[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70390-70400]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 160 and 164

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0048]
RIN 1625-AB46

Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the interim rule addressing
lifesaving equipment to harmonize Coast Guard regulations concerning
release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats with recently adopted
international standards affecting design, performance, and testing for
such lifesaving equipment, and to clarify the requirements concerning
grooved drums in launching appliance winches. The Coast Guard seeks
comments on this proposal.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before January 25,
2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0048 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
    Viewing incorporation by reference material: You may inspect the
material proposed for incorporation by reference at U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 between
9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies of the material are available
as indicated in the ``Incorporation by Reference'' section of this
preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. George Grills, Commercial Regulations and
Standards Directorate, Office of Design and Engineering Standards,
Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone
202-372-1385, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Regulatory History
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 Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))
N. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0048), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of

these means. The Coast Guard recommends that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that the Coast Guard can contact you if it has
questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG- 2010-0048'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search.''
Click on ``Submit a Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\; by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
    The Coast Guard will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on
your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2010-0048'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search.''
Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Coast Guard has an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

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

D. Public Meeting

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

II. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
LSA Life-saving Appliance
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement database
MSC Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime
Organization
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended
Sec.  Section symbol
    USCG United States Coast Guard

III. Regulatory History

    On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim rule
titled, ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization
With International Standards'' (interim rule) in the Federal Register.
See 76 FR 62962. As part of that interim rule, which became effective
on November 10, 2011, the Coast Guard issued new subparts of 46 CFR
part 160, including subpart 160.115 addressing launching appliance
winches, and subpart 160.133 addressing release mechanisms for
lifeboats and rescue boats, which are approved to the requirements of
the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended (SOLAS).
    The Coast Guard issued an interim rule because in May 2011, the
International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee
(MSC) amended its international standards regarding release mechanisms.
See 76 FR 62962.
    Additionally in the interim rule, the Coast Guard announced plans
to publish in a future Federal Register document proposed changes to
Coast Guard regulations to implement the IMO amendments regarding
performance requirements for lifeboat and rescue boat release
mechanisms that the Coast Guard determines appropriate for purposes of
harmonization and consistency with international standards, and to
finalize the interim rule at the same time the Coast Guard issues any
final rule for those proposed changes. 76 FR 62962.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) to address amendments to international standards
affecting the design and performance of release mechanisms that were
adopted by the IMO, and that will enter into force on January 1, 2013.
The IMO amendments to the international standards affect 46 CFR part
160, subpart 160.133. The interim rule removed longstanding separate
subparts for release mechanisms (46 CFR 160.033) and lifeboats (46 CFR
160.035) approved strictly for domestic service. 76 FR 62975.
Therefore, this SNPRM potentially affects any U.S.-flagged vessel
required to carry a lifeboat after the finalization of this proposed
rule.

IV. Background

    As discussed in the ``Basis and Purpose'' section of the interim
rule, the Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that lifesaving
equipment used on vessels subject to inspection by the United States
meets specific design, construction, and performance standards,
including those found in SOLAS, Chapter III, ``Life-saving appliances
and arrangements.'' See 46 U.S.C. 3306; 76 FR 62963. The Coast Guard
carries out this charge through the approval of lifesaving equipment
per 46 CFR part 2, subpart 2.75. The approval process includes pre-
approving lifesaving equipment designs, overseeing prototype
construction, witnessing prototype testing, and monitoring production
of the equipment for use on U.S. vessels. See 46 CFR part 159. At each
phase of the approval process, the Coast Guard sets specific standards
to which lifesaving equipment must be built and tested.
    The Coast Guard's specific standards for release mechanisms are
found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133 (Release Mechanisms for
Lifeboats and Rescue Boats (SOLAS)). Subpart 160.133 implements current
SOLAS requirements for lifeboat release mechanisms by incorporating by
reference the IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS. The
primary IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS are the
``International Life-saving Appliance Code,'' IMO Resolution
MSC.48(66), as amended (hereinafter ``IMO LSA Code''), and the
``Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances,'' IMO
Resolution MSC.81(70), as amended (hereinafter ``Revised recommendation
on testing''). The IMO updates these standards by adopting MSC
Resolutions promulgating amendments to these standards.
    Subpart 160.133 incorporates by reference the latest published
version of the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing.
Sections 160.133-5(c)(2) and (c)(3) incorporate by reference the parts
of IMO's publication ``Life-saving Appliances, 2010 Edition'' that
include the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation

