[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62842-62920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21032]



[[Page 62841]]

Vol. 85

Monday,

No. 193

October 5, 2020

Part III





Department of Homeland Security





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





Coast Guard





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





46 CFR Parts 121, 160, 169, et al.





Survival Craft Equipment--Update to Type Approval Requirements; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 62842]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 121, 160, 169, 184 and 199

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0107]
RIN 1625-AC51


Survival Craft Equipment--Update to Type Approval Requirements

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to update the type approval 
requirements for certain types of equipment that survival craft are 
required to carry on U.S.-flagged vessels. The proposed rule is 
deregulatory and would remove Coast Guard type approval requirements 
for nine of these types of survival craft equipment and replace them 
with the requirement that the manufacturer self-certify that the 
equipment complies with a consensus standard.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before December 4, 2020. Comments sent to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB 
on or before December 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0107 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.
    Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of 
information discussed in section VII.D. of this preamble both to the 
Coast Guard's online docket and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and 
Budget using one of the following two methods:
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, 
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. Make 
arrangements to view this material by calling the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document, 
call or email LT Brock Hashimoto, Lifesaving & Fire Safety Division 
(CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1426, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

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

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to 
effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material 
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the 
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the 
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of 
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for 
each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If you cannot submit your 
material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule 
for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this proposed rule, 
and all public comments, will be available in our online docket at 
https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following that 
website's instructions. Additionally, if you visit the online docket 
and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are 
posted or if a final rule is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and 
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System 
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we will consider doing 
so if public comments indicate that a meeting would be helpful. We 
would issue a separate Federal Register (FR) notification to announce 
the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COA Certificate of approval
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ECEC U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation
FR Federal Register
CG MIX U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange
IBA Inflatable buoyant apparatus
IBR Incorporation by reference
ICR Information collection request
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LSA Code Life-Saving Appliances Code
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OES U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment 
Statistics
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RA Regulatory Analysis
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
UL Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

III. Basis and Purpose

    The legal authority for this proposed rule is found in Title 46 of 
the United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 
4302, 4502, 7101, 8101 and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b). This proposed rule would 
update the type approval requirements for 12 types of survival craft 
equipment that survival craft are required to carry on certain, 
specified U.S.-flagged vessels--bilge pumps, compasses, fire 
extinguishers, first-aid kits, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives, 
knives, signaling mirrors, provisions (food rations), emergency 
drinking water, and sea anchors--as well as some of the survival craft 
equipment required for sailing school vessels. For nine of these types 
of equipment, the proposed rule would replace the Coast Guard type 
approval requirement with a requirement that the

[[Page 62843]]

manufacturer self-certify that the equipment complies with a consensus 
standard: Bilge pumps, compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits, 
hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, sea anchors, and water.
    Updating type approval requirements for survival craft equipment 
reduces the financial burden and amount of time spent by equipment 
manufacturers, vessel owners and operators, and the Coast Guard on 
current Coast Guard type approval requirements for survival craft 
equipment.

IV. Background

    Many of the current requirements for survival craft equipment were 
developed in the 1950s and 1960s and have not been significantly 
updated since they were published. After thorough review of these 
requirements, as well as Coast Guard enforcement procedures, current 
maritime industry practice, and the availability of new consensus 
standards, we believe that the additional scrutiny provided by Coast 
Guard type approval does not increase the safety of the following nine 
types of survival craft equipment: Bilge pumps, compasses, first-aid 
kits,\1\ fishing kits, hatchets, knives (including jackknives), 
mirrors, sea anchors, and emergency drinking water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Different first-aid kits are required for different survival 
craft and this is explained further in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these types of equipment, the current Coast Guard type approval 
requirements are outdated and overly prescriptive. This places a burden 
on the equipment manufacturers, which in turn affects the design costs 
of complying with the outdated standard, the administrative overhead 
costs, and the time-to-market costs of manufacturing and selling 
equipment. It also places a financial burden on the vessel owners and 
operators who are required to carry this specific approved equipment on 
board their survival craft. This equipment is frequently more costly 
and more difficult to obtain than similar products that are not type 
approved. Finally, it places a burden on the Coast Guard to review and 
approve this equipment without commensurate increases in safety.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend several approval and carriage 
requirements in title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 
Specifically, we are proposing to remove current approval requirements 
for first-aid kits in part 121 under subchapter K, part 160 under 
subchapter Q, and part 184 under subchapter T, and to update those 
requirements to industry standards. In addition, we propose removing 
approval requirements for certain survival craft equipment and 
provisions in part 160 under subchapter Q and in part 169 under 
subchapter R, and updating those requirements to industry standards. 
Finally, we are proposing to update the carriage requirements for 
lifesaving systems on certain inspected vessels in part 199 under 
subchapter W, by replacing some Coast Guard-specific standards with 
voluntary consensus standards.
    The proposed rule would add a new subpart 160.046 (Emergency 
Provisions) to part 160 of title 46 of the CFR to consolidate and 
update applicable standards, including making mandatory several 
voluntary consensus standards consistent with the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113 (codified as a 
note to 15 U.S.C. 272). This rule would make mandatory three voluntary 
consensus standards from the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO): ISO 18813:2006 ``Ships and marine technology--
Survival equipment for survival craft and rescue boats'' (referred to 
as ISO 18813); ISO 17339:2018 ``Ships and marine technology--Sea 
anchors for survival craft and rescue boats'' (referred to as ISO 
17339); and ISO 25862:2009 ``Ships and marine technology--Marine 
magnetic compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices'' (referred 
to as ISO 25862).
    While the International Maritime Organization (IMO) does specify 
some standards for survival craft equipment affected by this proposed 
rule, it does not stipulate that the affected survival craft equipment 
be approved by the Administration. In some cases (such as first-aid 
kits and drinking water), the LSA Code references ISO 18813 as an 
acceptable standard for the equipment to meet, whereas in others (such 
as fishing tackle), the LSA Code merely requires that the equipment be 
carried aboard the specified survival craft.
    Table 1 provides a list of the 12 types of survival craft equipment 
that would be affected by this proposed rule, the proposed changes that 
would be made to the corresponding regulations, and the affected CFR 
subparts and sections. Table 2 presents the Coast Guard's baseline 
matrix, which summarizes the proposed changes by CFR subpart and 
section.
    For a detailed explanation of the proposed amendments presented in 
table 1, see the discussion that follows table 2.

[[Page 62844]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.006


[[Page 62845]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.007


[[Page 62846]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.008


[[Page 62847]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.009


[[Page 62848]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.010


[[Page 62849]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.011


[[Page 62850]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.012


[[Page 62851]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.013


[[Page 62852]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.014


[[Page 62853]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.015

Bilge Pump

    Lifeboats that are not automatically self-bailing are currently 
required to carry manual bilge pumps approved by the Coast Guard under 
46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.044--Pumps, Bilge, Lifeboat, for Merchant 
Vessels. This proposed rule would be the first substantive update to 
the design requirements since 1951. In this proposed rule, the Coast 
Guard would only require that bilge pumps comply with ISO 18813 
paragraph 4.3. The rule would remove requirements for the Coast Guard 
to issue a Certificate of Approval (COA) and replace it with the 
requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment 
meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. This would reduce the 
administrative burden for the manufacturers currently required to have 
a Coast Guard-issued COA for each bilge pump every 5 years. Subpart 
160.044 would be removed and reserved, and the new requirements would 
be listed in Sec.  199.175(b)(2).
    The requirements in ISO 18813 and in subpart 160.044 are similar in 
nature, with three key differences:
    (1) The capacity requirements in ISO 18813 differ from those in 
subpart 160.044. The Coast Guard proposes to incorporate by reference 
the ISO 18813 capacity standards and remove the current requirements in 
Sec.  199.175(b)(2). The Coast Guard believes that the pump capacity in 
the ISO standard is more appropriate, given the current design of 
modern lifeboats;

[[Page 62854]]

    (2) Subpart 160.044 requires that the body of the bilge pump be 
made of bronze, while ISO 18813 allows the bilge pump to be made of any 
corrosion-resistant material; and
    (3) The requirements outlined in ISO 18813 would allow 
manufacturers more flexibility in the design and construction of bilge 
pumps. Any Coast Guard-approved bilge pump on board before this 
proposed rule becomes effective may remain on board if it remains in 
good and serviceable condition.

Compass

    Lifeboats and rescue boats are required to carry a compass approved 
by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.014. The Coast Guard 
currently approves compasses using the ``Guidelines for Approval of 
Magnetic Compasses in Lifeboats/Liferafts,'' issued in December 2005, 
which states that manufacturers must meet either the ``USCG 
Specification for Compasses: Magnetic, Liquid Filled, Mariners, 
Compensating, for lifeboats for Merchant Vessels,'' developed in 1944, 
or a combination of ISO 613:2000 ``Ships and marine technology--
Magnetic compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices--Class B'' 
(referred to as ISO 613) and the International Electrotechnical 
Commission (IEC)'s standard 60945:2002-08--``Maritime navigation and 
radio communication equipment and systems--General requirements--
Methods of testing and required test results'' (referred to as IEC 
60945).
    This proposed rule would update the language in Sec.  199.175(b)(6) 
to state that the compass in a survival craft must comply with ISO 
25862 Annex H.
    Additionally, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for 
the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with the 
requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment 
meets the requirements outlined in ISO 25862. As a result, the Coast 
Guard would no longer maintain separate design requirements in this 
specification.
    There would be no substantive change in requirements for the class 
B magnetic compass because ISO 25862 supersedes and incorporates the 
requirements in ISO 613. Similarly, the testing requirements for the 
compasses would remain the same because ISO 25862 references the same 
testing requirements in IEC 60945 that are currently required for Coast 
Guard approval. This proposed rule would ensure that the compasses in 
survival craft would meet the same standard as currently required; 
however, the move to self-certification would lead to a reduction in 
paperwork and a reduction in collected information.

Fire Extinguishers

    The recent rule, ``Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, 
Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment'' (81 FR 48219, July 22, 2016), 
updated the design and approval standards for fire extinguishing 
equipment by changing the portable fire extinguisher ratings system 
from a weight-based rating system to the Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 
(UL) performance-based rating system. Under current survival craft 
regulations, survival craft are required to carry fire extinguishers 
based on the old weight-based rating system rather than the 
performance-based rating system established by the aforementioned 
Harmonization rule (81 FR 48219). This proposed rule would update the 
requirements in Sec.  199.175(b)(9) to reflect the change in rating 
system. As the Coast Guard noted in the Harmonization rule (see 81 FR 
at 48230), the fire extinguishers approved under the old weight-based 
system and the new performance-based system cost the same, so there is 
no cost or cost savings associated with this change.

First-Aid Kit

    The Coast Guard intends to change current first-aid kit 
requirements by: (1) Accepting ISO 18813 as the one uniform Coast 
Guard-approved standard for first-aid kits; (2) updating and 
consolidating references to this one standard across multiple different 
first-aid carriage requirements; and 3) grandfathering in all 
preexisting first-aid kits that comply with the current Coast Guard 
standards.\2\ Currently, all inspected small passenger vessels, 
lifeboats, rescue boats, inflatable SOLAS liferafts, and inflatable 
buoyant apparatuses are required to carry first-aid kits approved by 
the Coast Guard. There are two different approval series for first-aid 
kits, with different requirements: series 160.041, Lifeboat First-Aid 
Kit, for lifeboats, rescue boats, and small passenger vessels; and 
series 160.054, First-Aid Kit for Inflatable Liferafts, for liferafts. 
The current requirements for first-aid kits are found in Sec. Sec.  
160.041-4(b) and 160.054-4(b). First-aid kits approved to Sec.  
160.041-4(b) are required to carry more packages of certain first-aid 
items than first-aid kits approved to Sec.  160.054-4(b).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The grandfathering provision is proposed by this rulemaking 
for all nine pieces of equipment. Please see the proposed Sec.  
199.175(c).
    \3\ For the item requirements for first-aid kits in lifeboats 
and rescue boats, see the following link: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6053d1fa121cb42db8a54803ad6f08ea&mc=true&node=se46.6.160_1041_64&rgn=div8. For the item requirements for liferafts and buoyant 
apparatuses, see the following link: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6053d1fa121cb42db8a54803ad6f08ea&mc=true&node=se46.6.160_1054_64&rgn=div8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would remove and reserve subparts 160.041 and 
160.054 and move the requirements for first-aid kits from subparts 
160.041 and 160.054 to Sec.  199.175(b)(10). The rule would require 
that all first-aid kits, except those grandfathered under the proposed 
Sec.  199.175(c), meet the requirements set forth in ISO 18813. This 
standard requires a different set of items and a different number of 
items in the first-aid kit. For a thorough description of the 
differences in contents between the first-aid kits in subparts 160.041 
and 160.054 and ISO 18813, see table 30 in the regulatory analysis 
(RA). Finally, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the 
Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with a requirement for 
the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the 
requirements of ISO 18813.
    The Coast Guard also intends to update the references to the 
standards for first-aid kits carriage requirements in Sec.  121.710 for 
subchapter K-inspected small passenger vessels, Sec.  184.710 for 
subchapter T-inspected small passenger vessels, subpart 160.010 for 
buoyant apparatuses,\4\ and subpart 160.151 for liferafts. This 
proposed rule would update the referenced first-aid kit requirements to 
the consolidated requirements listed in Sec.  199.175(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Only required for ``open reversible liferafts'' Annex 11 to 
IMO Res. MSC.97(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In current regulations, the medicine in first-aid kits is required 
to conform to the latest standards of the U.S. Pharmacopoeia.\5\ These 
proposed regulations do not change this requirement and would be 
outlined in Sec.  199.175(b)(10).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Compendium of drug information for the United States 
published annually by the United States Pharmacopeial Convention.
    \6\ This replaces the U.S. requirement for first-aid kits to 
contain ``Aspirin'' with the ISO requirement for ``Analgesic.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fishing Kit

    Lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry a 
fishing kit and tackle approved by the Coast Guard, as directed in 46 
CFR part 160, subpart 160.061. This proposed rule would remove and 
reserve subpart 160.061 and move the requirements for fishing kits from 
subpart 160.061 to Sec.  199.175(b)(11). The proposed rule would make 
two substantive changes to the requirements. First, the Coast Guard 
would mandate that fishing kits meet the standards set forth in ISO 
18813.

