[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62546-62548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24836]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0565]


Lifejacket Approval Harmonization

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is finalizing the policy harmonizing personal 
flotation device (PFD) standards between the United States and Canada 
by accepting a new standard for approval of PFDs. As a result, PFD 
manufacturers can meet a single North American standard instead of 
separate standards for the United States and Canada. The standard is 
outlined in a policy letter with a supporting deregulatory savings 
analysis. This policy letter is intended to promote the Coast Guard's 
maritime safety and stewardship missions. This policy does not affect 
existing PFD approvals and does not require any action on the part of 
boaters or mariners who have approved PFDs on board.

[[Page 62547]]


ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, 
are available in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov, and 
can be viewed by following that website's instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Jacqueline Yurkovich, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-
1389, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 17, 2018, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) published 
a Notice of Availability and Request for Comments (83 FR 41095) 
announcing that it was harmonizing PFD standards between the United 
States and Canada by accepting a new standard for approval of PFDs. The 
Coast Guard outlined the new standard in a draft policy letter with a 
supporting deregulatory savings analysis and made those documents 
available for public comment. The Coast Guard received input from six 
commenters.

Discussion of Policy and Comments

    The Notice of Availability (83 FR 41095) summarizes the background 
of the policy letter.
    During the notice of availability comment period, the Coast Guard 
received input from six commenters, including mariners, the Life Jacket 
Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and the 
Boat Owners Association of the United States. Below are summaries of, 
and our responses to, those comments.
    Four commenters supported the efforts to harmonize the PFD 
standards with ISO 12402. One commenter also stated that they supported 
and appreciated the policy language stating that lifejackets already 
approved would remain in compliance with the new policy. Some 
commenters also suggested that the Coast Guard should broaden the 
categories of buoyancy to specifically allow Level 50 and youth 
inflatable PFDs in appropriate conditions. While the Coast Guard will 
not include additional categories in this policy letter, we will take 
the suggestions of the commenters under consideration in a future 
rulemaking.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard should address potential 
confusion in the recreational boating community with regard to the new 
[policy] that ``Adult devices that cannot meet the requirements of 
Level 70 with inherent buoyancy alone must be marked `Approval 
conditions state that this device must be worn to be counted as 
equipment required by vessels meeting Transport Canada or USCG 
regulations.' '' \1\ As the Coast Guard accepts alternatives to the 
markings of inflatable PFDs, the commenter urged that consideration 
should also be given to adding markings that users need to test or 
inflate the devices regularly in order to be approved for use. The 
commenter stated that adding markings requiring inflatable PFD testing 
would be in keeping with current Coast Guard practices, such as those 
for PFD lights where alkaline batteries must be changed annually for 
devices to maintain their approval. The commenter concluded that, to 
this end, the USCG and Transport Canada should consider requiring 
inflatable PFD manufacturers to add inspection tags, similar to fire 
extinguisher inspection tags, to their PFDs where owners can record and 
be reminded of their periodic inspections and tests. Additionally, the 
commenter stated that the inflatable PFD age requirement of 16 should 
be lowered to age 13 to close the gap between the age requirement for 
wearing a PFD, located in 33 CFR 175.15 and the age range for an 
inflatable PFD because PFD options are more limited in the 13-16 age 
range. The Coast Guard acknowledges these concerns and suggestions and 
aims to address any potential confusion about the subject policy in 
this notice. With regard to adding new requirements that are not 
discussed in the new standard being accepted, such as for additional 
marking, testing, and inspection tags, these measures are outside of 
the scope of the policy letter that is the subject of this notice. 
These other measures may, however, be considered in future rulemaking. 
Similarly, the Coast Guard may consider the appropriateness of 
inflatable PFDs for wearers under 16 years of age in a future 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Document number USCG-2018-0565-0008 at http://
www.Regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2018-0565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard also received comments about the deregulatory 
savings analysis. Specifically, one commenter said that the cost 
savings analysis projects various hypothetical savings for the 
manufacturing sector and the U.S. Government without regard for the end 
users of the equipment (e.g., boaters, their families, insurance 
companies, and community). The commenter also stated that deregulation 
proposed to benefit the manufacturers may overlook the intended purpose 
of life saving equipment and result in more costs to the boating 
public, the U.S. taxpayers, and the U.S. government. The commenter also 
suggested other modifications to law and policy that might increase 
benefits in terms of lives saved--such as improving the rate of wear, 
improving visibility of PFDs at nighttime, and considering user size 
and weight.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that this policy letter pertains to 
producers of lifejackets primarily. Some portion of the cost savings 
may be passed onto consumers by lowering the final purchase price of 
lifejackets for consumers; however, the Coast Guard has no data to 
indicate what share of the cost savings would be passed onto consumers. 
Additionally, the Coast Guard has no evidence that this policy would 
harm the boating public. The Coast Guard determined that the PFDs 
permitted by this policy letter provide equivalent performance to a PFD 
that meets the requirements of 46 CFR 160.064, 160.076, or 160.077-15. 
Further, were any share of the cost savings estimated here to be passed 
onto consumers, the safety of the boating public would be increased as 
lifejackets would be cheaper. However, the stated goal of the policy 
letter is harmonization via a single standard for manufacturers to 
meet. The Coast Guard will consider this commenter's other suggestions 
for possible future action.
    The commenter also said that the international agreement should 
factor in tariffs, exchange rates, trade agreements, and currency 
valuations. It is not clear how such secondary impacts would affect 
harmonizing PFD standards between the United States and Canada and the 
commenter did not describe how such secondary impacts were relevant to 
this particular harmonization. Consequently, the Coast Guard does not 
believe these secondary impacts are relevant to this issue.
    The same commenter said that the lifejackets used in the United 
States and Canada are used in various water conditions and weather 
conditions impacting their effectiveness, and that the length of time 
that a boater has been in the water and the body of water the boater is 
rescued from all have different characteristics impacting the 
effectiveness of lifejackets.
    The commenter argued the maximum cost savings could be realized by 
ensuring that each and every boater who is on the water is properly 
equipped with the correct lifejackets because historically most 
drownings involve boaters without lifejackets. The Coast Guard 
considers such additional requirements to be outside the scope of this 
policy letter.