on testing. The ``Life-saving Appliances, 2010 Edition'' includes all
amendments to the IMO LSA Code and Revised recommendation on testing
adopted through 2010. These amendments are discussed in the NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2010, titled
``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization with
International Standards.'' See 75 FR 53458.
    On May 20, 2011, IMO adopted two new MSC Resolutions further
amending the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing:
IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), ``Adoption of amendments to the
International Life-saving Appliance (LSA) Code,'' and IMO Resolution
MSC.321(89), ``Adoption of amendments to the Revised Recommendation on
Testing of Life-saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)), as
amended.''
    Resolution MSC.320(89) amends the IMO LSA Code and enters into
force on January 1, 2013. This Resolution amends the design and
performance requirements for release mechanisms by requiring--
     The hook portion to be ``stable'' such that when the hook
is in the closed and reset position and under load from the lifeboat,
no forces are transmitted back to the release handle;
     specific components within the system to be made of
corrosion-resistant materials without the need for galvanizing;
     that, for moveable hook designs that are not of the ``load
over center'' type (i.e., that are designed to rotate when a load is
applied to the hook face), the moveable hook component is kept fully
closed by the hook locking parts so that it is capable of holding its
safe working load under any operational conditions until the hook
locking part is deliberately caused to open by means of the operating
mechanism;
     that if a hydrostatic interlock or similar device is
provided to indicate that the lifeboat or rescue boat is waterborne, it
automatically resets upon lifting the boat from the water;
     multiple actions to perform on-load release, including the
deliberate destruction of a ``break glass'' or similar arrangement;
     operational capability of up to 100 percent of the release
hook's design load under conditions of trim of up to 10 degrees and a
list of up to 20 degrees either way;
     release mechanisms of the hook tail and cam type to remain
closed and hold their design load through rotation of the cam of up to
45 degrees in either direction, or 45 degrees in one direction if
restricted by design, from its locked position; and
     operating links and cables to be waterproof and not have
exposed or unprotected areas.
    Resolution MSC.321(89) amends the Revised recommendation on testing
and enters into force on January 1, 2013. This Resolution specifies
revisions to the prototype testing of release mechanisms supporting the
amendments to the IMO LSA Code. The revisions to the testing include:
     a demonstration that the moveable hook component, when
disconnected from the operating mechanism, remains closed while under a
load equivalent to the B-weight of a lifeboat (see ``Full load''
definition in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.135-3) at a speed of 5
knots.
     a demonstration that a lifeboat release mechanism loaded
at 100 percent of the design load of the release hook will successfully
release under load 50 consecutive times, as well as simultaneously in
the case of twin-fall systems;
     a demonstration that the moveable hook component, when
disconnected from the operating mechanism, remains closed when tested
10 times with a cyclical loading from no load to 110 percent of the
design load, or 1 percent to 110 percent of design load for load over
center designs, at 10 seconds per cycle;
     a demonstration that the actuating force under the design
load of the release mechanism is between 100 N and 300 N (22.5 lbf and
67.5 lbf); and
     prototype testing of a second unit, repeating the
actuation force test before undergoing a tensile test at six times the
design safe working load.
    The Coast Guard proposes to revise subpart 160.133 to incorporate
by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89). Beyond the
obligations to adopt the changes to the IMO LSA Code and Revised
recommendation on testing as a signatory to the SOLAS convention, the
Coast Guard desires to incorporate by reference the amendments in IMO
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) because they provide a higher
standard of safety and performance than that of the existing
requirements incorporated by reference in Sec.  160.133-5. Further, for
manufacturers, harmonization with current international standards will
facilitate marketing of their products internationally.
    The United States actively participated in the negotiations that
led to the development of these IMO standards. The Coast Guard
considers these IMO standards to represent the best available standards
for the design and performance of release mechanisms and to be
appropriate for lifeboats and rescue boats subject to inspection by the
United States. In order to facilitate international commerce with other
contracting governments to SOLAS that follow IMO standards, and to
achieve the benefits of the increased safety of adhering to these IMO
standards, the Coast Guard has, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 46 CFR
159.005-7(c), deemed compliance by U.S.-flagged ships with the IMO
standards as compliance with Coast Guard domestic regulations.
    The effect of this proposed change would be that all davit-launched
lifeboats for Coast Guard approval under subpart 160.135, and SOLAS
rescue boats and fast rescue boats for Coast Guard approval under
subpart 160.156 (other than those fitted with automatic release hooks
under approval series 160.170), would be required to have a release
mechanism approved under this revised subpart 160.133. See Sec.
160.135-7(b)(17) (``Each release mechanism must be identified at the
application for approval of the prototype lifeboat and must be approved
under 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133'') and 160.156-7(b)(18) (``Each
release mechanism fitted to a rescue boat, including a fast rescue
boat, must be identified at the application for approval of the
prototype rescue boat and must be approved under subparts 160.133 or
160.170 of this part.''). Davit-launched lifeboats and SOLAS rescue
boats and fast rescue boats already installed prior to the
implementation of this SNPRM will not be affected.
    Beyond the new IMO Resolutions discussed above, the Coast Guard is
also proposing amendments to Sec.  160.115 to clarify the winch drum
design requirements, and editorial amendments to correct non-
substantive errors in 46 CFR part 160, subparts 160.133, 160.135, and
160.156.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