[[Page 62855]]

Second, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the Coast 
Guard to issue a COA and replace it with the requirement for the 
manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the 
specifications outlined in Sec.  199.175(b)(11).
    The requirements in subpart 160.061 were last substantively updated 
in September 1965 and are very prescriptive (for example, pork bait is 
no longer commercially available but is a listed requirement in fishing 
kits). By contrast, ISO 18813 is much less prescriptive, and the Coast 
Guard does not believe this loss in specificity decreases the 
usefulness of fishing kits likely to be produced and sold. Instead, 
this proposed rulemaking would align the Coast Guard requirements for 
fishing kits with international requirements and would make it easier 
for fishing kit manufacturers to meet Coast Guard requirements.

Hatchet

    All lifeboats are required to carry hatchets approved by the Coast 
Guard to the specifications found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.013. 
This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.013 and move 
the requirements for hatchets from subpart 160.013 to Sec.  
199.175(b)(13). This proposed rule would make two substantive changes 
to the current requirements. First, it would remove the requirement for 
the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with the 
requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment 
meets the requirements outlined in Sec.  199.175(b)(13). Second, it 
would remove some of the current testing requirements, because the 
Coast Guard does not believe they increase safety. Specifically, the 
requirements found in subpart 160.013 state that the hatchet must 
comply with the Federal Specification GGG-A-926--Axes, which was 
cancelled in 1999.\7\ The Coast Guard is proposing to retain pertinent 
requirements from current regulations and remove outdated ones. For 
example, we would retain the handle, lanyard, and sheath specifications 
for a hatchet, because these specifications reflect the safety 
requirements of a hatchet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards 
Numerical Canceled Listing (APPENDIX) Part IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackknife

    All lifeboats and SOLAS liferafts are required to carry a jackknife 
approved by the Coast Guard, as specified in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 
160.043. This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.043 
and move the requirements from subpart 160.043 to Sec.  199.175(b)(16). 
The proposed rule would make four changes to the current requirements. 
First, this proposed rule would require that a jackknife must comply 
with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.19, rather than the existing requirements in 
subpart 160.043. Second, this proposed rule would update references to 
the jackknife found in Sec.  199.175. Third, this proposed rule would 
remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would 
replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify 
that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. 
Fourth, Table 1 to 199.175--Survival Craft Equipment would be updated 
so that a jackknife could replace both a can opener and a knife when 
they are required as specified in Sec.  199.175.
    The standards set by ISO 18813 are broader and less specific than 
those contained in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.043, but they would not 
substantively alter the requirements for the design of jackknives. The 
proposed standards allow the manufacturer additional options for the 
materials used in the jackknife. There would also be a reduction in the 
test requirements. ISO 18813 requires only the cutting test, while 
subpart 160.043 requires three tests, including the same cutting test. 
The additional tests required by subpart 160.043--the hardness test and 
the bending and drop test--do not lead to an increase in safety nor an 
improvement in equipment quality. The Coast Guard therefore proposes to 
remove the requirements for these tests.

Knife

    Buoyant apparatuses, inflatable liferafts, lifeboats, rigid 
liferafts, and rescue boats are required to carry a knife. The proposed 
rule would revise Sec. Sec.  160.010-3(a)(12)(ii) and 160.051-11(b) to 
update the quantity of knives to be carried to match the LSA Code and 
would add regulatory text allowing a knife to be replaced with a 
jackknife meeting the requirements in Sec.  199.175(b)(16). If the 
apparatus is permitted to accommodate 13 or more persons, the proposed 
rule removes requirements for jackknives in Sec.  199.175(b)(17), which 
may be substituted for a second non-folding knife, and, instead, 
proposes they must meet the requirements in ISO 18813.

Mirror

    All lifeboats and inflatable liferafts are required to carry a 
signaling mirror approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 
160.020, using the ``USCG Specification for Signaling Mirrors for 
Merchant Vessels'' issued in October 1944. This proposed rule would 
update Sec.  199.175(b)(19) and make two changes to the current 
requirements. First, the Coast Guard proposes to change the standard 
for signaling mirrors to the requirements in ISO 18813 paragraph 4.23. 
Second, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the Coast 
Guard to issue a COA and replace it with the requirement for the 
manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the 
requirements outlined in ISO 18813. The requirements in ISO 18813 
provide the same safety standards as the 1944 Coast Guard 
specification, but would allow for more flexibility in meeting the 
requirements. The 1944 Coast Guard specification requires the mirror to 
be rectangular; ISO 18813 allows the mirror to be any shape provided 
the reflective surface meets the minimum area requirements.

Provisions

    All lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry 
provisions approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.046, 
using the ``Guidelines for Approval of Emergency Provisions for 
Lifeboats and Liferafts'' issued in August 1997. This proposed rule 
would create a new subpart 160.046 that outlines the requirements for 
emergency provisions that must comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.31.
    The design and test requirements found in ISO 18813 are the same as 
those found in the aforementioned Coast Guard guidelines for approval. 
This proposed rule would formalize those requirements into regulation, 
while maintaining the current level of safety. Manufacturers would be 
required to continue to maintain a valid COA under approval number 
160.046 and prove compliance with the referenced standards. Unlike the 
changes regarding the other survival craft equipment described in this 
proposed rule, there will be no costs or cost savings associated with 
these provisions as manufacturers will still need a COA under approval 
number 160.046. The proposed change only formalizes preexisting agency 
policy, which will lead to no reduction in burden. The Coast Guard is 
retaining the requirement for a valid COA for provisions because we 
recognized that provisions is a critical part of lifesaving equipment. 
We know that manufacturers also produce emergency provisions for other 
outdoor-related industries.Validating the performance of the provision 
can only be done by independent laboratory testing rather than by 
physical inspection. We want to maintain the

[[Page 62856]]

current level of quality and nutritional value that is necessary 
specific to the maritime industry and environment.

Sea Anchor

    All lifeboats, rescue boats, and rigid liferafts are required to 
carry a sea anchor approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 
160.019. Inflatable liferafts and buoyant apparatuses are also required 
to carry sea anchors, but those sea anchors are not required to be 
Coast Guard-approved. The Coast Guard approves sea anchors using either 
the ``USCG Specification for Sea Anchors,'' revised in August 1944, or 
ISO 17339. This proposed rule would update Sec.  199.175(b)(27) and 
state that the sea anchor must comply with ISO 17339. The Coast Guard 
also proposes to remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a 
COA and replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-
certify that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO 
17339. This proposed rule would result in a reduction in paperwork and 
information collection and a reduction in the overall administrative 
burden to the manufacturers of sea anchors from no longer requiring a 
COA.

Water

    All lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry 
emergency drinking water approved by the Coast Guard under approval 
series 160.026. Subpart 160.026--Water, Emergency Drinking (In 
Hermetically Sealed Containers), for Merchant Vessels, contains the 
regulations for Coast Guard approval of emergency drinking water. The 
last substantive update to subpart 160.026 occurred on September 8, 
1965 (30 FR 11466). In November 1981, the Coast Guard issued a policy 
letter, ``Guidelines for Approval of Emergency Drinking Water for 
Lifeboats and Liferafts,'' outlining alternative requirements for the 
approval of emergency drinking water.
    This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.026 and 
move the requirements for drinking water from subpart 160.026 to Sec.  
199.175(b)(40). The proposed rule would make three changes to the 
current requirements. First, the emergency drinking water would be 
required to comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.46 rather than the 
existing requirements in subpart 160.026. Second, the rule would remove 
the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and replace it with 
the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their water 
meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. Third, water quality 
would be required to be verified by the local municipality or an 
independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard.
    Current Coast Guard regulations in subpart 160.026 only allow for 
the use of cans as water receptacles, while ISO 18813 allows for the 
use of different types of water receptacles. The 1981 Coast Guard 
Guidelines allow for the use of flexible material in the water 
receptacle. ISO 18813 and the Coast Guard Guidelines have the same 
requirements for the flexible material, and there are no changes in the 
testing requirements between the Coast Guard Guidelines and ISO 18813. 
Incorporating ISO 18813 would update regulations to allow flexible 
material for water receptacles in addition to cans, in accordance with 
1981 Coast Guard guidelines.

Sailing School Vessels

    In addition to the types of equipment discussed above, this 
proposed rule would also update the survival craft requirements for 
sailing school vessels found in Sec. Sec.  169.525 through 169.529. We 
propose to reference the equipment requirements in Sec.  199.175. This 
would eliminate the unique requirements for survival craft equipment on 
sailing school vessels, such as a lantern, matches, illuminating oil, 
and storm oil.\8\ This proposed change would align outdated 
requirements with the modern standards in Sec.  199.175 that are 
applicable to other vessels in commercial service. As a result of these 
proposed changes, equipment manufacturers would be able to manufacture 
one piece of equipment that is acceptable on all types of U.S.-flagged 
vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the full set of requirements being modified and 
eliminated, refer to table 39 in the RA. None of these changes will 
result in costs or costs savings, which is explained in table 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference is currently 
listed in Sec.  199.05 and would also be added to the new Sec.  
160.046-3. The substance of the individual standards is described in 
section V. of this preamble, and we have also summarized them in 
section VII.L. Copies of the material are available to purchase from 
the publishers at the addresses listed in Sec. Sec.  160.046-3 and 
199.05. Information about purchasing these standards is also available 
online (via the internet). Before publishing a binding rule, we will 
submit this material to the Director of the Federal Register for 
approval of the incorporation by reference.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses 
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. 
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory 
costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation issued, at least 
two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost 
of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a 
budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS 
considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action.\9\ A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the OMB Memorandum titled ``Guidance Implementing 
Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section V of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard 
would remove the requirement for nine types of survival craft equipment 
to be approved by the Coast Guard from 46 CFR part 160 in subchapter Q 
(Equipment, Construction, and Materials: Specifications and Approval) 
and from Sec.  199.175 (Survival Craft and Rescue Boat Equipment). The 
requirement for COAs on these nine types of equipment (bilge pumps, 
compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, 
sea anchors, and water) would be replaced by a self-certification 
requirement, in order to comply with the LSA Code. For those types of 
equipment that still require a COA, provisions and fire extinguishers, 
we do not estimate any

[[Page 62857]]

changes in costs or cost savings.\10\ Finally, this proposed rule would 
update the survival craft requirements for sailing school vessels found 
in Sec. Sec.  169.525 through 169.529, eliminating the unique 
requirements for survival craft equipment on sailing school vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Knives are not required to be Coast Guard approved, however 
they must meet the requirements in the LSA Code. This is an 
administrative change that will lead to no cost or cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 provides a summary of the affected population, costs, cost 
savings, and benefits of this proposed rule. The affected population 
includes the manufacturers of the survival craft equipment and the 
vessels equipped with survival craft. Additionally, we estimate the 
potential cost savings to manufacturers by reducing reporting, 
recordkeeping, and production requirements of this survival craft 
equipment. We estimate the potential cost savings to vessel owners and 
operators by the price reductions in survival craft equipment, and we 
estimate the potential cost savings for the Government for reducing the 
review necessary for certain equipment. We estimate an annualized cost 
savings to industry of $335,733 (with a 7-percent discount rate) and an 
annualized cost savings to Government of $9,142 (with a 7-percent 
discount rate) for a total annualized cost savings of $344,875. Using a 
perpetual period of analysis, we estimate the total annualized cost 
savings of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to be $241,000 in 
2016 dollars and discounted back to 2016 using a 7-percent discount 
rate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This analysis assumes the implementation year for this rule 
would be 2021.