Cost Savings Analysis

    Since the affected population and projected cost-savings estimates 
have

[[Page 62548]]

remained the same from when we published the deregulatory savings 
analysis in August 2018, we have retained the projected cost-saving 
estimates for this notice, which we present below. As stated in the 
aforementioned economic analysis, which is available in the public 
docket, we estimate the annual net cost savings to the U.S. industry to 
be $660,965 in 2016 dollars using a 7-percent discount rate over a 10-
year period of analysis. We estimate the total discounted net cost 
savings to U.S. industry over a 10-year period of analysis to be 
between $4.6 million and $5.7 million at 7- and 3-percent discount 
rates, respectively.
    We estimate the annual net cost savings to the U.S. government to 
be $8,571 per year over a 10-year period of analysis at a 7-percent 
discount rate. We estimate the total discounted net cost savings to the 
U.S. government to be between $60,000 and $73,000 at 7- and 3-percent 
discount rates, respectively.
    We also estimate an annual net cost savings to foreign 
manufacturers of $406,758 in 2016 dollars using a 7-percent discount 
rate over a 10-year period of analysis. We estimate the total 
discounted net cost savings to foreign industry over a 10-year period 
of analysis to be between $2.9 million and $3.5 million at 7- and 3-
percent discount rates, respectively.
    We estimate the costs to industry from this policy letter as a one-
time switching cost between $40,000 and $41,000 at 7- and 3-percent 
discount rates, respectively.
    Under a perpetual period of analysis, we estimate the total 
annualized cost savings of our policy letter to the U.S. economy to be 
$546,065 in 2016 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate, and 
discounted back to 2016.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: November 7, 2019.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2019-24836 Filed 11-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P