.
    (12) Each inflation cylinder must be weighed. If its weight loss 
exceeds five percent of the weight of the charge, it must be recharged.
    (c) When an inflation cylinder is recharged for any reason, the 
following inflation-head components must be renewed:
    (1) The poppet-pin assembly, if any.
    (2) Each plastic or elastomeric seal, and each other part that 
deteriorates with age.
    (d) Each recharged inflation cylinder must stand for at least two 
weeks and be checked for leakage by weighing before being installed in 
a liferaft. An alternative mechanical or chemical test for fast 
detection of leakage may be used if the servicing manual approved by 
the Commandant in accordance with Sec. 160.151-35(b)(1) provides for 
it.
    (e) Each inflation cylinder that requires a hydrostatic test under 
49 CFR 173.34 must be tested and marked in accordance with that 
section.
    (f) At every second servicing of a davit-launched liferaft, the 
launching-load test in paragraph 2/5.2 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) must 
be conducted.
    (g) At every fifth annual servicing, before the conduct of the 
tests and inspections required in paragraphs (b) through of this 
section, each liferaft must be removed from its container and, while 
still folded, inflated by the operation of its gas-inflation system.
    (h) Each liferaft showing minor leaks during the gas inflation test 
conducted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, may be 
repaired.
    (i) Each liferaft ten or more years past its date of manufacture 
must be condemned if it leaks extensively, or shows fabric damage other 
than minor porosity, during the gas inflation test conducted in 
accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (j) After the gas inflation test conducted in accordance with 
paragraph (g) of this section, the liferaft may be evacuated and 
refilled with air for the tests in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this 
section.
    (k) At each annual servicing of a liferaft ten or more years past 
its date of manufacture during which the gas-inflation test in 
paragraph (g) of this section is not conducted, a ``Necessary 
Additional Pressure'' (NAP) test must be conducted. Before the tests 
and inspections required in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section 
are conducted, the NAP test must be completed, using the following 
procedure:
    (1) Plug or otherwise disable the pressure-relief valves.
    (2) Gradually raise the pressure to the lesser of 2 times the 
design working pressure, or that specified in the manufacturer's 
servicing manual as sufficient to impose a tensile load on the tube 
fabric of 20 percent of its minimum required tensile strength.
    (3) After 5 minutes, there should be no seam slippage, cracking, 
other defects, or pressure drop greater than 5 percent. If cracking in 
the buoyancy tubes is audible, accompanied by pressure loss, condemn 
the liferaft. If it is not, reduce the pressure in all buoyancy 
chambers simultaneously by enabling the pressure-relief valves.
    (l) At each annual servicing of a liferaft 10 or more years past 
its date of manufacture, the integrity of the seams connecting the 
floor to the buoyancy tube must be checked by the following procedure, 
or an equivalent procedure specified in the manufacturer's approved 
servicing manual:
    (1) With the buoyancy tube supported a sufficient distance above 
the floor of the servicing facility to maintain clearance during the 
test, a person weighing not less than 75 kg (165 lb) shall walk or 
crawl around the entire perimeter of the floor of the liferaft.
    (2) The seams connecting the floor to the buoyancy tube must then 
be inspected for slippage, rupture, and lifting of edges.
    (m) The servicing facility must complete the following for each 
liferaft that passes these inspections and tests:
    (1) Permanently mark the liferaft on its outside canopy, or on a 
servicing-record panel on an interior portion of one of its buoyancy 
tubes near an entrance, with--
    (i) The date of the servicing;
    (ii) The identification and location of the servicing facility; and
    (iii) If applicable, an indication that the special fifth-year 
servicing was performed.
    (2) On or before July 1, 1998, permanently and legibly mark on the 
identification device provided in accordance with Sec. 160.151-17(c), 
or on the outside canopy of the liferaft, the name, if known, of the 
vessel on which the raft will be installed or the name, if known, of 
the vessel owner.
    (3) On or before November 10, 1997, affix an inspection sticker to 
the liferaft container or valise. The sticker must be of a type that 
will remain legible for at least 2 years when exposed to a marine 
environment, and that cannot be removed without being destroyed. The 
sticker must be about 100 mm x 150 mm (4 by 6 inches), with the last 
digit of the year of expiration superimposed over a background color 
that corresponds to the colors specified for the validation stickers 
for recreational-boat numbers in 33 CFR 174.15(c), and be marked with 
the Coast Guard identifying insignia in accordance with the 
requirements of 33 CFR 23.12. The sticker must also contain the 
following:
    (i) The name of the manufacturer of the liferaft.
    (ii) The year and month of expiration determined in accordance with 
paragraph (n) of this section.
    (iii) Identification of the servicing facility, printed on the 
sticker or indicated on the sticker by punch using an approval code 
issued by the Commandant.
    (n) The expiration date of the servicing sticker is 12 months after 
the date the liferaft was repacked, except that:
    (1) For a new liferaft, the expiration date may be not more than 
two years after the date the liferaft was first packed, if--
    (i) Dated survival equipment in the liferaft will not expire before 
the sticker expiration date; and
    (ii) The liferaft will not be installed on a vessel certificated 
under SOLAS.
    (2) For a liferaft stored indoors, under controlled temperatures 
(between 0  deg.C (32  deg.F) and 45  deg.C (113  deg.F)), for not more 
than 6 months from the date it was serviced or first packed, the 
expiration date may be extended up to the length of time the liferaft 
remained in storage.
    (3) For a liferaft stored indoors, under controlled temperatures 
(between 0  deg.C (32  deg.F) and 45  deg.C (113  deg.F)), for not more 
than 12 months from the date it was serviced or first packed, the 
expiration date may be extended up to the length of time the liferaft 
remained in storage, if the liferaft is opened, inspected, and repacked 
in a servicing facility approved in accordance with Secs. 160.151-49 
and 160.151-51. When the liferaft is opened--
    (i) The condition of the liferaft must be visually checked and 
found to be satisfactory;
    (ii) The inflation cylinders must be checked and weighed in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(12) of this section;
    (iii) All survival equipment whose expiration date has passed must 
be replaced; and
    (iv) All undated batteries must be replaced.
    (o) The servicing facility must remove and destroy the markings of 
Coast Guard approval on each liferaft condemned in the course of any 
servicing test or inspection.
    (p) The servicing facility must issue a certificate to the liferaft 
owner or