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

[[Page 62858]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.016

Affected Population

    This proposed rule would impact four separate affected populations. 
First, this proposed rule would impact manufacturers of Coast Guard-
approved equipment because it changes the standards and approval 
process for nine types of survival craft equipment. Second, this 
proposed rule would impact any new and existing U.S.-flagged vessels 
that carry survival craft because it would reduce the cost of buying 
and replacing survival craft equipment. Third, this proposed rule would 
impact small passenger vessels inspected under subchapter K or T 
because they are required to maintain a separate first-aid kit onboard, 
and this rule reduces the cost of replacing first-aid kits. Fourth, 
this proposed rule would impact sailing school vessels, but

[[Page 62859]]

we do not estimate any costs, cost savings, or benefits to these 
vessels. This proposed rule would remove table 169.527 from part 169 
and it would remove the requirements for equipment outlined in Sec.  
169.529(a) through (mm) as these requirements are outdated and the 
Coast Guard is moving the reference to these pieces of equipment to 
part 199.
    Data on manufacturers comes from the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime 
Information Exchange (CGMIX),\12\ which is a public-facing version of 
the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, 
unless otherwise specified. For each subchapter of inspected vessels 
that are required to carry survival craft, we looked at annual data 
(2008-2017) \13\ from the MISLE database to estimate the number of 
vessels that would be affected by this proposed rule. We used this 
timeframe of vessel data from MISLE to obtain the average number of 
vessels, survival craft, and survival craft equipment presented in the 
vessel populations in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://cgmix.uscg.mil/
    \13\ The Coast Guard used 10 years of MISLE data for a robust 
data set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manufacturers of Coast Guard Approved Equipment

    The Coast Guard is proposing to modify approval requirements for 
nine types of survival craft equipment, discussed in detail in section 
V of this proposed rule. These nine types of equipment include: (1) 
Bilge pumps; (2) compasses; (3) first-aid kits for lifeboats and for 
liferafts; (4) fishing kits; (5) hatchets; (6) jackknives; (7) 
signaling mirrors; (8) sea anchors; and (9) emergency drinking water. 
For these nine types of survival equipment, there are 27 unique Coast 
Guard type-approved products.\14\ This proposed rule would impact 
products currently on the market as well as newly approved products. 
Those products affected by this NPRM that are currently on survival 
craft would remain acceptable for the purpose of carriage after this 
rule's implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Type Approval is the primary process for equipment and 
materials to receive Coast Guard approval. The certificate is valid 
for 5 years, and the approval will be listed on the CGMIX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 collection of information, ``Supporting Statement for 
Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and 
Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation 
Devices (33 CFR part 159)'' (OMB Control Number: 1625-0035) estimates 
that companies would seek Coast Guard approval for 3 percent of the 
number of survival craft equipment products on the market each year. 
The Coast Guard estimates that each new product approval replaces a 
preexisting product approval, such that the total number of approved 
products would not change each year, as the number of newly approved 
products has been historically small. Table 4 presents the annual 
average of new products each year for the nine types of survival craft 
equipment. To calculate the annual average of new products, we 
multiplied the values in the ``Number of Approved Products'' column 
(table 4), which contains the number of existing approved products for 
each type of survival craft equipment, by 3 percent (``Percentage of 
New Approvals Each Year'' column).

[[Page 62860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.017

U.S.-Flagged Vessels That Carry Coast Guard-Approved Equipment

    This proposed rule would impact a total of 14,666 existing vessels. 
Of these vessels, we estimate the total amount of survival craft 
maintained by the affected population to be 34,456. Table 5 shows the 
breakdown of the survival craft population as follows: 2,142 inflatable 
buoyant apparatuses (IBAs), 25,910 liferafts, 3,472 lifeboats, and 
2,932 rescue boats. These vessels, which are categorized by subchapter, 
are required to carry survival craft in accordance with the applicable 
regulations.

[[Page 62861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.018

    Table 6 presents vessels by the subchapter to which they are 
inspected in title 46 of the CFR. ``Other vessels'' includes public and 
recreational vessels not subject to inspection. The owners and 
operators of the 14,666 identified vessels would experience cost 
savings from the lower estimated cost of replacing equipment after this 
proposed regulation takes effect. We used this existing vessel 
population data from MISLE and multiplied it by the average number of 
IBAs, liferafts, lifeboats, and rescue boats per vessel, which we also 
retrieved from MISLE, to obtain our estimated survival craft 
population. This is the existing population of survival craft. 
Regarding those pieces of survival craft equipment that are non-durable 
and will be replaced within 10 years, this is the population that 
provides the number of survival craft that will need to replace Coast 
Guard-approved equipment with presumably less expensive equipment, 
because the replacement equipment would not need Coast Guard approval. 
Those vessels with previously approved survival craft equipment would 
not be required to replace their survival craft equipment

[[Page 62862]]

until it expires or becomes unserviceable.
    After establishing the existing number of current survival craft, 
we then estimate the growth in the number of survival craft each year 
in order to project out our affected population for the next ten years. 
To calculate the number of new survival craft each year, we multiply 
the ``Number of New Vessels per Year'' by each ``Average per Vessel'' 
column in table 6 to obtain our annual totals for each new survival 
craft type.\15\ We estimate that 14 new IBAs, 278 new liferafts, 46 new 
lifeboats, and 41 new rescue boats would be outfitted with equipment 
subject to this proposed rule each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``The Number of New Vessels per Year'' column was 
calculated by taking the total number of new vessels by subchapter 
by year from the MISLE database. The Coast Guard calculated the 
``Average per Vessel'' column by dividing column (b) by column (a) 
in table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We then sum the totals for each survival craft type across each 
affected subchapter to obtain our estimated population of new survival 
craft each year for this NPRM. This annual growth in the survival craft 
population provides an estimate of the number of new survival craft 
that will enter the market each year. The vessel owners and operators 
of these craft would experience cost savings from buying some 
equipment, as discussed in this NPRM, which will no longer need Coast 
Guard approval. Table 6 presents the estimated total number of new 
survival craft each year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.019


[[Page 62863]]



Subchapter K and Subchapter T Vessels

    This proposed rule would also affect all U.S.-flagged vessel 
operators regulated under subchapters K and T, as these vessel 
operators are required to maintain a Coast Guard-approved first-aid kit 
onboard their vessels, in addition to any first-aid kits carried in the 
survival craft. The owners and operators of these small passenger 
vessels would no longer be required to maintain Coast Guard-approved 
first-aid kits aboard the vessels themselves. Using MISLE data, we 
estimate there to be 2,069 existing small passenger vessels, with 101 
new vessels being built on an annual basis. This number includes all 
small passenger vessels defined in subchapters K and T, found in 
Sec. Sec.  121.710 and 184.710, respectively, regardless of what type 
of survival craft they have onboard. Therefore, this count may include 
vessels that do not have an IBA, lifeboat, liferaft, or rescue boats 
onboard.

Equipment Type for Each Survival Craft

    The type of equipment each survival craft is required to carry 
varies depending on the distance a vessel is traveling. Inspected 
vessels must carry an equipment pack for an international voyage, with 
the exception of lifeboats on sailing school vessels, which, if they 
are equipped with lifeboats, must carry the equipment required in 
Sec. Sec.  169.527 and 169.529. Currently, based on MISLE data, none of 
the seven U.S.-flagged sailing school vessels are equipped with 
lifeboats. Table 7 contains the equipment required by pack and type of 
survival craft.

[[Page 62864]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.020


[[Page 62865]]



Equipment Pack Types for Commercial Fishing Vessels

    Commercial fishing vessels must be equipped with either a Coastal 
Service pack, a SOLAS A pack, or a SOLAS B pack depending on vessel 
size, distance traveled, whether the ocean route is designated as a 
cold-water route or warm-water route, and the number of persons 
onboard. Table 8 provides a brief description of the packs that can be 
carried by lifeboats and liferafts.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Readers can find more information on Inflatable Liferafts 
for domestic service in the following link: https://ecfr.io/Title-46/sp46.6.160.160_1051.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.021

Equipment Pack types for Survival Craft

    We used vessel route types from MISLE to estimate the percentage of 
vessels with a SOLAS A pack compared to a SOLAS B pack. All vessels 
with ``ocean'' listed as a route type are presumed to carry survival 
craft with SOLAS A packs. We estimate the remaining route types, not 
listed as ``ocean,'' would have SOLAS B packs. Using commercial fishing 
vessel data from MISLE and knowledge from subject matter experts from 
the Coast Guard's Life Saving & Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), who 
specialize in survival craft data, we estimate that 50 percent of non-
ocean going fishing vessels will have Coastal Service packs and 50 
percent of non-ocean going fishing vessels will have SOLAS B packs.
    We created a distribution of SOLAS A, SOLAS B, and Coastal Service 
packs by pulling all U.S.-flagged vessels by the inspection subchapter 
and then pulling these vessels by route type from the MISLE database. 
We excluded any vessels that did not have survival craft or had an 
unknown field for survival craft in the MISLE database. The route-type 
designation included ``Ocean'' for ocean-going vessels in MISLE,\17\ 
which we designated as SOLAS A vessels, and the remainder were 
therefore SOLAS B vessels.\18\ We then calculated the number of SOLAS A 
packs by dividing the population of our vessels (by subchapter) by the 
sum of vessels that had ``Ocean'' routes and dividing that sum by the 
sum of vessels in that given subchapter. To calculate the percentage of 
SOLAS B packs, we simply subtracted the number of SOLAS A packs from 
100 percent. This data pull provided the total number of inflatable 
liferafts and lifeboats, respectively, and the percentage of each 
survival craft pack type by subchapter, which is presented in table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The ``Ocean'' designation in MISLE specifically refers to 
those vessels with SOLAS certificates that designates them as SOLAS 
A vessels. The MISLE data being pulled is from 2007-2017.
    \18\ The sole exception was Commercial Fishing Vessels, which we 
broke out the Coastal routes and short international routes by 
vessel because Commercial Fishing Vessels are the only type of 
vessels in our affected population that would carry Coastal Service 
packs instead of only having SOLAS B packs for short international 
shipping routes.

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

[[Page 62866]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.022


[[Page 62867]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.023

    We then estimated the number of liferafts and lifeboats by 
equipment pack type for existing and new vessels by looking at the 
total number of packs carried by lifeboats and liferafts. Table 10 
presents the number of SOLAS A, SOLAS B, and Coastal Service packs by 
liferaft and lifeboat for each subchapter of vessels. The total number 
of inflatable liferafts with Coastal Service Packs (Column (a)) in 
table 10 is calculated by multiplying the percentage of Coastal Service 
Packs in liferafts and lifeboats (column (c) in table 9) by the total 
number of inflatable liferafts by subchapter (column c) in table 5). 
Column (b) in table 10, `Short Internatonal/SOLAS B packs for 
inflatable liferafts', is calculated by multiplying column (d) in table 
9, which is the percentage of Short International/SOLAS B packs by 
vessel subchapter, by column (c) in table 5, which is the total number 
of inflatable liferafts by subchapter. Column (c) in table 10, 
`International/Solas A packs for liferafts', is calculated by 
multiplying column (e) in table 9, which is hte percentage of 
International/SOLAS A packs by vessel subchapter, by column (c) in 
table 5, which is the total number of inflatable liferafts by 
subchapter. Column (e) in table 10, `Short Interntaional/Solas B packs 
for lifeboats', is calculated by taking the sum of multiplying columns 
(c) and (d), the percentages of Coastal Packs and Short Intertanional/
SOLAS B packs in table 9 by column (e) in table 5, which is the total 
number of lifeboats by subchapter. Column (f) in table 10, 
`Interntaional/Solas A packs for lifeboats' is calculated by 
multiplying column (e) from table 9, which is the percentage of 
International Packs/SOLAS A, by column (e) in table 5, which is the 
total number of lifeboats by subchapter.

[[Page 62868]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.024


[[Page 62869]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.025

    Table 11 presents the total number of new packs needed each year 
for new survival craft. This table is calculated by taking the number 
of new lifeboats and liferafts presented in table 6 and multiplying 
that figure by the distribution in table 9 to obtain the number of new 
packs needed for the new liferafts and lifeboats on vessels each year.

[[Page 62870]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.026


[[Page 62871]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.027

Cost Savings

    We anticipate that this proposed rule would generate a cost savings 
to: (1) Vessel owners and operators from having the option to purchase 
less expensive survival craft equipment; (2) equipment manufacturers 
from reducing reporting, record keeping, and production requirements of 
survival craft equipment; and (3) the Federal Government from reducing 
record keeping requirements. The details and calculations of the cost 
savings are discussed later in this NPRM.