Revision to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart 160.115

    The Coast Guard proposes to replace 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with
text that requires winch drums to either be grooved or otherwise
designed to wind the falls evenly on and off each drum. The Coast Guard
is proposing to make this change because winch drum designs are
increasingly being shown to be effective at winding the falls on and
off the drum without grooves, (i.e., winch drums with a smooth drum
design instead of the traditional grooved drum design). The proposed
change in Sec.  160.115-7(b)(5)(i) does not modify the

standard of design or performance for winch drums. Rather, the proposed
change is intended to clarify the current regulation text which
requires drums to be grooved ``unless otherwise approved by the
Commandant.'' The primary standard by which the Coast Guard evaluates
the design and performance of launching appliances, IMO LSA Code
Chapter VI, ``Launching and embarkation appliances'' (referenced in
Sec.  160.115-7(a)(1)), does not require drums to be grooved, but
requires the falls to wind evenly on and off the drum(s).
    For many years, the Coast Guard has approved winches with smooth
drums under approval series 160.115 as providing equivalent performance
to grooved drums. However, there remains some confusion on the
interpretation of existing Sec.  160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with respect to the
approval of winches without grooved drums. The Coast Guard believes
this proposed change would reduce confusion about the Coast Guard's
criteria for acceptance of non-grooved drums in launching appliance
winches by providing manufacturers with clearer language regarding the
intended design performance.
    The Coast Guard proposes to add a new paragraph (4) to Sec.
160.115-13(d), which would support the proposed revision to 46 CFR
160.115-7(b)(5)(i) by ensuring that any non-grooved drum design is
still shown at the prototype testing phase to be as effective at evenly
winding the falls on and off the drum surface as a grooved drum.

