[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 151 (Friday, August 4, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47936-47941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19835]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 84 and 183

46 CFR Part 25

[USCG 1999-6580]
RIN 2115-AF70


Certification of Navigation Lights for Uninspected Commercial 
Vessels and Recreational Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to require that domestic 
manufacturers of vessels install only certified navigation lights on 
all uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels. This 
change would align the standards for these lights with those for 
inspected commercial vessels and with those for all other mandatory 
safety equipment carried on board all vessels. The Coast Guard expects 
the resulting reduction in the use of noncompliant lights to improve 
safety on the water.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before October 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material (referred

[[Page 47937]]

to USCG 1999-6580) do not enter the docket more than once, please 
submit them by only one of the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590-0001.
    (2) By hand to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, at 
the address listed above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the 
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this proposed rule, 
contact Mr. Randolph J. Doubt, Project Manager, Office of Boating 
Safety, Coast Guard, by telephone at 202-267-6810 or by e-mail at 
[email protected]. For questions on viewing or submitting material 
to the docket, call Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief of Dockets, Department of 
Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
    You may obtain a copy of this notice by calling the U.S. Coast 
Guard Infoline at 1-800-368-5647 or by accessing either the Web Site 
for the Office of Boating Safety at http://www.uscgboating.org. or the 
Web Site for the Docket Management Facility at http://dms.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG 1999-
6580), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit 
your comments and material by mail, by hand, by fax, or electronically 
to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but 
please submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or by 
hand, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them 
by mail and want to know they reached the Facility, please enclose a 
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all 
comments and material received during the comment period. We may change 
this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting. You may ask for one by 
submitting a request to the Docket Management Facility at the address 
under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine 
that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a 
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
establish requirements for approval, certification, installation, and 
performance of navigation lights on vessels of less than 20 meters in 
length in the Federal Register of September 7, 1978 (43 FR 39946), and 
a supplemental notice in that of December 29, 1980 (45 FR 85468). It 
published a notice withdrawing the proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register of January 7, 1982 (47 FR 826). It published a request for 
comments on regulatory control of navigation lights in the Federal 
Register of October 9, 1997 (62 FR 52673).

Background and Purpose

    Until April 1997, a manufacturer of navigation lights for 
recreational vessels could voluntarily apply for a ``Letter of 
Acceptance'' from the U.S. Coast Guard for each model of navigation 
light marketed. Upon receipt of an application, the Coast Guard would 
review a laboratory report for the given model, documenting compliance 
with the technical requirements of the International and Inland 
Navigation Rules (together, ``Navigation Rules''). Basing its judgement 
solely on the comparison of the report with the rules, the Coast Guard, 
if it did not object, would state that it did not object to the model 
being offered for sale and would grant a ``Letter of Acceptance,'' 
which allowed the manufacturer to state ``U.S. Coast Guard Accepted'' 
on the package. This statement the public often confused with ``U.S. 
Coast Guard Approved.'' Since April 1997, the Coast Guard no longer 
issues Letters of Acceptance. Consequently, other than statements 
provided by the manufacturer, there is no evidence of compliance with 
the technical requirements of the Navigation Rules available to a 
manufacturer, surveyor, owner, or inspector of a vessel, or to a 
boarding official.
    Regulatory controls now exist only for lights manufactured 
specifically for inspected commercial vessels. These appear in 46 CFR 
subchapter J, which, in part, states that each light must ``be 
certified by an independent laboratory to the requirements of 
[Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)] 1104 or an equivalent standard'' 
and be so labeled. The ``independent laboratory'' must be recognized as 
bonafide and have been placed on a list by the Coast Guard (that list 
is available from G-MSE-3 at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second 
Street SW., Washington, DC, 20593-0001). Although lights currently 
certified for commercial inspected vessels are generally too large for 
uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels, a manufacturer 
may choose to install them; but none need install them.
    The National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC), representing 
operators and manufacturers of vessels, State boating officials, and 
national boating organizations, and the National Association of State 
Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) both passed resolutions asking that 
the Coast Guard initiate a certification program for navigation lights 
installed on recreational vessels offered for sale to the public. The 
Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC) passed a similar resolution 
relating to uninspected commercial vessels. UL recommends in the 
report, ``Recreational Boat Collision Accident Research'', that the 
Coast Guard take stronger measures to ensure that navigation lights 
installed in recreational vessels meet the minimum requirements 
established by the Navigation Rules.
    In response to the request for comments of October 9, 1997, State 
law-enforcement personnel, vessels' owners, marine professionals 
(manufacturers and marine surveyors), standard-setting organizations, 
manufacturers of navigation lights, and a laboratory testing navigation 
lights all submitted comments. Of the 34 respondents, 28 favored 
rulemaking. Some expressed concern about installing navigation lights 
in vessels with bow-high cruising trim angles that tend to obstruct 
sidelights' visibility. While it would not