Wages

    This proposed rule would reduce the burden of review that is 
required by both industry and the Federal Government. This review 
includes preparing COA application renewals, and product instructions 
by certain manufacturers. We presume clerical employees would be 
responsible for all the manufacturer's recordkeeping activities, and 
production employees would be responsible for marking equipment and 
packing instructions. Federal Government employees who possess the 
technical knowledge of survival craft to review submissions to ensure 
safety standards would be senior engineers at the GS-14 grade. These 
employees would be responsible for the review of all the submitted 
information.
    We calculate the costs for each activity by estimating the labor 
hours required in each labor category and then multiplying those 
burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. For this analysis, we 
calculated private sector wages using 2018 wage data from the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics 
(OES) for the miscellaneous manufacturing sector (North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) 339000).\19\ We added a load 
factor to the industry wages using December 2018 wage and total 
compensation data from the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 
(ECEC) survey, which accounts for employee benefits. This load factor 
represents the total benefits as a percentage of total salary.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/naics3_339000.htm
    \20\ A loaded labor rate is what a company pays per hour to 
employ a personbeyond the hourly wage. Instead, the loaded labor 
rate includes the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation, 
etc.). We calculate the load factor for wages by dividing total 
compensation by wages and salaries. For this analysis, we used BLS' 
Employer Cost for Employee Compensation/Manufacturing Occupations, 
Private Industry report (Series IDs, CMU2013000000000D and 
CMU2023000000000D for all workers using the multi-screen data 
search). Using 2018 Q4 (Quarter 4) Manufacturing data, we divided 
the total compensation amount of $39.09 by the wage and salary 
amount of $25.59 to get the load factor of 1.53 ($39.09 divided by 
$25.59). This data is found in table 10 of the Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation December 2018 News Release available at 
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03192019.pdf

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

[[Page 62872]]

For Federal Government employees, Commandant Instruction 7310.1T, 
Reimbursable Standard Rates \21\ provides fully loaded wages for both 
Coast Guard military and civilian employees and lists the loaded hourly 
wage rate for a GS-14 senior engineer as $105. Table 12 summarizes the 
loaded wage rates for industry used in this RA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ On page 2 of Enclosure 2 of the following link, the reader 
can access the in-government wage rates for USCG personnel: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/12/2002071837/-1/-1/0/CI_7310_1T.PDF

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

[[Page 62873]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.028


[[Page 62874]]



Cost Savings to Equipment Manufacturers

    We estimate that manufacturers of Coast Guard-approved equipment 
would have a cost savings associated with no longer having to complete 
COA applications and renewals to obtain and maintain Coast Guard 
approval. In addition, this proposed rule would remove recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements, and reduce testing requirements for some 
pieces of survival equipment.

Number of Survival Craft Products

    This proposed rule would modify the approval requirements for nine 
types of survival craft equipment. For each type of equipment, 
companies manufacture unique products. In total, there are 27 products 
for these 9 types of survival craft equipment. These pieces of 
equipment are the specific items that vessel owners and operators 
purchase to be in compliance with the vessel carriage regulations found 
in 46 CFR subchapters C, T, K, and W.\22\ These pieces of equipment 
also account for the total items that must be stowed aboard survival 
craft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Refer to the appendix titled ``Appendix C: Carriage 
Requirements for all the Survival Craft Equipment'' in the docket 
folder for more information on carriage requirements for all vessels 
affected by this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with the lifesaving equipment regulations in 46 CFR 
subchapter Q, manufacturers submit these products to the Coast Guard 
for review and approval. Once approved, the manufacturer of each piece 
of equipment must mark it (or stamp it) with its COA number. Table 13 
presents the total number of pieces of survival craft equipment 
manufactured on an annual basis.
    There are two types of survival craft equipment: (1) Items that are 
durable and need not be replaced or serviced frequently, such as bilge 
pumps, compasses, fishing kits,\23\ jackknives, signaling mirrors, 
hatchets, and sea anchors; and (2) items that are not durable, expire, 
and must be replaced, such as first-aid kits and water. We used the 
annual number of pieces of survival craft equipment needed to stock new 
survival craft in order to estimate the number of new pieces of 
equipment manufactured and stamped on an annual basis. We estimate 
that, in the long term, the supply of new survival equipment would 
equal the demand of new survival craft equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ There is one Coast Guard-approved fishing kit on CG-MIX 
currently. The only non-durable aspect of the fishing kit, the bait, 
is made of synthetic resin, plastisol, a form of rubber which, if 
stored properly, has an indefinite shelf life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard does not have substantive data on how long these 
durable goods last, and we estimate that these goods would last as long 
as the survival craft themselves. We request comments from the general 
public and interested stakeholders regarding the length of time bilge 
pumps, compasses, fishing kits, jackknives, signaling mirrors, 
hatchets, and sea anchors last, and whether they last as long as the 
survival craft they equip.
    We discuss the renewal rate of non-durable goods, first-aid kits, 
and water later in this analysis.\24\ Table 13 lists the estimated 
number of pieces of survival craft equipment manufactured on an annual 
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Refer to the sections titled First Aid Kits, First Aid Kits 
for Liferafts and IBA, and Emergency Water further in the regulatory 
analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.029

Equipment Approval and Markings

    In the current regulations, manufacturers seeking Coast Guard 
approval must submit a COA application with information such as 
technical plans, drawings, specifications, instructional materials, and 
test reports. In addition to the initial application, manufacturers of 
Coast Guard approved equipment must also submit application renewals 
every 5 years to maintain their approval status. Table 4 presents the 
estimated number of new COA applications for each equipment type, as 
the annual average number of new products each year.

[[Page 62875]]

    Table 14 presents the estimated number of application renewals for 
each equipment type. Since the Coast Guard estimates that one of every 
five applications will be renewed on an annual basis, the number of 
renewal applications is equal to 20 percent of the total number of 
products. Once a product has been approved, the manufacturer must stamp 
each individual piece of survival craft equipment with the Coast Guard 
approval number and other information.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.030


[[Page 62876]]


    We estimate that it would take the technical staff 2 hours \25\ to 
prepare a new application, and the clerical staff would spend 0.17 
hours per application on recordkeeping, for a total cost of $135 per 
new application [(2 technical hours x $65) + (0.17 clerical hours x 
$29) = $135]. For renewal applications, we estimate a burden of 0.5 
technical hours and 0.17 clerical hours, for a total cost of $37 [(0.5 
technical hours x $65) + (0.17 clerical hours x $29) = $37]. Under this 
proposed rule, the Coast Guard would no longer require COA applications 
for any new survival craft equipment. As shown in table 15, we estimate 
this would result in a cost saving to industry of approximately $108 
per year for new applications and approximately $200 per year for 
renewal applications. This results in a total annual cost savings of 
about $308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Based on information from the subchapter Q ICR.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.031
    
    The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the requirements that 
equipment must be marked with a Coast Guard approval number. With the 
exception of compasses and hatchets, equipment only needs to be marked 
to indicate that it meets standards set in ISO 18813. Compasses would 
no longer need to be marked with their Coast Guard approval number, but 
would still need to be marked to indicate they meet ISO 25862, as is 
currently required by the Coast Guard approval guidelines for magnetic 
compasses in lifeboats and rescue boats. The Coast Guard is proposing 
that hatchets would not need to be marked at all, as they do not have 
to meet any consensus standard.
    The Coast Guard assumes the burden to mark the equipment is the 
same whether it is being marked with a Coast Guard approval number or 
whether it is marked indicating that it meets the ISO standard; 
therefore, this proposed change would only result in a cost savings to 
the manufacturers of hatchets. The Coast Guard estimates that

[[Page 62877]]

it takes industry 0.06 hours of production labor time \26\ to mark each 
individual piece of equipment at a cost of $1.44 (0.06 hours x $24 = 
$1.44) per piece of equipment. We estimate that 92 hatchets would be 
marked each year (see table 13), for a total cost savings of 
approximately $132 ($1.44 x 92).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ This is based on information from the subchapter Q 
information collection request (ICR).
    \27\ This value is incorporated in column (a) of table 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructions

    The Coast Guard currently requires that equipment manufacturers 
provide instruction material with certain types of equipment to ensure 
that crew members have access to information on the proper use of the 
equipment. We currently require instructions for five of the nine types 
of equipment subject to this proposed rulemaking: Compasses, first-aid 
kits, mirrors, fishing kits and jackknives. ISO 18813 requires 
instructions for three types of equipment: First-aid kits, mirrors, and 
fishing kits. ISO 18813 does not state that instructions need to be 
provided for compasses and jackknives; therefore, the manufacturers of 
compasses and jackknives would no longer have to develop, maintain, and 
pack instructions for their products under this proposed rule.
    Furthermore, the Coast Guard requires that instructions be updated 
and submitted with application renewals. Since manufacturers of this 
equipment would no longer have to submit renewal applications, we 
estimate that manufacturers would no longer update their instructions, 
resulting in a cost savings for manufacturers for all five types of 
equipment. In addition to these cost savings, there is a cost savings 
associated with removing the need to pack the instructions with the 
equipment. Using the same methodology to estimate the number of pieces 
of equipment that need to be marked annually, we estimate that the same 
number of instructions required to be packed for pieces of equipment 
would be the same as the number of pieces of equipment required to be 
marked. Table 16 presents the number of instructions developed and 
renewed each year under the baseline presented in the subchapter Q 
ICR.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ To access the subchapter Q ICR follow this link: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201811-1625-005. Select 
``All'' in the first box titled, ``Display additional information by 
clicking on the following'' and scroll down to the ``Number of 
Information Collection (IC) in this ICR: 5''. In this section, you 
will be able to access Approvals, Instruction Materials, Production 
Tests and Laboratory Inspections, Markings, and the Independent and 
Recognized Labs forms.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.032

    Based on information in the current subchapter Q ICR, we estimate 
that it takes 8 hours of technical time, costing $520 (8 hours x $65) 
to prepare a new set of instructions. Similarly, we estimate that it 
takes 2 hours of technical time, costing $130 (2 hours x $65) to 
prepare instructions for renewal submissions. The Coast Guard estimates 
that packing each set of instructions would incur the same burden 
(amount of time) as marking each piece of equipment, or 0.06 hours of 
production. We estimate the cost of marking each piece of equipment to 
be $1.44 [0.06 hours x $24 (production staff time)].
    In tables 17, 18 and 19, we present the total annual industry cost 
savings for no longer having to develop new instructions for some types 
of new survival craft equipment, for no longer having to update 
instructions for renewal applications, and for packing fewer 
instructions. Table 18 presents the cost savings to develop new 
instructions for those types of survival craft equipment requiring 
instructions, which leads to a total annual cost savings of 
approximately $63. The total cost in columns (b) and (d), $520, is the 
loaded wage of a safety engineer and inspector, $65, multiplied by the 
estimated burden of work, 8 hours, for preparing a set of new 
instructions. This table presents the baseline scenario burden, the 
proposed post-regulatory scenario burden, and the difference between 
the two as cost savings.

[[Page 62878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.033

    Table 18 presents the cost savings of no longer having to update 
instructions for renewal applications, which leads to a total cost 
savings of about $416 annually. The total cost in columns (b) and (d) 
is the loaded wage of a safety engineer and inspector, $65, multiplied 
by the estimated burden of work, 2 hours, for preparing instructions 
for renewal submissions. This table presents the baseline scenario 
burden, the proposed post-regulatory scenario burden, and the 
difference between the two as cost savings.

[[Page 62879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.034

    Table 19 presents the cost savings of having to pack fewer 
instructions, which leads to a total annual cost savings of 
approximately $2,218. The total cost in columns (b) and (d) is the 
loaded wage of a production employee or assembler, $24, multiplied by 
the estimated burden of work, 0.06 hours, for packing instructions. 
Table 19 presents the baseline scenario burden, the proposed post-
regulatory scenario burden, and the difference between the two as cost 
savings.

[[Page 62880]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.035

Laboratory Testing and Recordkeeping

    As current regulations stand, the Coast Guard requires product 
testing and recordkeeping for some lifesaving equipment to ensure the 
equipment meets minimum performance requirements. Table 20 presents a 
comparison of the current Coast Guard testing requirements and the 
testing requirements stated in ISO 18813 and ISO 25862 (for compasses). 
This table also contains a qualitative description of the change in 
costs associated with modifying the current testing requirements. We 
were unable to obtain any cost data from the Coast Guard-approved labs 
that conduct the testing of this equipment.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ We contacted four Coast Guard approved laboratories to 
obtain cost estimates for the current and proposed testing 
requirements; however, the labs were unable to provide any cost 
information. The Coast Guard would appreciate any public comments on 
the costs associated with the current or proposed testing 
requirements.

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

[[Page 62881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.036


[[Page 62882]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.037

    Based on the information from the current subchapter Q ICR, we 
estimate that record-keeping takes 2 hours of clerical time per year 
and costs $58 (2 hours x $29 clerical staff loaded hourly wage rate). 
The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the requirements for testing 
records for seven types of equipment listed in this NPRM, as these 
manufacturers would no longer need these records to document that their 
product meet the requirements of the ISO 18813. Table 21 presents the 
total cost savings of about $1,392 to industry from removing 
requirements to keep records of laboratory testing. The total cost in 
columns (b) and (d), $58, is the loaded hourly wage of a record clerk, 
$29, multiplied by the estimated burden of work, 2hours, for fulfilling 
recordkeeping requirements. This table presents the baseline scenario 
burden and the post regulatory scenario burden and then presents the 
difference of the two burdens as cost savings.