Revisions to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart 160.133

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the title of subpart 160.133 by
removing ``(SOLAS).'' As stated in the interim rule published on
October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard removed the standard for domestic
release mechanisms under 46 CFR 160.033 and created one standard for
release mechanisms under 160.133. Therefore the use of ``SOLAS'' in the
title is unnecessary and may be misleading when installing release
mechanisms approved under subpart 160.133 in lifeboats serving U.S.
vessels only on domestic routes. Changing the title would make it
consistent with other subparts affected by the interim rule. The Coast
Guard also proposes changing the title of subpart 160.135, which will
be discussed in the section below titled, ``Revisions to 46 CFR part
160, subpart 160.135, and subpart 160.156.''
    The Coast Guard proposes to correct the misspelling of ``life-
saving'' in the title of the ``Revised recommendation on testing of
life-saving appliances'' in Sec.  160.133-5(c)(3) which was incorrectly
spelled as ``live-saving''.
    The Coast Guard proposes to revise Sec.  160.133-5(c) to
incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) in
new paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7), respectively. Because of the
incorporation by reference of these Resolutions in Sec.  160.133-5(c),
references to the IMO LSA Code in Sec. Sec.  160.133-3, 160.133-
7(a)(1), 160.133-7(b)(8), and 160.133-7(b)(9) would be revised with
``as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'' and references to the Revised
recommendation on testing in Sec. Sec.  160.133-7(a)(2) and 160.133-
13(d)(2) would be revised with ``as amended by IMO Resolution
MSC.321(89).'' Revising these incorporations by reference would affect
the provisions in Sec. Sec.  160.133-7 and 160.133-13, which refer to
the Revised recommendation on testing, as discussed in part IV above.
    Because IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) requires ``all components of the
hook unit, release handle unit, control cables or mechanical operating
links and the fixed structural connections in a lifeboat [to] be of
material corrosion resistant in the marine environment without the need
for coatings or galvanizing,'' the current ASTM standard for structural
carbon steel incorporated by reference in Sec.  160.133-5 is a
conflicting standard. This standard would no longer be appropriate
because these steels require coatings or galvanizing to be corrosion
resistant. Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to remove Sec.  160.133-
5(b)(1), incorporating by reference ASTM A 36/A 36M-08, ``Standard
Specification for Carbon Structural Steel,'' and to remove the
accompanying standard for galvanizing in Sec.  160.133-5(b)(5),
incorporating by reference ASTM A 653/A 653M-08, ``Standard
Specification for Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron
Alloy-Coated (Galvannealed) by the Hot-Dip Process.'' Because Sec.
160.133-5 already contains three standards for stainless steel that
meet the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant material requirement of
IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), the Coast Guard further proposes to retain
and renumber Sec.  160.133-5(b)(2), (3), and (4), incorporating by
reference the three ASTM stainless-steel standards. The Coast Guard
seeks public comment on other corrosion-resistant material standards
for possible incorporation by reference in Sec.  160.133-5(b).
    The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  160.133-7(b)(3) to remove
reference to ASTM A36 and ASTM A653, as these standards would no longer
apply as described above. As proposed, the references to the ASTM
standards would be replaced with language requiring each major
structural component of each release mechanism to be constructed of
corrosion-resistant steel that meets the standards for type 302
stainless steel in ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313, or ASTM A 314 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  160.133-5 of this subpart). The proposed
language would also permit other corrosion-resistant materials to be
used if accepted by the Commandant as having equivalent or superior
corrosion-resistant characteristics without the need for coatings or
galvanizing.
    The Coast Guard proposes to remove Sec.  160.133-7(b)(15), which
requires each release mechanism to have mechanical protection against
accidental or premature release that can only be engaged when the
release mechanism is properly and completely reset. The Coast Guard
recognized that the requirements in this paragraph were already
addressed in the existing IMO LSA Code (incorporated by reference in
Sec.  160.133-5(c)(2)), paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>.4, related to lifeboat
fittings, and are not affected by IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) that
amends the IMO LSA Code. Therefore, removing existing Sec.  160.133-
7(b)(15) would eliminate a redundancy with the incorporation by
reference of the IMO LSA Code.
    The Coast Guard proposes to remove Sec.  160.133-13(d)(2)(iii),
which contains a stipulation regarding galvanizing, because galvanizing
is no longer an acceptable form of metal treatment for corrosion
resistance under IMO Resolution MSC.320(89) and its removal is
consistent with the proposed removal of ASTM A 653 in Sec. Sec.
160.133-5 and 160.133-7 discussed above. The Coast Guard would re-
number paragraphs consistent with the removal of these items. The Coast
Guard proposes to remove the last two sentences in paragraph (e) of
Sec.  160.133-15, consistent with the proposed removal of ASTM A 653.
    The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  160.133-15(e) by removing
the last two sentences, which require each approved release mechanism
to be constructed with non-corrosion-resistant steel that meets the
coating mass and bend tests requirement specified under ASTM A 653
after galvanizing or other anti-corrosion treatment has been applied.
This amendment is consistent with the changes to Sec.  160.133-5, Sec.
160.133-7 and Sec.  160.133-13 discussed above as related to the use of
galvanized steel.

Revisions to 46 CFR Part 160, Subpart 160.135, and Subpart 160.156

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the title of Sec.  160.135 by
removing