[[Page 47938]]

require certification of installations of navigation lights, this 
proposed rule would require that certified lights be installed in 
compliance with the visibility requirements established by the 
Navigation Rules.
    The rationale published in January 1982 for withdrawing the 
proposed rulemakings of September 1978 and December 1980 to establish 
regulatory controls, was that a newly established voluntary standard 
and Coast Guard enforcement policies eliminated the need for 
regulation. UL, in response to the request for comment October 9, 1997, 
advised that, to the contrary, there has been a steady decline in 
compliance over the past 20 years and that about half of the navigation 
lights for recreational vessels submitted for evaluation have failed to 
meet minimum performance requirements established by the Navigation 
Rules.
    In response to the decline in compliance with the technical 
requirements for navigation lights established by the Navigation Rules, 
the proposed requirement of certification by third parties would 
curtail installations of noncompliant lights by providing evidence of 
compliance for manufacturers, surveyors, owners, inspectors, and 
boarding officials. The proposed requirement is similar to that for 
inspected commercial vessels, though less stringent, and aligns with 
the requirement of the International Navigation Rules (COLREGS) for 
``Approval'' (33 CFR subchapter D, Annex I).

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule draws from rules in 46 CFR subchapter J, 
Electrical Engineering, which require certification of navigation 
lights for inspected commercial vessels. It would direct manufacturers 
of all uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels to 
install only lights certified and labeled as meeting the technical 
requirements of the Navigation Rules. It would designate laboratories 
listed by the Coast Guard the certifying authorities for navigation 
lights. It would supply the section of the Inland Navigational Rules, 
Annex I, ``Approval'' (33 CFR 84.25), currently reserved, by 
establishing a requirement for certification of all navigation lights, 
while a subsequent amendment to Inland Navigation Rule 38 (Exemptions) 
would address requirements for owners and operators of existing vessels 
to allow for lights installed before its effective date.
    The proposed changes are as follows:
    (1) Add 33 CFR 84.25 to require that the construction of lights and 
shapes and the installation of lights meet requirements established by 
the Commandant.
    (2) Add 33 CFR 183.465 to set forth the performance standard for 
certification of navigation lights for recreational vessels, adapting 
the standard from existing rules in 46 CFR subchapter J, for inspected 
commercial vessels.
    (3) Add 46 CFR subpart 25.10, consisting solely of Sec. 25.10-1, to 
set forth the performance standard for certification of navigation 
lights for uninspected commercial vessels, again adapting from 46 CFR 
subchapter J the standard for inspected commercial vessels.
    To allow for the use of lights that may already be in stock, no 
rule would become effective until one year after publication of a final 
rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule 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. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed 
this rule under that Order. We expect the economic effect of this 
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under 
paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is 
unnecessary.

Costs of the Proposed Rule

    (1) Manufacturers of navigation lights would incur initial costs 
associated with laboratory testing of each model of light for 
compliance with the Navigation Rules. This could result in minor 
increases in market prices for certified lights. Those manufacturers 
would pass increases on to manufacturers of boats and eventually on to 
consumers. However, these increases should be so small that their 
effect on manufacturers of boats and on consumers should be negligible. 
Of the roughly 4,400 manufacturers of recreational boats in the United 
States, 90% install navigation lights on their boats. There are 6 
different types of lights on the market, and each of their 
manufacturers may make multiple models of each type. Through a survey 
of the lights now available, we have determined that each manufacturer 
produces an average of 10 models for each type and introduces 3 new 
models a year. Certification would entail that a representative light 
of production quality, for each model, pass a performance test. We have 
identified 9 domestic manufacturers of lights that this rule might 
affect.
    In conversations with the two testing laboratories approved by the 
Coast Guard, UL and Imanna Laboratory, we developed an estimate of $500 
for a performance test of each model. These laboratories do offer a 
volume discount for multiple models tested, and this discount would 
decrease the cost for a test of each model to about $400. We would 
therefore calculate the cost of this rule as follows:

6 types of light  x  10 models of light  x  9 manufacturers  x  $400 
per test of each model = $216,000.

    To account for the one-year phase-in period, we had to determine 
the present value of this cost. The Department of Transportation uses a 
standard discount rate of 7%. The calculation is as follows:

($216,000)/(1.07) \1\ = $201,869.16.

    This figure would be the one-time cost for existing models of 
lights. However, if a manufacturer decided to introduce a new model of 
light, the manufacturer would have to have that model tested by a 
laboratory approved by the Coast Guard before the manufacturer could 
send it to market.
    We must also account for the 3 new models of light that each 
manufacturer sends to market each year. We will sum 15 years of cost 
using a discount rate of 7%:

 [(9 manufacturers  x  3 new models  x  $400)/(1.07)\n\], n=2 
* * * 15 = $80,663.80.