[[Page 25557]]

owner's agent for each liferaft it services. The certificate must 
include--
    (1) The name of the manufacturer of the liferaft;
    (2) The serial number of the liferaft;
    (3) The date of servicing and repacking;
    (4) A record of the fifth-year gas-inflation test required in 
paragraph (g) of this section, whenever that test is performed;
    (5) A record of the hydrostatic test of each inflation cylinder 
required in paragraph (e) of this section, whenever that test is 
performed;
    (6) A record of any deviation from the procedures of the 
manufacturer's servicing manual authorized by the OCMI in accordance 
with Sec. 160.151-53(d);
    (7) The identification of the servicing facility, including its 
name, address, and the approval code assigned by the Commandant in 
accordance with Sec. 160.151-51;
    (8) The name, if known, of the vessel or vessel owner receiving the 
liferaft; and
    (9) The date the liferaft is returned to the owner or owner's 
agent.
    (q) The servicing facility must keep a record of each liferaft 
approved by the Coast Guard that it services for at least five years, 
and must make those records available to the Coast Guard upon request. 
Those records must include--
    (1) The serial number of the liferaft;
    (2) The date of servicing and repacking;
    (3) The identification of any Coast Guard or third-party inspector 
present;
    (4) The name, if known, of the vessel or vessel owner receiving the 
liferaft; and
    (5) The date the liferaft is returned to the owner or owner's 
agent.
    (r) The servicing facility must prepare and transmit to the OCMI, 
at least annually, statistics showing the nature and extent of damage 
to and defects found in liferafts during servicing and repair. The 
facility must notify the OCMI immediately of any critical defects it 
finds that may affect other liferafts.


Sec. 160.151-59  Operating instructions and information for the ship's 
training manual.

    (a) The liferaft manufacturer shall make operating instructions and 
information for the ship's training manual available in English to 
purchasers of inflatable liferafts approved by the Coast Guard, to 
enable vessel operators to meet regulations III/18.2, 19.3, 51, and 52 
of SOLAS.
    (b) The instructions and information required by paragraph (a) of 
this section may be combined with similar material for hydrostatic 
releases or launching equipment, and must explain--
    (1) Release of the inflatable liferaft from its stowage position;
    (2) Launching of the liferaft;
    (3) Survival procedures, including instructions for use of survival 
equipment aboard; and
    (4) Shipboard installations of the liferaft.
    (c) The operating instructions required by paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of this section must also be made available in the form of an 
instruction placard. The placard must be not greater than 36 cm (14 
in.) by 51 cm (20 in.), made of durable material and suitable for 
display near installations of liferafts on vessels, providing simple 
procedures and illustrations for launching, inflating, and boarding the 
liferaft.


Sec. 160.151-61 Maintenance instructions.

    (a) The liferaft manufacturer shall make maintenance instructions 
available in English to purchasers of inflatable liferafts approved by 
the Coast Guard, to enable vessel operators to meet regulations III/
19.3 and III/52 of SOLAS.
    (b) The maintenance instructions required by paragraph (a) of this 
section must include--
    (1) A checklist for use in monthly, external, visual inspections of 
the packed liferaft;
    (2) An explanation of the requirements for periodic servicing of 
the liferaft by an approved servicing facility; and
    (3) A log for maintaining records of inspections and maintenance.

PART 199--LIFESAVING SYSTEMS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTED VESSELS

    11. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 46 CFR 1.46.

    12. In Sec. 199.190, revise paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text and 
(g)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec. 199.190  Operational readiness, maintenance, and inspection of 
lifesaving equipment

* * * * *
    (g) Servicing of inflatable lifesaving appliances, inflated rescue 
boats, and marine evacuation systems. * * *
    (3) Each inflatable liferaft and inflatable buoyant apparatus must 
be serviced--
    (i) In accordance with servicing procedures meeting the 
requirements of part 160, subpart 160.151 of this chapter; and
* * * * *
    Dated: May 2, 1997.
Joseph Angelo,
Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental 
Protection.
[FR Doc. 97-11897 Filed 5-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P