``(SOLAS).'' As stated in the interim rule published on October 11,
2011, the Coast Guard removed the standard for lifeboats for merchant
vessels under 46 CFR 160.035 and created one standard for lifeboats
under 160.135. Therefore the use of ``SOLAS'' in the title is
unnecessary and may be misleading when installing lifeboats approved
under Sec.  160.135 on U.S. vessels only on domestic routes. Regardless
of domestic or international service, U.S. vessels must carry lifeboats
approved under approval series 160.135. See 46 CFR 199.201 and 199.261.
Changing the title to subpart 160.135 will make it consistent with the
title of other subparts affected by the interim rule. The Coast Guard
does not propose to remove ``SOLAS'' from the title of 46 CFR 160.156
for rescue boats and fast rescue boats because the Coast Guard retained
the domestic, locally approved rescue boat standard in 46 CFR 160.056.
    The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  160.135-15(e)(2) and Sec.
160.156-15(e)(2) to include the reference to the Revised recommendation
on testing part 2, paragraph 5.3 and to remove the redundant statement,
``At a minimum, each [lifeboat/rescue boat] must be operated for 2
hours during which all [lifeboat/rescue boat] systems must be
exercised.'' Under existing Sec.  160.135-15(e)(2) and Sec.  160.156-
15(e)(2), the Coast Guard expected all of the production tests of IMO
Revised recommendation on testing part 2, paragraph 5.3, as applicable
to the type of boat, to be performed on all approved lifeboats and
rescue boats. By amending Sec.  160.135-15(e)(2) and Sec.  160.156-
15(e)(2), the Coast Guard will make this requirement clear. The
requirement to operate each production lifeboat and rescue boat for 2
hours is already included in the IMO Revised recommendation on testing
part 2 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  160.135-5 and Sec.  160.156-
5), paragraph 5.3, and thus the Coast Guard proposes removal of this
sentence from Sec.  160.135-15(e)(2) and Sec.  160.156-15(e)(2).
Because of the existing incorporation by reference of the Revised
recommendation on testing in Sec.  160.135-15 and Sec.  160.156-15,
these sections would be added as approved incorporations by reference
in Sec.  160.135-5(d)(4) and Sec.  160.156-5(d)(4), respectively.
    The Coast Guard also proposes to amend Sec.  160.135-15(d), which
sets forth independent laboratory responsibilities, by amending the
reference to paragraph (e)(2) so that it references all of paragraph
(e). This amendment would correct a typographical error; Sec.  160.135-
15(d) was intended to have the same language as 46 CFR part 160,
subpart 160.156-15(d), which correctly references paragraph (e) in its
entirety. Without this correction, it may be misinterpreted that the
independent laboratory does not have responsibility for witnessing the
lifeboat in-process tests and inspections outlined in Sec.  160.135-
15(e)(1).
    The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  160.135-15(e)(1)(iv) to
correct the typographical error referencing Sec.  160.135-
13(c)(2)(i)(B), which does not exist, and replace it with the correct
reference, which is Sec.  160.135-11(c)(2)(i)(B).
    Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to correct typographical
errors in Sec.  160.156-7(b)(13), Sec.  156-9(b)(22)(iv), and Sec.
156-9(d)(2) by replacing the word ``lifeboat'' with the correct term,
``rescue boat,'' because Sec.  160.156 applies to rescue boats only.
The Coast Guard also proposes to amend Sec.  160.156-15(e)(1) by
removing the phrase ``In accordance with the interval prescribed in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.'' Part of the Coast Guard's original
intent when drafting this rule was consistency of language throughout
the affected subparts where possible. This phrase does not appear in
any other subpart affected by the interim rule and inadvertently
remained in 160.156-15(e)(1) when the interim rule was published.
Removal of this phrase will also eliminate the typographical error in
Sec.  160.156-15(e)(1) by removing reference to Sec.  160.156-15(d)(1),
which does not exist.
    Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the cite to 49 CFR 1.46
in the authorities section of part 160 and part 164 because that
authority applies to the Department of Transportation, under which the
Coast Guard no longer operates. The Coast Guard currently operates
under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security.