    The total cost of labeling over 15 years would be:

$201,869.16 + $80,663.80 = $282,532.96.

    (2) Manufacturers of navigation lights would have to offer new 
labeling with the certified lights. Most of it would be printable on an 
insert or on a sticker on a package (it is described in proposed 33 CFR 
183.465). This proposed rule would not involve modification of the 
package to accommodate the labeling. We have gathered estimates from 
labeling companies, and we have determined that the manufacturer would 
pay about $240 for 1,000 labels. We will assume that each model of 
light needs 1,000 labels. Each of the 9 manufacturers produces an 
average of 10 models for each of 6 types and expects to introduce 3 new 
models a year. The calculations will be as follows:

[(9 manufacturers  x  10 models for each type  x  6 types  x  $200/
1,000 labels  x  1,000 labels)/(1+0.7)\1\] +  [(9 
manufacturers  x  3 new models  x  $200/1,000 labels  x  1,000 labels)/
(1.07)\n\], n=2 * * * 15 = $145,072.04.

    This rule would also require that each light be marked ``USCG'' 
followed by the tested range of visibility, such as ``2

[[Page 47939]]

nm'', to indicate compliance. We believe that manufacturers are already 
marking their lights and own the necessary equipment for marking them, 
so this requirement should not impose any added costs.

Benefits of the Proposed Rule

    (1) Certification would place navigation lights under regulatory 
control comparable to that affecting all other items of mandatory 
safety equipment. This would result in a general improvement in 
reliability, quality, and effectiveness of such lights, domestic and 
imported, available to domestic manufacturers of vessels.
    (2) Certification would discourage the practice of installing 
lights that are custom-made by the manufacturer of a vessel but that 
have proved to be basically noncompliant with the Navigation Rules.
    (3) Certification markings would provide evidence for 
manufacturers, surveyors, owners, and inspectors of vessels, or for 
boarding officials, in assessing the legality of installed lights.
    (4) Certification would facilitate exports to countries enforcing 
the requirement of the COLREGS for approval of navigation lights (Annex 
I, 14.)

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601-612], we 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set up size 
standards for each SIC code based on the number of employees or annual 
receipts. The only type of small entity that this rule would affect 
would be small businesses. Four out of the nine manufacturers of 
navigation lights qualify as small businesses by the size standards of 
the SBA. However, we have observed that the four businesses we have 
identified as small offer fewer models of each type of light than their 
larger competitors. These four offer between 1 and 5 models of each 
type, which is well below the average of 10 models each. Therefore, we 
do not believe that they would bear a disproportionate amount of the 
burden of this rule. They have annual revenues of $2.5m-$5.0m; $5.0m-
$10m; $10m-$20m; and $20m-$50m. Therefore, the greatest possible cost 
of testing for one of these four ($400  x  6 light types  x  5 models 
per type = $12,000) would be only .05% of the annual revenues of even 
the smallest company. This would not impose a significant burden on 
these companies, and it would not create a barrier to entry for 
companies that wish to enter the industry.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, 
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 
and that this rule would have a significant economic effect on it, 
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it 
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effect on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Randolph J. Doubt, Project 
Manager, Office of Boating Safety, by telephone at (202) 267-6810 or by 
e-mail at [email protected].

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for a new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501-3520]. As 
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises 
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other 
similar actions. The title and description of the collections, a 
description of those who perform them, and an estimate of the total 
annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for submitting a new 
model of light to the third-party certifier and for designing a label 
for each model of light.

Summary of the Collection of Information

    The proposed rule would impose a new burden of collection of 
information on manufacturers of navigational lights for uninspected 
commercial vessels and recreational vessels. Each manufacturer of the 
lights would incur a one-time burden of submitting paperwork to the 
third-party certifier and of designing labeling for each model of 
light.

Need and Proposed Use for Information

    This collection of information is necessary to accomplish the 
third-party certification and the labeling. The third party certifier 
would use the information to document and test the models of lights. 
Once the model had passed performance testing, the manufacturer of the 
light would design and provide a label for its product so the consumer 
would know that the product was certified.

Description of Respondents

    This collection of information would affect the current 
manufacturers of navigational lights for recreational and uninspected 
vessels. It would also affect any future manufacturers that may enter 
the market.

Number of Respondents

    There are 9 manufacturers of lights in the market. This collection 
of information will affect them all.

Frequency of Response

    This collection would take place only when a manufacturer undertook 
to place a new light model on the market.