[[Page 62883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.038

Laboratory Inspections

    The Coast Guard currently requires inspectors to examine the 
manufacturing process in order to ensure that quality control is 
maintained throughout. This proposed rule would remove these 
requirements; however, the Coast Guard is unable to determine if this 
removal would generate any cost savings to industry. Manufacturers are 
likely to still have their production line inspected to ensure quality 
as part of best industry practices. Moreover, manufacturers may 
continue third-party testing to maintain certifications, such as the 
ISO 9001 standard, or to meet international regulatory obligations. At 
the time of this NPRM, the Coast Guard does not have enough information 
to quantify any potential changes in cost resulting from the changes in 
inspection requirements.
    Additionally, the Coast Guard requires inspecting entities to issue 
annual reports to enable a comparison between the production line and 
the prototype tested by the Coast Guard.\30\ We were able to estimate a 
cost savings that resulted from the removal of this reporting 
requirement using information from the subchapter Q ICR, which 
estimated that this recordkeeping takes 24 hours of clerical time per 
year on average and costs $696 (24 hours x $29 clerical wage rate). The 
Coast Guard proposes to remove this reporting requirement for all types 
of survival craft equipment. As shown in table 22, we estimate a total 
annual cost savings of approximately $16,008. This table presents the 
baseline scenario burden, the proposed post regulatory scenario burden, 
and the difference between the two as cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ While the Coast Guard currently requires testing for 
jackknives, it does not require laboratory inspections. Therefore, 
there are no cost savings to jackknives manufacturers for this 
proposed change.

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

[[Page 62884]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.039

Total Cost Savings to Manufacturers

    Table 23 presents the annual total cost savings to equipment 
manufacturers. We estimate that manufacturers of Coast Guard-approved 
bilge pumps, lifeboats, compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits, 
hatchets, jackknives, signaling mirrors, sea anchors, and emergency 
water would save approximately $20,537 per year.

[[Page 62885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.040

Cost Savings to Vessel Owners or Operators

    After gathering price data from a variety of sources, we estimate 
that removing approval requirements would allow owners and operators of 
vessels to purchase less expensive equipment.\31\ While there are 
several companies selling Coast Guard-approved equipment, online 
information generally does not specify whether the equipment meets ISO 
18813 or similar standards. As a result, we had difficulty finding 
price data for survival craft equipment products clearly stating they 
met ISO 18813 standards. However, we were able to identify prices for 
two products--emergency provisions and emergency water--that the 
manufacturer or advertiser explicitly stated met the requirements of 
the ISO 18813 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ To assess price data, we looked at online retailers of 
survival craft equipment. A search of online retailers revealed that 
equipment that was not type approved was less expensive than similar 
equipment that was type approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We then applied percentage price difference between emergency water 
products and emergency provisions, which had both Coast Guard approval 
and met the requirements of ISO 18813, and those emergency provisions 
and water products that only met the requirements of ISO 18813.\32\ On 
average, products without Coast Guard approval were approximately 28 
percent \33\ less expensive than products with Coast Guard approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Although provisions are not subject to changes in this 
NPRM, we still examined them for the purposes of price comparison as 
it provided a depth of data allowing us to comprise a more robust 
ratio.
    \33\ We calculated this 28 percent by finding the price 
differential for those products that were Coast Guard-type approved 
and those products that were not Coast Guard-approved, but met ISO 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We applied this 28-percent price decrease to all the products 
affected by this proposed rule, with the exception of first-aid kits, 
because the kit content requirements differ between the ISO standard 
and current Coast Guard standards, and we estimate the change in price 
for first-aid kits by the difference in replacement costs for first-aid 
kits. These differences are explained in further detail in the section, 
First-Aid Kits, in this RA. For this analysis, we quantified the cost 
savings to new vessels from being able to purchase less expensive 
equipment, and the cost

[[Page 62886]]

savings to existing vessels of replacing expired items with less costly 
items. For durable items, without data to estimate how frequently these 
items are replaced, we are not able to estimate the cost savings to the 
owners and operators of existing vessels for purchasing replacement 
equipment that we estimate would be 28 percent cheaper. However, since 
emergency water and first-aid kits expire, we estimate the cost savings 
for purchasing replacement equipment for the owners and operators of 
both new and existing vessels based on how frequently this non-durable 
equipment must be replaced. This information is presented later in this 
analysis.
    Durable Equipment: Bilge Pumps, Compasses, Fishing Kits, Hatchets, 
Jackknives, Mirrors, and Sea Anchors
    As discussed in the previous paragraph, we estimate that only new 
vessels will purchase bilge pumps, compasses, fishing kits, hatchets, 
jackknives, mirrors, and sea anchors for their survival craft. Based on 
population estimates (presented in table 5), 14 new IBAs, 278 new 
liferafts, 46 new lifeboats, and 41 new rescue boats would be subject 
to this proposed rule each year. Table 7 lists the survival equipment 
that lifeboats, liferafts, rescues boats, and IBAs are required to 
carry. We multiply the populations in table 5 by the carriage 
requirements in table 7 to yield the total number of items purchased 
for new survival craft in table 25 below. For example, the Coast Guard 
requires new lifeboats to be equipped with bilge pumps, and there were 
46 new lifeboats recorded in table 5, meaning there will be 46 
purchases of new bilge pumps per year. \34\ Only the new lifeboats with 
equipment packs for international voyages would require fishing kits 
(see table 7) and all new lifeboats and rescue boats would be equipped 
with compasses, for a total of 87 purchases of compasses each year. All 
338 new IBAs, liferafts, and lifeboats are required to be equipped with 
mirrors. Finally, 271 liferafts with a SOLAS A or SOLAS B pack would be 
equipped with two sea anchors each. This proposed rule would require 
that 108 IBAs, lifeboats, rescue boats, and liferafts with coastal 
service packs each have one sea anchor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Coast Guard requires all non-self-bailing lifeboats and 
rescue boats to have bilge pumps. Based on discussions with subject 
matter experts in the Coast Guard Office of Design and Engineering 
Standards, Lifesaving & Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), the Coast 
Guard estimates that all new lifeboats will be non-self-bailing and 
will therefore require bilge pumps, and all new rescue boats that 
are not also lifeboats will be self-bailing, and therefore will not 
require bilge pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 24 presents the annual cost savings from new vessels removing 
Coast Guard approval for bilge pumps, compasses, fishing kits, 
hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, and sea anchors. In total, we estimate 
an annual cost savings of approximately $99,696 for U.S.-flagged 
vessels by removing the type approvals for these seven types of 
survival craft equipment.

[[Page 62887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.041

Jackknives as a Replacement for Can Openers

    As specified in Sec.  199.175(b)(5), the Coast Guard allows 
jackknives to meet the requirements of a can opener, thereby permitting 
jackknives to fulfill two requirements. In Sec.  199.175, Table 1 to 
Sec.  199-175 states that only lifeboats and rigid liferafts with SOLAS 
A packs require can openers, and only lifeboats may carry jackknives. 
This means that rigid liferafts with SOLAS A packs are currently 
carrying both knives and can openers. The proposed rule would allow 
these vessels to replace their knives with jackknives, resulting in a 
cost savings to vessel owners from being able to purchase only a 
jackknife instead of both a knife and a can opener. We estimate that 
there are a total of 179 new liferafts each year that carry SOLAS A 
packs and, further, assume that these vessel owners and operators would 
choose to replace a knife with a jackknife, thus forgoing the need to 
purchase a can opener.\35\ We estimate the price of a can opener 
meeting the requirements of ISO 18813 to be $6.\36\ Therefore, we 
estimate that vessel owners and operators would save $1,074 (179 SOLAS 
A liferafts x $6 per can opener) for no longer needing can openers 
because of meeting the jackknife requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ We estimate the cost savings for only one can opener 
because the use of a jackknife will only fulfill the replacement 
requirement for one can opener.
    \36\ We calculated this by taking the average of 10 can opener 
products on the market that meet ISO 18813 requirements. The Coast 
Guard is proposing that can openers now meet the requirements of ISO 
18813.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Water

    The Coast Guard requires survival craft with SOLAS A packs be 
stocked with 3 liters of water per person, and that lifeboats with 
SOLAS B packs be stocked with 1.5 liters of water per person. We 
estimate the average cost of Coast Guard-approved water to be $4 per 
liter,\37\ while the cost of 1 liter of emergency water that meets the 
ISO 18813 standard to be $3.\38\ The price difference between the Coast 
Guard and ISO water is $1 per liter.\39\ This is the estimated 
additional cost of Coast Guard approval, which is counted as cost 
savings. Emergency water expires and will need to be replaced every 5 
years; therefore, the Coast Guard estimates that 20 percent of existing 
survival craft and 100 percent of new survival craft will need to 
purchase emergency water annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ We calculated this by taking the average of 14 emergency 
drinking water products on the market that were Coast Guard 
approved.
    \38\ We calculated this by taking the average of 14 available 
emergency drinking water products on the market that were compliant 
with ISO 18813 only.
    \39\ To calculate this, we took the average of emergency 
drinking water prices that were Coast Guard approved and subtracted 
them from emergency drinking water prices that need only meet the 
ISO standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that industry would save a total of $183,939 on an 
annual basis

[[Page 62888]]

(3,227 survival craft x 19 people per survival craft x 3 liters of 
water x -$1 cost savings) for survival craft with SOLAS A packs during 
Years 1 through 5 of implementation.\40\ To calculate this cost 
savings, we took the 12,306 existing liferafts with SOLAS A packs and 
2,744 lifeboats with international voyage packs (see table 10) for a 
total of 15,050 existing survival craft that are required to stock 
emergency water. We then estimated that 20 percent (100 percent of 
these survival craft / 5 years) or 3,010 survival craft [(12,306 
liferafts x 20 percent) + (2,744 lifeboats x 20 percent)] will replace 
their emergency water annually. Additionally, all 38 new lifeboats with 
international packs and 179 new liferafts with SOLAS A packs (see table 
11) are required to buy emergency water. We summed these totals to get 
3,227 survival craft that will need to purchase emergency water on an 
annual basis (3,010 existing survival craft + 38 new lifeboats + 179 
new liferafts). Table 25 presents these cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ We calculated this by taking the average of the survival 
craft capacity for all survival craft. We retrieved this data from 
the MISLE database on November 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Years 6 through 10, there would be more cost savings because 
vessels will have entirely replaced their survival craft by Year 6, as 
described earlier in this proposed rule, therefore we estimate an 
annual cost savings of about $196,308 [3,444 survival craft (3227 + 217 
new craft) x 19 people x 3 liters of water x -$1 cost savings] for 
survival craft with SOLAS A packs. Table 26 presents these cost 
savings.

[[Page 62889]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.042

    We used the same methodology when calculating the number of SOLAS A 
packs in Years 1 through 10 of implementation in order estimate the 
total costs savings for survival craft with SOLAS B packs. There are a 
total of 728 existing liferafts with SOLAS B packs (see table 10). We 
estimate that 20 percent of these survival craft or 146 survival craft 
(728 lifeboats x 20 percent) will replace their emergency water 
annually. Additionally, all 8 new lifeboats with SOLAS B packs are 
required to buy emergency water, for a total of 154 survival craft (146 
lifeboats + 8 new lifeboats) purchasing emergency water in Years 1 
through 5. In Years 6 through 10, the number of existing lifeboats will 
increase by eight to account for the new vessels that will be built in 
Years 1 through 5 (154) for a total of 162 survival craft (154 existing 
survival craft + 8 new lifeboats).
    The cost savings for survival craft with SOLAS B packs purchasing 
emergency water would be approximately $4,389 (154 survival craft

[[Page 62890]]

x 19 people x 1.5 liters of water x -$1 cost savings) in Years 1 
through 5 and approximately $4,617 (162 survival craft x 19 people x 
1.5 liters of water x -$1 cost savings) in Years 6 through 10. Table 27 
presents these cost savings in Years 1 through 5 of implementation, and 
table 28 presents these cost savings in Years 6 through 10 of 
implementation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.043

    Table 29 presents the total annualized cost savings to vessel 
owners and operators from removing Coast Guard approval requirements 
for emergency water. The Coast Guard estimates an annualized cost 
savings of about $193,571 with a 7-percent discount rate ($194,162 with 
3-percent discount rate).

[[Page 62891]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.044

First-Aid Kits

    The Coast Guard is proposing to modify the requirements for first-
aid kits so that all survival craft would need to meet the standards 
outlined in ISO 18813. In addition to removing the testing requirements 
for the kits, this proposed change would modify the required contents 
of first-aid kits, by removing the requirements for some items, adding 
additional items, or changing the number of mandatory items. Since 
items within the kits expire and need to be replaced, the proposed 
change would impact both new and existing vessels including small 
passenger vessels described in the section Subchapter K and Subchapter 
T in this preamble. Table 30 highlights these differences in the first-
aid kit requirement. Due to the differences in the first-aid kits, we 
estimated the cost of purchasing each of the individual items in the 
kit.