Proposed Impacts to Certificates of Approval

    If these proposed changes to incorporate by reference IMO
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) are finalized, any manufacturer
of SOLAS release mechanisms who wants to continue to manufacture such
release mechanisms under a Certificate of Approval issued under
existing subpart 160.133 would have to provide the Coast Guard with an
application for pre-approval review in accordance with Sec.  160.133-23
(Procedure for approval of design, material, or construction change).
The application would have to indicate how the existing release
mechanism, or a new or revised design, meets the requirements of
proposed Sec.  160.133-7 incorporating by reference the amendments to
the IMO LSA Code from IMO Resolution MSC.320(89). If the information
submitted in accordance with Sec.  160.133-23, for changes to existing
designs, or Sec.  160.133-9, for new designs, is satisfactory to the
Commandant, the manufacturer would be permitted to proceed with
fabrication of the prototype release mechanism and the approval
inspections and tests required under proposed Sec.  160.133-13
incorporating by reference the amendments to the Revised recommendation
on testing from IMO Resolution MSC.321(89). The Coast Guard would
document compliance with Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) by
means of amended Certificates of Approval under subpart 160.133.
    Similarly, if these proposed changes are finalized, any
manufacturer of davit-launched lifeboats and those manufacturers of
SOLAS rescue boats or fast rescue boats with installed release
mechanisms approved under existing subpart 160.133 who want to continue
manufacturing such boats under a Certificate of Approval issued under
subpart 160.135 or 160.156, respectively, would have to provide the
Coast Guard with an application for pre-approval review in accordance
with Sec.  160.135-23 or Sec.  160.156-23 (Procedure for approval of
design, material, or construction change). This application would have
to indicate the proposed installation of a release mechanism meeting
the requirements of the proposed Sec.  160.133-7 incorporating by
reference the amendments to the IMO LSA Code from IMO Resolution
MSC.320(89). If the information submitted in accordance with Sec.
160.135-23 or Sec.  160.156-23 is satisfactory to the Commandant, the
manufacturer would be permitted to proceed with fabrication of the
prototype lifeboat or rescue boat, and would be notified of the extent
of any prototype testing needed for reissuance of the Certificate of
Approval under 160.135 or 160.156. The Coast Guard would document
compliance with Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) by means of
amended Certificates of Approval under subparts 160.135 and 160.156
indicating installation of a release mechanism demonstrated to meet
Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89).

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in
proposed 46 CFR 160.133-5(c)(6) and (c)(7). You may inspect this
material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under

ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed
in paragraph (A) of that section.
    Before publishing a final rule, the Coast Guard will submit this
material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the
incorporation by reference.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering
numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below the
Coast Guard summarizes its analyses based on 14 of these statutes or
executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
    This SNPRM has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the
SNPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A
draft regulatory assessment follows:
    The proposed rule would amend the existing regulations for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats in order to harmonize Coast
Guard regulatory requirements with the international standards
established by the IMO. The proposed rule specifically requires U.S.
standards regarding design, construction, performance, and testing of
release mechanisms to be harmonized to the IMO's standards. This
harmonization is required--
     For the U.S. to comply with its treaty obligations as a
contracting government to SOLAS by harmonizing Coast Guard requirements
for release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats with the
international standards established by the IMO LSA Code; and
     To clarify requirements and remove inconsistencies between
the requirements for SOLAS compliance and the sections of 46 CFR
regulating release mechanisms on lifeboats and rescue boats.
    In addition, the proposed rule would add wording to 46 CFR 160.115-
7(b)(5)(i) that would clarify the Coast Guard's acceptance of non-
grooved winch drums as an alternative to grooved drums on launching
appliance winches. Currently that section states, ``A winch must have
grooved drums unless otherwise approved by the Commandant.'' The
section would be reworded to state, ``Winch drums must either be
grooved or otherwise designed to wind the falls evenly on and off each
drum.'' As such, this change clarifies requirements by specifying
criteria used by the Coast Guard in historic approvals directly in the
regulations, thereby reducing paperwork and regulatory uncertainty. The
proposed change in Sec.  160.115-7(b)(5)(i) would not modify the
standard of design, performance, or testing for winch drums. Approval
requests for non-grooved winch drums are a component of the application
process for all winch drums (grooved and non-grooved), along with many
other lifesaving appliances (i.e., davits, lifeboats, etc.), that must
be approved by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard estimates that any time
saved associated with this clarification to the winch drum approvals
would be minimal. In addition, there are already manufacturers of non-
grooved or smooth winch drums. For these reasons, there are no cost
implications for industry from the rewording of Sec.  160.115-
7(b)(5)(i). The purpose of the modification of the wording in Sec.
160.115-7(b)(5)(i) is to clarify the Coast Guard's criteria for
acceptance of non-grooved or smooth winch drums as an alternative to
grooved drums.
    Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed rule's applicability,
affected population, costs, and benefits. Each of these factors is
discussed in greater depth in the sections following the table.

          Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability................  U.S. manufacturers of release mechanisms
                                for lifeboats and rescue boats, U.S.
                                manufacturers of non-grooved or smooth
                                winch drums, and U.S.-flagged vessels
                                required by the Coast Guard to carry
                                lifeboats and rescue boats.
Affected Population..........  One U.S. manufacturer of release
                                mechanisms, five U.S. manufacturers of
                                non-grooved or smooth winch drums, 102
                                non-SOLAS-certified vessels, 289 SOLAS-
                                certified vessels.
Costs........................  None.
Quantified Benefits..........  None.
Qualitative Benefits.........  Benefits Associated with Harmonizing
                                Standards:
                                Fulfilling U.S. treaty
                                obligations to the IMO;
                                USCG and vessel owners and
                                operators would face less uncertainty
                                and more efficient USCG inspections;
                                Manufacturers and users of non-
                                grooved or smooth winch drums will face
                                less uncertainty regarding the Coast
                                Guard criteria for approval of non-
                                grooved or smooth winch drums.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population and Cost Impacts

    The proposed rule would potentially affect three groups. The first
consists of U.S. manufacturers of release mechanisms, the second
consists of vessels that are required to be equipped with lifeboats or
rescue boats, and the third consists of U.S. manufacturers of non-
grooved or smooth winch drums.
    There is currently only one U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms
for lifeboats and rescue boats.\1\ This manufacturer is, however, in
the process of phasing out production of the release mechanisms
manufactured from galvanized steel or its equivalent (as required under
current regulations) \2\