Burden of Response

    We estimate that it would take one employee about one hour to 
prepare the paperwork to submit a light for performance tests. He or 
she would be an administrative assistant and, as such, would cost 
around $24 an hour. If each of these manufacturers submitted three new 
models of lights for testing each year, the burden for the submitted 
would be 27 hours and $648.
    We also estimate that it would take one employee about one hour to 
update the labeling for each new model. He or she, too, would cost 
around $24 an hour. The burden for the labeling requirement would 
likewise be 27 hours and $648 if each of the nine manufacturers 
submitted 3 new models for testing each year.

Estimate of Total Annual Burden

    Using the above estimates, the total burden in hours would be 54 
and the total cost would be $1,296.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of 
information. We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of 
information to help us determine how useful the information is; whether 
it can help us

[[Page 47940]]

perform our functions better; whether it is readily available 
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; 
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve 
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can 
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit 
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated 
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the 
requirements for this collection of information become effective, we 
will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision to 
approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

Federalism

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and have 
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism 
under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. 1531-1538] 
governs the issuance of Federal rules that impose unfunded mandates. An 
unfunded mandate is a rule that requires a State, local, or tribal 
government or the private sector, to incur direct costs without the 
Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those 
costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

Reform of Civil Justice

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is 
not an economically significant rule and does not concern an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule 
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. A requirement for certification of 
navigation lights should not have any environmental impact. A 
Determination of Categorical Exclusion is available in the docket where 
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 84

    Navigation (water), Waterways.

33 CFR Part 183

    Marine Safety.

46 CFR Part 25

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR parts 84 and 183, and 46 CFR part 25, as follows:

33 CFR PART 84--ANNEX I: POSITIONING AND TECHNICAL DETAILS OF 
LIGHTS AND SHAPES

    1. The citation of authority for part 84 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2071; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. Add text to Sec. 84.25 to read as follows:


Sec. 84.25  Approval.

    The construction of lights and shapes and the installation of 
lights on board the vessel must satisfy the Commandant.

33 CFR PART 183--BOATS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

    3. The citation of authority for part 183 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 4302; 49 CFR 1.46.

    4. Add Sec. 183.465 to read as follows:


Sec. 183.465  Navigation light: Standard.

    (a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, each 
navigation light must--
    (1) Meet the technical standards of the applicable Navigation 
Rules;
    (2) Be certified by a laboratory listed by the Coast Guard to the 
standards of UL 1104 or equivalent, although portable battery-powered 
lights need only meet the requirements of the standard applicable to 
them; and
    (3) Bear a label stating the following:
    (i) USCG Approval 183.465.
    (ii) ``MEETS ____________.'' (Insert the identification name or 
number of the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to which 
the laboratory type-tested.)
    (iii) ``TESTED BY ____________.'' (Insert the name or registered 
certification-mark of the laboratory listed by the Coast Guard that 
tested the fixture to the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.)
    (iv) Name of manufacturer.
    (v) Number of model.
    (vi) Visibility of the light in nautical miles.
    (vii) Date on which the light was type-tested.
    (viii) Identification of the bulb used in the compliance test.
    (b) If a light is too small to attach the required label--
    (1) Place the information from the label in or on the package that 
contains the light; and
    (2) Mark each light ``USCG'' followed by the certified range of 
visibility in nautical miles, for example, ``USCG 2nm''. This mark must 
be visible, without removal of the light, once installed.

46 CFR PART 25--REQUIREMENTS

    5. The citation of authority for part 25 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4302; 49 CFR 1.46.

    6. Add subpart 25.10, consisting of Sec. 25.10-1, to read as 
follows:

Subpart 25.10--Navigation Lights


Sec. 25.10-1  Requirements.

    (a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, each 
navigation light must--
    (1) Meet the technical standards of the applicable Navigation 
Rules;
    (2) Be certified by a laboratory listed by the Coast Guard to the 
standards of UL 1104 or equivalent, although portable battery-powered 
lights need only meet the requirements of the standard applicable to 
them; and
    (3) Bear a label stating the following:
    (i) USCG Approval 183.465
    (ii) ``MEETS ____________.'' (Insert the identification name or 
number of the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to which 
the light was type-tested.)
    (iii) ``TESTED BY ____________.'' (Insert the name or registered 
certification-mark of the laboratory listed by the Coast Guard that 
tested the fixture to the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.)
    (iv) Name of Manufacturer.

[[Page 47941]]

    (v) Number of Model.
    (vi) Visibility of the light in nautical miles.
    (vii) Date on which the light was type-tested.
    (viii) Identification of bulb used in the compliance test.
    (b) If a light is too small to attach the required label--
    (1) Place the information from the label in or on the package that 
contains the light; and
    (2) Mark each light ``USCG'' followed by the certified range of 
visibility in nautical miles, for example, ``USCG 2nm''. This mark must 
be visible, without removal of the light, once installed.

    Dated: July 25, 2000.
Terry M. Cross,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Operations.
[FR Doc. 00-19835 Filed 8-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U