[[Page 62892]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.045

First-Aid Kits for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats

    We estimate that new vessels with lifeboats or rescue boats will 
have a cost savings as a result of the proposed changes to first-aid 
kits because we estimate that first-aid kits that meet the proposed 
standard are $40 less expensive than Coast Guard-approved kits under 
approval series 160.041. We estimate that a total of 87 new lifeboats 
and rescue boats will purchase a first-aid kit each year for a total 
costs savings of approximately $3,480 (87 survival craft x -$40 cost 
savings).
    The Coast Guard is not requiring existing vessels to replace their 
current kits; however, existing vessels must replace medication and 
ointments within the kits by their expiration date. Currently, vessels 
must replace their iodine swabs, pain relief medication, and eye 
ointment, which we estimate costs about $19 per kit.\41\ We calculated 
the cost per kit by taking the average price for 10 different iodine 
swab products, 12 different pain relief medication, and 8 different eye 
ointments. Under the proposed rule, these vessels would no longer have 
to replace eye ointment, and would need to replace fewer doses of pain 
relief medication. Additionally, vessel operators would be able to 
replace iodine swabs with less expensive antiseptic preparation. 
However, under this proposed rule, vessels would incur an additional 
cost from replacing the burn cream in the kits, as required by ISO 
18813 shown above in table 30. We estimate the cost of replacing these 
items to be $19, meaning the proposed change is cost neutral to 
existing vessels with lifeboat first-aid kits.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ ISO 18813 uses the specific language of Analgesic and 
Ophthalmic when describing the medication in the first-aid kits. 
Refer to the appendix titled ``Appendix B: Product Prices'' in the 
docket folder for more information on product prices for these items 
that comprise the first-aid kit.
    \42\ The Coast Guard used the same price estimation for the 
average cost of these items as the cost it would take to replace 
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First-Aid Kits for Liferafts and IBAs

    We estimate that first-aid kits that meet the requirements of ISO 
18813 will be, on average, $1 less expensive than the Coast Guard-
approved kits for liferafts and IBAs.\43\ All 271 new liferafts and all 
14 new IBAs would need to be equipped with the kits each year for an 
annual cost savings of $285 (285 survival craft x-$1 cost saving).\44\ 
Liferaft first-aid kits are sealed in plastic bags, and most drugs 
expire within a 2- to 3-year timeframe. Vessel owners and operators 
have to replace the entire first-aid kit with a brand new kit after 
using even one item. Once the packaging for the kit is opened, the 
majority of items in it will have the same expiration date, not just 
the individual item.\45\ Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates that 
vessels will replace the items in their first-aid kits once they have 
expired, every 2.5 years (average of 2 and 3 years), and this process 
occurs during the annual servicing at an approved servicing facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Coast Guard took the average price of six Coast Guard 
approved first-aid kits and subtracted it from an average of six 
first-aid kits that met ISO standards.
    \44\ There are 278 liferafts affected by this rule, but those 
requiring SOLAS A and B packs (271 liferafts) will be required to 
have first-aid kits.
    \45\ We contacted a liferaft servicing firm to determine how the 
expired items in liferaft and lifeboat first-aid kits are replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculate that 40 percent (one replacement every 2.5 years) of 
vessels would replace these items annually. Forty percent of all 
existing 2,142 IBAs and 24,097 liferafts [table 10 (sum of the totals 
for SOLAS A and SOLAS B for

[[Page 62893]]

inflatable liferafts columns)] would be 10,496 survival craft [(2,142 
IBAs x 40 percent) + (24,097 liferafts x 40 percent)]. Beginning in 
Year 3, the new survival craft from Year 1 would need to replace their 
kits for a total of 10,781 survival craft (10,496 existing survival 
craft + 285 survival craft built in Year 1). In Year 4, the new 
survival craft from Year 2 would need to replace their kits, but those 
from Year 1 would not need to do this since they would have replaced 
their aid kits in the prior year. Therefore, the total needing to 
replace first-aid kits would still be 10,781 survival craft (10,496 
existing survival craft + 285 survival craft built in Year 2). In Year 
5, the survival craft built in Year 1 and Year 3 would replace their 
kits for a total of 11,066 survival craft (10,496 existing survival 
craft + 285 survival craft built in Year 1 + 285 survival craft built 
in Year 3). This pattern continues over the 10-year analysis period. In 
conclusion, we estimate the total annualized cost savings from removing 
Coast Guard approval for liferaft first-aid kits would be $9,283 with a 
7-percent discount rate as shown in table 31.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.046

First-Aid Kits for Small Passenger Vessels (Subchapters K and T)

    This NPRM would also remove Coast Guard approval requirements for 
first-aid kits aboard small passenger vessels, which the Coast Guard 
regulates under subchapters K and T. Small passenger vessels are 
currently required to have first-aid kits approved under approval 
series 160.041; therefore, we used the same cost savings estimates for 
replacing first-aid kits in the section titled First-Aid Kits for 
Lifeboats and Rescue Boats. This comes to $41 per first-aid kit. The 
Coast Guard applied these estimates to small passenger vessels which 
will no longer need Coast Guard approval for the first-aid kits aboard 
the vessels themselves. Using data from MISLE, we estimate there would 
be 101 new small passenger vessels every year. All of the 101 new 
passenger vessels will need to be equipped with first-aid kits each 
year for an annual cost savings of $4,141.

[[Page 62894]]

Total Cost Savings to Vessel Owners and Operators

    Table 32 presents the annual undiscounted total cost savings to 
vessel owners and operators by equipment type, and table 33 presents 
the total annualized cost savings. We estimate the total undiscounted 
costs savings to vessel owners and operators at $3.16 million over a 
10-year period of analysis, with an annualized total cost savings of 
about $315,196 discounted at 7 percent ($315,829 with a 3-percent 
discount rate).

[[Page 62895]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.047


[[Page 62896]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.048

Total Cost Savings to Industry

    Table 34 presents the total annualized costs savings to industry 
over the 10-year period. At a 7-percent discount rate ($336,367 cost 
savings with a 3-percent discount rate), the cost savings is 
approximately $335,733.

[[Page 62897]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.049

Federal Government Cost Savings

    We estimate that this proposed rule would reduce costs to the 
Federal Government, since the Coast Guard would no longer review COA 
applications, application renewals, or inspection reports for the 
equipment that is subject to this proposed rule. The Coast Guard does 
not anticipate that this proposed rule would generate any cost savings 
from vessels inspections, as the proposed rule does not modify any 
inspection requirements.

Equipment Approval

    In addition to generating a cost savings to industry by removing 
COA application requirements, this proposed rule would also create a 
cost savings to the Federal Government, as Coast Guard staff will no 
longer review new COA applications and renewals. The 2018 Commandant 
Instruction 7310.1T estimates that it takes 24 hours of a GS-14's time 
to review each new application and 4 hours to review each renewal.\46\ 
We estimate the cost of reviewing a new application at $2,520 per 
applicant (24 hours x $105) and the cost for reviewing a renewal 
application at $420 per renewal (4 hours x $105). In table 36, the cost 
of reviewing a new application is captured in column (b) and the cost 
of a renewal application is captured in column (d). In total, we 
estimate the Federal Government will save $4,312 each year due to this 
proposed rule removing the requirements of having to review COA 
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ To see the hourly government rates for personnel, please 
reference the ``Hourly Rates For Personnel ($)'' table on page 2 of 
enclosure (2): https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/NPFC/docs/7310/Cl_7310_1T.pdf?ver=2019-01-28-080829-207

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

[[Page 62898]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.050

Laboratory Inspections

    The Coast Guard currently requires manufacturers to submit an 
annual report with the results of laboratory inspections, allowing the 
Coast Guard to ensure the production stock of the equipment will be 
identical to those originally tested and approved by the Coast Guard. 
This NPRM would remove this reporting requirement for the equipment 
subject to the proposed rule, removing the need for the Coast Guard to 
review these reports. We were unable to obtain data about the costs 
related to laboratory inspections. We request information and comments 
from the general public and interested stakeholders regarding 
information on data related to laboratory inspection costs.

[[Page 62899]]

    We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours of a GS-14 senior 
engineer's time to review each report, costing $210 (2 hours x $105). 
Table 36 presents the total annual cost saving to the Federal 
Government for no longer having to review laboratory inspection 
reports. We estimate these costs would be $4,830 per year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.051

Total Federal Government Savings

    Table 37 presents the total annual cost savings to the Federal 
Government. In total, the Coast Guard estimates this proposed rule to 
generate a cost savings of approximately $9,142 per year.

[[Page 62900]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.052

Change in Safety

    Many of the current requirements for survival craft equipment were 
developed in the 1950s and 1960s and have not been significantly 
updated since they were initially published. Upon a thorough review of 
these requirements, Coast Guard enforcement procedures, current 
maritime industry practice, and the availability of new international 
standards, we have determined that the additional scrutiny of the Coast 
Guard type approval does not increase or decrease the safety for the 
equipment subject to this proposed rule. For these nine types of 
survival craft equipment, the current Coast Guard type approval 
requirements are outdated and overly prescriptive. Therefore, the Coast 
Guard anticipates that by having equipment meet international 
standards, as opposed to Coast Guard standards, there would be no 
decrease in the level of safety in the maritime environment.

Benefits

    There are non-monetary benefits to owners and operators of vessels 
with survival craft in having a larger selection of equipment to choose 
from allowing for potential operational flexibility.

No Cost Changes

    This proposed rule would also implement several changes with no 
cost impacts. The vast majority of these changes are the result of 
modifying the current lifeboat equipment requirements for sailing 
school vessels as stated in Sec.  169.527 to align them with the 
requirements stated in Sec.  199.175. Table 38 summarizes these 
changes.

[[Page 62901]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.054


[[Page 62902]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.053


[[Page 62903]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.055


[[Page 62904]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.056


[[Page 62905]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.057


[[Page 62906]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.058


[[Page 62907]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.059


[[Page 62908]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.060


[[Page 62909]]



Total Cost Savings

    Table 39 presents the total annualized cost savings of this NPRM to 
both industry and the Federal Government for the 10-year period of 
analysis. The Coast Guard estimates an annualized cost savings of 
approximately $345,509 with a 3-percent discount rate and $344,875 with 
a 7-percent discount rate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.061

Discussion of Alternatives

    When creating this proposed rule, the Coast Guard considered three 
alternatives. In this section, we examine how the cost of the proposal 
would change with each alternative.
    Alternative 1:

No Action

    Using this alternative, the Coast Guard would accept the status quo 
and not replace the current approval requirements with an international 
consensus standard. This alternative would not harmonize with 
international standards, nor reduce the burden to industry. This would 
incur approximately $345,000 in annual costs, with no estimated 
benefits.
    Alternative 2:

Preferred Alternative-- Remove the Need for Coast Guard Approval

    Using this alternative, the Coast Guard would implement the 
proposed changes in table 1 regarding the removal of Coast Guard 
approval standards. This would lead to an estimated $345,000 in annual 
cost savings without any estimated reduction in benefits, as this 
analysis shows.
    Alternative 3:

Remove the Need for Coast Guard Approval and Marking Requirements

    Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would still implement the 
changes proposed in the preferred alternative, but would, in addition, 
remove the requirement that equipment be marked to indicate it meets 
ISO 25862, ISO 17339, or ISO 18813. This would lead to an additional 
annual cost savings of approximately $366,862. We estimate this by 
multiplying 254,765 pieces of equipment by $1.62 (allowing 0.06 hours x 
$27 clerical rate per hour for the time and cost to mark each piece of 
equipment). This would lead to a total cost savings of $711,737, which 
we calculated by adding the additional savings from no markings 
($366,862) to the total estimated cost savings of this proposed rule, 
as shown in alternative 2 ($345,000).
    We reject this alternative for the preferred alternative, since 
eliminating the markings would make it impossible for the Coast Guard 
to verify if equipment is in compliance with regulations. This 
alternative could potentially lead to a decrease in safety, if vessel 
owners and operators purchased ISO non-compliant products that were not 
sufficiently safe or reliable

[[Page 62910]]

for usage onboard a survival craft. The potential for the additional 
burden on the Coast Guard to research and ascertain the compliance 
status of a piece of survival craft equipment could lead to much more 
significant costs than the current additional cost of $366,862 from 
marking equipment.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    The Coast Guard expects that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on small entities. We expect this proposed 
rule to result in net cost savings to regulated entities.
    We estimate there to be 11,139 unique vessel operators and 16 
equipment manufacturers affected by this proposed rule. For this 
analysis, we presumed any company for which we were not able to find 
Small Business Administration (SBA) size data to be a small entity. An 
estimated 94 percent of the regulated entities (including the companies 
without SBA size data) are considered to be small by SBA industry size 
standards. Using MISLE data, the Coast Guard estimates there to be 
11,155 unique companies affected in this proposed rule. We estimate 
that the average costs to equipment manufacturers would be reduced by 
$1,445 per year, and the average costs to vessel owners and operators 
would be reduced by $37.14 per year as a result of removing Coast Guard 
approval for the equipment subject to the proposed rulemaking. We 
calculate that 100 percent of the 10,487 (0.94 x 11,155) small vessel 
operators and 100 percent of small equipment manufacturers impacted by 
this proposed rule would have a cost savings less than 1 percent of 
their annual revenue. No small governmental jurisdictions would be 
impacted by this proposed rule.
    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 proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on 
it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment, explain why you 
think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would 
economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for a revision to an approved 
collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of 
information'' comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, 
labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the 
information collections, a description of those who must collect the 
information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The 
estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection.
    Title: Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, 
Engineering and Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials & 
Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR 159).
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0035.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard currently 
collects information from lifesaving equipment manufacturers under 46 
CFR subchapter Q. The current information collection request (ICR), 
201811-1625-005 (OMB Control Number 1625-0035), accounts for the 
following collections of information: New Approval Applications, 
Renewal Approval Applications, Manufacturer Recordkeeping, Servicing 
Facility Recordkeeping, Servicing Facility Problem Reports, Instruction 
Materials, Markings, Production Tests and Laboratory Inspections, and 
Independent Laboratory Applications and Recognized Laboratory 
Applications.
    Need for Information: The Coast Guard needs this information to 
ensure that the manufactured safety equipment meets minimum levels of 
performance safety and helps prevent death, injuries, and property 
damage associated with commercial maritime operations.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard uses the technical 
plans, drawings, specifications, instruction materials, and markings to 
determine compliance with the technical regulatory requirements for 
each piece of equipment. Independent laboratory reports ensure that 
product and material testing complies with the applicable Coast Guard 
regulations. Production testing reports ensure that the production 
stock of the equipment is identical to the stock that was originally 
tested and approved by the Coast Guard. Independent and recognized 
laboratory applications ensure that the laboratories have the technical 
capabilities to conduct the required testing and are independent for 
the organizations whose products they will test.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are manufacturers 
of the safety equipment subject to Coast Guard approval, independent 
and recognized laboratories that conduct testing of the equipment, and 
liferaft servicing facilities.
    Number of Respondents: The Coast Guard estimates there to be 856 
respondents, comprised of 480 equipment manufacturers, 233 liferaft 
servicing facilities, 139 accepted independent laboratories, and 4 
recognized independent laboratories. The proposed rule would impact 16 
of these respondents. We do not expect it to reduce the total number of 
respondents because equipment manufacturers may still manufacture other 
Coast Guard-approved lifesaving equipment that is not subject to the 
proposed rule.
    Frequency of Response: The number of responses per year will vary 
by requirement. New application materials,

[[Page 62911]]

instructions, and markings are required with the initial COA 
application, and renewal application materials, instructions, and 
markings are required 5 years after the initial application. Production 
test records and laboratory inspection records are required to be kept 
annually. The Coast Guard estimates the proposed rule would reduce the 
number of responses for the following collections of information, 
presented in table 40, along with the current estimated time to 
complete each collection.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.062

    In table 41, we estimate the reduction in the number of annual 
responses based on application type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.088


[[Page 62912]]


    Burden of Response: The proposed rule would not modify the burden 
of response for any other existing collections of information.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The current ICR estimates the 
total annual burden to be 114,586 hours. As a result of the proposed 
rule, we estimate the annual burden would be 86,430 hours, for an 
annual reduction of 28,156 hours. We adjusted the burden to account for 
errors in Appendix A of the current ICR, which added 253 hours to the 
estimated annual burden. Together, these changes account for a total 
annual reduction in burden of 27,903 hours. These changes are 
summarized in table 42.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.063

    As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this 
proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information 
to help us determine, among other things--
     How useful the information is;
     Whether the information can help us perform our functions 
better;
     How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of 
the information;
     Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
     How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
     How valid our methods are for determining the burden of 
collection; and
     How we can minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit 
them by the date listed in the DATES section of this preamble to both 
the OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast 
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this 
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to 
collect this information.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental 
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in 
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
reserved by Congress for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well 
settled that all of the categories regulated under 46 U.S.C. 2103, 
3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4502, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, 
alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel 
qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as any other category 
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a 
vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation 
by the States. See the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. 
Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (2000). This 
proposed rule involves the design, maintenance, and equipping of 
vessels, specifically, certain survival craft equipment that is 
required to be carried in survival craft and rescue boats on certain, 
specified U.S.-flagged vessels. Therefore, because the States may not 
regulate within these categories, this rule is consistent with the 
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described 
in Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories 
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a 
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that 
State and local governments may have in making regulatory 
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications 
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs 
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the 
rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have 
implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or 
email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would 
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

[[Page 62913]]

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a 
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides 
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test 
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule uses technical standards developed by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies to meet the stringent equipment requirements 
for survival craft and rescue boats onboard U.S.-flagged vessels. These 
standards provide internationally accepted and recognized parameters 
which the equipment must meet in order to ensure its safety, proper 
usage, and preservation on the seas. The standards being incorporated 
were developed by either the American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) or the ISO, which are voluntary consensus standard-setting 
organizations. The sections that reference these standards and the 
locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR 
parts 160 and 199.
    Two ASTM standards would be updated and incorporated by reference 
in this rulemaking: (1) ASTM F 1003-02 ``Standard Specification for 
Searchlights on Motor Lifeboats'' (2007); and (2) ASTM F 1014-02 
``Standard Specification for Flashlights on Vessels'' (2002). These 
ASTM standards specify requirements for construction, including 
materials, dimensions, performance and/or capability. The newer 
versions are not materially different from the previous versions. We do 
not propose to update the third ASTM standard already incorporated in 
Sec.  199.05, ASTM 93-97, ``Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by 
Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.''
    The following three ISO standards listed here would be incorporated 
by reference in this rulemaking:
    1. ISO 18813, Ships and marine technology--Survival equipment for 
survival craft and rescue boats.
    This standard specifies design, performance, and use of various 
items of survival equipment carried in survival craft and rescue boats 
complying with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at 
Sea (SOLAS), 1974 (as amended), and the International Maritime 
Organization Life-Saving Appliance Code (LSA Code). It also includes 
guidelines for maintenance and periodic inspections for many items.
    2. ISO 25862, Ships and marine technology--Marine magnetic 
compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices.
    This standard gives requirements regarding construction and 
performance of marine magnetic compasses for navigation and steering 
purposes, binnacles and azimuth reading devices.
    3. ISO 17339, Ships and marine technology--Life saving and fire 
protection--Sea anchors for survival craft and rescue boats.
    This standard specifies requirements for the design, performance 
and prototype testing of sea anchors for survival craft (liferafts and 
lifeboats) and rescue boats in accordance with the LSA Code.
    With this rulemaking, we also propose to update our incorporation 
by reference of Resolution MSC.4(48) International Code for the 
Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in 
Bulk (IBC Code), 1994, and the International Code for the Construction 
and Equipment of Ships carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, (IGC Code), 
1993, to reflect the updated editions. No changes to the specific 
referenced material have been made between those older editions and the 
2016 editions. The IBC Code provides an international standard for the 
safe transport by sea of dangerous and noxious liquid chemicals in 
bulk. The purpose of the IGC Code is to provide an international 
standard for the safe transport by sea in bulk of liquefied gases and 
certain other substances.
    Consistent with 1 CFR part 51 incorporation by reference 
provisions, this material is reasonably available. Interested persons 
have access to it through their normal course of business, may purchase 
it from the organization identified in 46 CFR 160.046-3, 169.115 or 
199.05 or online (via the internet), or may view a copy by means we 
have identified in those sections. Members and representatives of the 
regulated industries are also participants in the standards development 
organizations.
    If you disagree with our analysis of these standards or are aware 
of standards that might apply but are not listed, please send a comment 
explaining your disagreement or identifying additional standards to the 
docket using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland 
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing 
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made 
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of 
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental 
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. 
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of 
this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under 
paragraphs L52, L57, and L58 of Table 1 in Appendix A of DHS Directive 
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. CATEX L52 pertains to regulations concerning 
vessel and operation safety standards. Paragraph L57 pertains to 
regulations concerning manning, documentation, admeasurements, 
inspection, and equipping of vessels. Paragraph L58

[[Page 62914]]

pertains to regulations concerning equipment approval and carriage 
requirements.
    This proposed rule is intended to remove the Coast Guard type 
approval requirement for some survival craft equipment, and replace it 
with the requirement that the manufacturer self-certify that their 
equipment complies with a consensus standard. We seek any comments or 
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 121

    Communications equipment, Marine safety, Navigation (water), 
Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Part 160

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

46 CFR Part 169

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

46 CFR Part 184

    Communications equipment, Marine safety, Navigation (water), 
Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 199

    Cargo vessels, Incorporation by reference, Lifesaving systems for 
certain inspected vessels, Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration, 
Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is 
proposing to amend 46 CFR parts 121, 160, 169, 184, and 199 as follows:

PART 121--VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  121.710 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.710  First-aid kits.

    A vessel must carry either a first-aid kit that meets the 
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with equivalent contents 
and instructions. For equivalent kits, the contents must be stowed in a 
suitable, watertight container that is marked ``First-Aid Kit''. A 
first-aid kit must be easily visible and readily available to the crew.

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4302, and 
4502 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, 
para. II, (92)(b).

0
4. Revise Sec.  160.010-3(a)(12)(ii) and (e)(7)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  160.010-3   Inflatable buoyant apparatus.

    (a) * * *
    (12) * * *
    (ii) Knives. One knife, of a type designed to minimize the chance 
of damage to the inflatable buoyant apparatus and secured with a 
lanyard ready for use near the painter attachment. Any knife may be 
replaced with a jackknife meeting the requirements in 46 CFR 
199.175(b)(16). In addition, an inflatable buoyant apparatus which is 
permitted to accommodate 13 persons or more must be provided with a 
second knife that is of the non-folding type;
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) First-aid kit. A first-aid kit as described in 46 CFR 
199.175(b)(10);
* * * * *

Subpart 160.013--[Removed and Reserved]

0
5. Remove and reserve subpart 160.013.

Subpart 160.026--[Removed and Reserved]

0
6. Remove and reserve subpart 160.026.

Subpart 160.041--[Removed and Reserved]

0
7. Remove and reserve subpart 160.041.

Subpart 160.043--[Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Remove and reserve subpart 160.043.

Subpart 160.044--[Removed and Reserved]

0
9. Remove and reserve subpart 160.044.
0
10. Add subpart 160.046 to read as follows:

Subpart 160.046--Emergency Provisions

Sec.
160.046-1 Scope.
160.046-3 Incorporation by reference.
160.046-5 General requirements for emergency provisions.
160.046-7 Independent laboratory.
160.046-9 Manufacturer certification and labeling.
160.046-11 Manufacturer notification.


Sec.  160.046 -1  Scope.

    Emergency provisions approved to be carried in lifeboats and 
liferafts.


Sec.  160.046-3  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for 
inspection at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-
4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20593-7501, telephone 202-372-1426, email 
[email protected]. It is also available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected], 
or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. All 
approved material is available from the sources listed in this section.
    (b) International Standard Organization (ISO), BIBC II, Chemin de 
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, http://www.iso.org, telephone +41 22 749 01 11, email [email protected].
    (1) ISO 18813:2006 Ships and marine technology--Survival equipment 
for survival craft and rescue boats, 2006, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
160.046-5, 160.046-7, and 160.046-11.
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  160.046-5  General requirements for emergency provisions.

    Emergency provisions must meet the requirements found in ISO 
18813:2006 paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
160.046-3).


Sec.  160.046-7   Independent laboratory.

    Unless the Commandant directs otherwise, an independent laboratory 
accepted by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 159.010 must perform or 
witness, as appropriate, inspections, tests, and oversight required by 
ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
160.046-3). Approval and production tests of emergency provisions must 
be carried out in accordance with the procedures for

[[Page 62915]]

independent laboratory inspections in 46 CFR 159.007 and in this 
section unless the Commandant authorizes alternative tests and 
inspections. The Commandant may prescribe additional production tests 
and inspections necessary to maintain quality control and to monitor 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart.


Sec.  160.046-9  Manufacturer certification and labeling.

    (a) Each emergency provision must be certified by the manufacturer 
as complying with the requirements of this subpart.
    (b) The container should be clearly and permanently marked with:
    (1) The name and address of the approval holder;
    (2) The U.S. Coast Guard Approval number;
    (3) The total food energy value of provisions in the container in 
Calories and kiloJoules;
    (4) The lot number;
    (5) The month and year the provision was packed; and
    (6) The month and year of expiration (5 years after the date of 
packing).
    (c) The emergency provision must include waterproof instructions 
for use, assuming consumption of 3350 kiloJoules per person per day.


Sec.  160.046-11  Manufacturer notification.

    Each manufacturer of emergency provisions approved in accordance 
with the specifications of this subpart must send a test report 
required by ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.31.2 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  160.046-3) to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), U.S. Coast Guard 
Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-
7509 or email [email protected]:
    (a) With the application for approval;
    (b) Every year as long as the manufacturer continues to produce 
provisions; and
    (c) Each time the contents of the emergency provisions change.
0
11. Revise Sec.  160.051-11(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  160.051-11   Equipment required for Coastal Service inflatable 
liferafts.

* * * * *
    (b) Knife. One knife, of a type designed to minimize the chance of 
damage to the inflatable liferaft and secured with a lanyard. In 
addition, an inflatable liferaft which is permitted to accommodate 13 
persons or more must be provided with a second knife that is of the 
non-folding type. Any knife may be replaced with a jackknife meeting 
the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(16).
* * * * *

Subpart 160.054--[Removed and Reserved]

0
12. Remove and reserve subpart 160.054.

Subpart 160.061--[Removed and Reserved]

0
13. Remove and reserve subpart 160.061.
0
14. Revise Sec.  160.135-7(b)(23) to read as follows:


Sec.  160.135-7  Design, construction, and performance of lifeboats.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (23) Bilge pump. Each lifeboat that is not automatically self-
bailing must be fitted with a manual bilge pump that meets the 
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(2). Each such lifeboat with a 
capacity of 100 persons or more must carry an additional manual bilge 
pump or an engine-powered bilge pump.
* * * * *
0
15. Revise Sec.  160.151-21(b), (h), (o), and (q) through (s) to read 
as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Jackknife (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87), 
Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.2). Each folding knife must be a jackknife meeting 
the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(16).
* * * * *
    (h) First-aid kit (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution 
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.8). Each first-aid kit must meet the 
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10).
* * * * *
    (o) Signalling mirror (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution 
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.15). Each signalling mirror must meet 
the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(19).
* * * * *
    (q) Fishing tackle (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution 
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.17). The fishing tackle must meet the 
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(11).
    (r) Food rations (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution 
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.18). The food rations must meet the 
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(22).
    (s) Drinking water (IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution 
MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.1.5.1.19). Emergency drinking water must meet 
the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(40). The desalting apparatus or 
reverse osmosis desalinator must be approved by the Commandant under 
subpart 160.058 of this part.
* * * * *
0
16. Revise Sec.  160.156-7(b)(22) to read as follows:


Sec.  160.156-7  Design, construction and performance of rescue boats 
and fast rescue boats.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (22) Manual bilge pump. Each rescue boat that is not automatically 
self-bailing must be fitted with a manual bilge pump that meets the 
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(2), or an engine-powered bilge pump.
* * * * *

PART 169--SAILING SCHOOL VESSELS

0
17. The authority citation for part 169 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
18. Revise Sec.  169.527 to read as follows:


Sec.  169.527   Required equipment for lifeboats.

    (a) All lifeboats must be equipped in accordance with Table 1 to 
Sec.  199.175 of this chapter except as provided in paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section.
    (b) The following equipment must be carried in addition to the 
equipment required under Sec.  199.175 of this chapter:
    (1) Cover;
    (2) Ditty bag; and
    (3) Mast and sail.
    (c) If operating on protected waters, lifeboat equipment need only 
to consist of the following:
    (1) Boathook--(1);
    (2) Bucket--(1);
    (3) Fire extinguisher--(2) U.S Coast Guard approved Type B-C (motor 
propelled lifeboats only);
    (4) Hatch--(1);
    (5) Lifeline--(1);
    (6) Oar unit--(1);
    (7) Painter--(1);
    (8) Plug--(1);
    (9) Oarlock unit--(1); and
    (10) Toolkit (motor propelled lifeboats only).
0
19. Revise Sec.  169.529 to read as follows:


Sec.  169.529   Description of lifeboat equipment.

    (a) All lifeboat equipment must meet the requirements under Sec.  
199.175 of this chapter, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section.

[[Page 62916]]

    (b) The following equipment, carried in addition to the equipment 
required under Sec.  199.175 of this chapter, must meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) Cover, protecting. The cover must be of highly visible color 
and capable of protecting the occupants against exposure. A cover is 
not required for fully enclosed lifeboats.
    (2) Ditty bag. The ditty bag must consist of a canvas bag or 
equivalent and must contain a sailmaker's palm, needles, sail twine, 
marline, and marlin spike, except that motor-propelled lifeboats need 
not carry a ditty bag.
    (3) Mast and sail. A unit, consisting of a standing lug sail 
together with the necessary spars and rigging, must be provided in 
accordance with Table 1 to this section, except that motor-propelled 
lifeboats need not carry a mast or sails. The sails must be of good 
quality canvas, or other material acceptable to the Commandant, colored 
Indian Orange (Cable No. 70072, Standard Color Card of America). 
Rigging must consist of galvanized wire rope not less than three-
sixteenths inch in diameter. The mast and sail must be protected by a 
suitable cover.

[[Page 62917]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.064


[[Page 62918]]



PART 184--VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

0
20. The authority citation for part 184 continues to read as follows:

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

0
21. Revise Sec.  184.710 to read as follows:


Sec.  184.710  First-aid kits.

    A vessel must carry either a first-aid kit that meets the 
requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with equivalent contents 
and instructions. For equivalent kits, the contents must be stowed in a 
suitable, watertight container that is marked ``First-Aid Kit''. A 
first-aid kit must be easily visible and readily available to the crew.

PART 199--LIFESAVING SYSTEMS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTED VESSELS

0
22. The authority citation for part 199 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703; and Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b).

0
23. Revise Sec.  199.05 to read as follows:


Sec.  199.05   Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference in this part with 
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for 
inspection at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-
4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20593-7501, telephone 202-372-1426 or email 
[email protected]. It is also available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected], 
or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. All 
approved material is available from the sources indicated in paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (b) The material approved for incorporation by reference (IBR) in 
this part and the sections affected are as follows:
    (1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500, http://www.astm.org, telephone +1 610 832 9500, email [email protected].
    (i) ASTM D 93-97, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-
Martens Closed Cup Tester, 1997, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  199.261 
and 199.290.
    (ii) ASTM F 1003-02, Standard Specification for Searchlights on 
Motor Lifeboats, 2007, IBR approved for Sec.  199.175.
    (iii) ASTM F 1014-02, Standard Specification for Flashlights on 
Vessels, 2002, IBR approved for Sec.  199.175.
    (2) International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications 
Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, http://www.imo.org, telephone +44 (0)20 7735 7611, email [email protected].
    (i) MSC Circular 699, Revised Guidelines for Passenger Safety 
Instructions, 17 July 1995, IBR approved for Sec.  199.217.
    (ii) Resolution A.520(13), Code of Practice for the Evaluation, 
Testing and Acceptance of Prototype Novel Life-saving Appliances and 
Arrangements, 17 November 1983, IBR approved for Sec.  199.40.
    (iii) Resolution A.657(16), Instructions for Action in Survival 
Craft, 19 November 1989, IBR approved for Sec.  199.175.
    (iv) Resolution A.658(16), Use and Fitting of Retro-reflective 
Materials on Life-saving Appliances, 20 November 1989, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  199.70 and 199.176.
    (v) Resolution A.760(18), Symbols Related to Life-saving Appliances 
and Arrangements, 17 November 1993, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  199.70 
and 199.90.
    (vi) International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships 
carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code), 2016, Chapter 17, IBR 
approved for Sec.  199.30 and Chapter 2 approved for Sec.  199.280.
    (vii) International Code for the Construction and Equipment of 
Ships carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, (IGC Code), 2016, Chapter 19, 
IBR approved for Sec.  199.30, and Chapter 2, IBR approved for Sec.  
199.280.
    (3) International Standard Organization (ISO), BIBC II, Chemin de 
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, http://www.iso.org/, telephone +41 22 749 01 11, email [email protected].
    (i) ISO 18813:2006 Ships and marine technology--Survival equipment 
for survival craft and rescue boats, 2006, IBR approved for Sec.  
199.175.
    (ii) ISO 25862:2009 Ships and marine technology--Marine magnetic 
compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices, 2009, IBR approved 
for Sec.  199.175.
    (iii) ISO 17339:2018 Ships and marine technology--Life saving and 
fire protection-- Sea anchors for survival craft and rescue boats, 
2018, IBR approved for Sec.  199.175.
0
24. Amend Sec.  199.175 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(4);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(5) as paragraph (a)(6);
0
c. Add a new paragraph (a)(5);
0
d. Revise paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(2), (5), (6), (9), 
(10), (11), (13), and (16) and (b)(17)(i) and (ii);
0
e. Adding paragraph (b)(17)(iii);
0
f. Revise paragraphs (b)(19), (b)(27)(i), and (b)(40);
0
g. Add paragraph (c); and
0
h. Revise the heading for the table to Sec.  199.175 and entries 5 and 
17 of the table and add note 11 to the table.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  199.175   Survival craft and rescue boat equipment.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Must be packed in a suitable and compact form;
    (5) Must be marked with either the Coast Guard approval number or 
the standard that the product meets, as applicable; and
* * * * *
    (b) Each lifeboat, rigid liferaft, and rescue boat, unless 
otherwise stated in this paragraph (b), must carry the equipment listed 
in this paragraph (b) and specified for it in Table 1 to this section 
under the vessel's category of service. A lifeboat that is also a 
rescue boat must carry the equipment in the table column marked for a 
lifeboat.
* * * * *
    (2) Bilge pump. The bilge pump must meet the requirements in ISO 
18813:2006 paragraph 4.3 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  199.05) 
and must be installed in a ready-to-use condition.
* * * * *
    (5) Can opener. A can opener must meet the requirements in ISO 
18813:2006 paragraph 4.43 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
199.05). A can opener may be in a jackknife meeting the requirements in 
paragraph (b)(16) of this section.
    (6) Compass. The compass and its mounting arrangement must meet the 
requirements in ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.6 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  199.05).
    (i) In a totally enclosed lifeboat, the compass must be permanently 
fitted at the steering position; in any other boat it must be provided 
with a binnacle, if necessary, to protect it from the weather, and with 
suitable mounting arrangements.
    (ii) The compass must be tested in accordance with the provisions 
in ISO 25862:2009 Annex H (incorporated by

[[Page 62919]]

reference, see Sec.  199.05) by an independent laboratory accepted by 
the Coast Guard in accordance with part 159, subpart 159.010, of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    (9) Fire extinguisher. The fire extinguisher must be approved under 
part 162, subpart 162.028, of this chapter. The fire extinguisher must 
have a rating of a 40-B:C. Two 10-B:C extinguishers may be carried in 
place of a 40-B:C extinguisher. Extinguishers with larger numerical 
ratings or multiple letter designations may be used instead of the 
requirements in the preceding sentences.
    (10) First-aid kit. Each first-aid kit must meet the requirements 
in ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.12 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
199.05).
    (i) A first-aid kit may be considered acceptable if it meets all of 
the requirements of ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.12, except that it does 
not contain the burn preparation. It must be clearly marked on the 
first-aid kit that it does not include the burn preparations.
    (ii) Medicinal products must be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration.
    (11) Fishing kit. The fishing kit must meet the requirements in ISO 
18813:2006 paragraph 4.13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
199.05).
* * * * *
    (13) Hatchet. The hatchet must be suitable for cutting a rope 
towline or painter in an emergency and must not require assembly or 
unfolding.
    (i) The hatchet must be at least 14 inches in length and have a 
cutting edge of approximately 3-\1/4\ inches in length, with a hardened 
steel or equivalent alloy head.
    (ii) The hatchet must be provided a lanyard at least 3 feet in 
length.
    (iii) The hatchet must be stowed in brackets near the release 
mechanism and, if more than one hatchet is carried, the hatchets must 
be stowed at opposite ends of the boat.
* * * * *
    (16) Jackknife. The jackknife must consist of a one-bladed knife 
fitted with a can opener and attached to the boat by its lanyard. The 
jackknife must meet the requirements in ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.19 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  199.05).
    (17) * * *
    (i) The knife for a rigid liferaft must be secured to the raft by a 
lanyard and stowed in a pocket on the exterior of the canopy near the 
point where the painter is attached to the liferaft. If an approved 
jackknife is substituted for the second knife required on a liferaft 
equipped for 13 or more persons, the jackknife must also be secured to 
the liferaft by a lanyard.
    (ii) The knife in an inflatable or rigid-inflatable rescue boat 
must be of a type designed to minimize the possibility of damage to the 
fabric portions of the hull.
    (iii) Any knife may be replaced with a jackknife meeting the 
requirements in paragraph (b)(16) of this section.
* * * * *
    (19) Mirror. The signalling mirror must meet the requirements in 
ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.23 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
199.05).
* * * * *
    (27) * * *
    (i) The sea anchor for a lifeboat, rescue boat, and rigid liferaft 
must meet the requirements in ISO 17339:2018 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  199.05).
* * * * *
    (40) Water. The water must meet the requirements in ISO 18813:2006 
paragraph 4.46 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  199.05).
    (i) The water must meet the U.S. Public Health Service ``Drinking 
Water Standards'' in 40 CFR part 141 to suitably protect the container 
against corrosion. After treatment and packing, the water must be free 
from organic matter, sediment and odor. It must have a pH between 7.0 
and 9.0 as determined by means of a standard pH meter using glass 
electrodes. Water quality must be verified by the local municipality or 
independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard in accordance with 
part 159, subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
    (ii) Containers of emergency drinking water must be tested in 
accordance with the provisions in ISO 18813:2006 by an independent 
laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard in accordance with part 159, 
subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
    (iii) Up to one-third of the emergency drinking water may be 
replaced by a desalting apparatus approved under part 160, subpart 
160.058, of this chapter that is capable of producing the substituted 
amount of water in 2 days.
    (iv) Up to two-thirds of the emergency drinking water may be 
replaced by a manually powered, reverse osmosis desalinator approved 
under part 160, subpart 160.058, of this chapter that is capable of 
producing the substituted amount of water in 2 days.
* * * * *
    (c) Any Coast Guard approved equipment on board before [EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE] may remain on board as long as it remains in good 
and serviceable condition.

[[Page 62920]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.065


    Dated: September 18, 2020.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-21032 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P