before January 1, 2013. This manufacturer, which is also the only known
manufacturer of galvanized steel mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue
boats in the U.S., will be manufacturing only stainless-steel release
mechanisms, manufactured from corrosion-resistant materials and without
the need for galvanizing (or its equivalent), \3\ and complying with
the latest IMO requirements, before that date. The manufacturer is
planning this phase-out because it expects the market for galvanized
steel mechanisms approved to the current requirements to disappear.\4\
Because the manufacturer's phase-out will occur independently of
whether the proposed rule is implemented, the manufacturer would
experience no additional cost impact due to this proposed rule. If the
proposed rule is implemented, the manufacturer, by the time of the
proposed rule's implementation, will have already incurred the cost of
the switchover from the galvanized steel mechanisms to those
manufactured with corrosion-resistant material without the need for
galvanizing. The decision will have been made based on expected changes
in market conditions and will also be in compliance with the new IMO
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Manufacturers of release mechanisms are currently required
to test their mechanisms and file the results with the Coast Guard.
Coast Guard records indicate that there is only one U.S.-based
manufacturer of these mechanisms.
    \2\ The Coast Guard regulation currently in place does not
require the use of galvanized steel, per se, but permits a
regulatory equivalent to galvanized steel that does not necessarily
have to be manufactured of galvanized steel. The current Sec.
160.133-7(b)(3), the section of the regulation dealing with the
``design, construction, and performance of release mechanisms''
describes the regulatory equivalent as follows: ``Each major
structural component of each release mechanism must be constructed
of steel. Other materials may be used if accepted by the Commandant
as equivalent or superior. Sheet steel and plate must be low-carbon,
commercial quality, either corrosion resistant or galvanized as per
ASTM A 653 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.133-5 of this
subpart), coating designation G115. Structural steel plates and
shapes must be carbon steel as per ASTM A 36 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  160.133-5 of this subpart). All steel products,
except corrosion-resistant steel, must be galvanized to provide
high-quality zinc coatings suitable for the intended service life in
a marine environment. Each fabricated part must be galvanized after
fabrication. Corrosion-resistant steel must be a type 302 stainless
steel per ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313 or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  160.133-5 of this subpart) or another
corrosion-resistant stainless steel of equal or superior corrosion-
resistant characteristics''. In this regulatory analysis, the term
``galvanized steel release mechanisms'' will also refer to those
that may not necessarily be manufactured of galvanized steel but are
the equivalent thereof as defined above.
    \3\ The proposed regulation does not require only the use of
stainless steel, per se, but also permits a regulatory equivalent to
such a stainless steel mechanism that does not necessarily have to
be manufactured of stainless steel. Sec.  167.133-7(b)(3), the
section of the regulation dealing with the ``design, construction,
and performance of release mechanisms'', states: ``Each major
structural component of each release mechanism must be constructed
of steel. Corrosion-resistant steel must be a type 302 stainless
steel per ASTM A 276, ASTM A 313 or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  160.133-5 of this subpart). Other corrosion-
resistant materials may be used if accepted by the Commandant as
having equivalent or superior corrosion-resistant characteristics.''
In this regulatory analysis, the term ``stainless steel'' release
mechanisms will also refer to those that may not necessarily be
manufactured of stainless steel but are the equivalent thereof as
defined in the proposed regulation.
    \4\ Information provided to the Coast Guard by telephone, June
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a total of five potential manufacturers of non-grooved or
smooth winch drums.\5\ As stated previously, the proposed regulation
would not modify production, design, or testing standards associated
with these winch drums, nor would it change reporting and recordkeeping
requirements surrounding their sale or use. Therefore, the Coast Guard
does not expect there would be any cost or collection of information
implications to U.S. manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Estimated based on data provided by manufacturers of winch
drums to the U.S. Coast Guard for the required approval of their
winch drums. This data was found in the U.S. Coast Guard's Maritime
Information Exchange database under the equipment approved for Sec.
160.115 (winch drums). In this database the Coast Guard does not
break out approvals given for winch drums by grooved and non-grooved
or smooth construction. The data is for all winch drums. Hence, it
is a maximum potential number of manufacturers of all winch drum
(both grooved and non-grooved) manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on data from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety
and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, the Coast Guard estimates the
total number of vessels affected by the proposed rule to be 391, of
which 289 \6\ are SOLAS certified (hereinafter referred to as SOLAS
vessels), and 102 are non-SOLAS. \7\ This proposed rule would require
these vessels to comply with new IMO requirements and use release
mechanisms made from corrosion-resistant materials without the need for
galvanizing (or regulatory equivalent), instead of a galvanized steel
release mechanism (or regulatory equivalent) for any future
replacements of on-load release mechanisms installed in existing life
or rescue boats. Release mechanisms currently in place would not need
to be replaced except in two limited circumstances. These are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Data source: Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) system.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Accidents that result in the damage of the mechanisms
themselves or accidents that damage lifeboats and rescue boats
seriously enough to require replacement.\8\ A search was conducted of
the MISLE database system for such accidents from 2003 through 2011.
Based on accidents found during this period, six release mechanisms
were estimated to need replacement on SOLAS vessels and six on non-
SOLAS vessels. This yields an average of less than one release
mechanism needing replacement per annum. In all of these accidents,
there was only one accident that resulted in injuries, and these
injuries were slight.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ New lifeboats and rescue boats are equipped with new release
mechanisms as standard equipment. This was the consensus of the
Coast Guard and private sector subject matter experts.
    \9\ The four were sent to the hospital for examinations but all
four went back to work the same day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Release mechanisms may need to be replaced due to their
deterioration from normal wear and tear. However, both private sector
and Coast Guard subject matter experts have stated that the lifespans
of both galvanized and stainless-steel mechanisms generally exceed the
lifespan of the lifeboats and rescue boats on which they are carried.
Therefore, the Coast Guard does not expect any replacements resulting
from deterioration or normal wear and tear.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ It should be noted that depreciation and normal wear and
tear do not include accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lifeboats and rescue boats installed on or after the implementation
of the final rule by in-scope vessel owners and operators would need to
meet the requirements in IMO resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) in
order to obtain SOLAS certification. Therefore, the proposed rule would
not have any additional cost impact to this class of vessels. The non-
SOLAS vessels would have to upgrade to the non-galvanized, corrosion-
resistant mechanisms compliant with the new requirements whenever they
need to replace any mechanisms in the future for either of the reasons
cited above, or for newly constructed lifeboats and rescue boats.
    If release mechanisms meeting both the current and the new
requirements were available, the Coast Guard assumes vessel owners and
operators would purchase the less-expensive of the two, those meeting
the current requirements. Release mechanisms approved to the current
requirements (such as those made of galvanized steel) were found to be
$1,500 less-expensive, per unit, than those meeting the new
requirements (corrosion-resistant mechanisms).\11\ As stated above,
however, the one supplier of galvanized steel on-load release
mechanisms is expected to stop manufacturing them before the proposed
rule would take effect on January 1, 2013. Foreign entities that have
manufactured these mechanisms have also, based on our research,
discontinued manufacturing them.\12\ Therefore, the galvanized steel

mechanisms (or their equivalent) will no longer be available for
purchase. Only the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant mechanisms that
are in compliance with the IMO requirements will be available. The
single U.S. manufacturer is phasing out the galvanized steel mechanisms
irrespective of whether the proposed rule is enacted. The single U.S.
manufacturer is planning this phase-out because it no longer sees a
future market for the galvanized steel mechanisms.\13\ As a result,
consumers will be able to purchase only the corrosion-resistant
mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This same cost differential was obtained from two separate
and independent industry sources. One source, as of March 2012, is
producing both the stainless steel and galvanized steel mechanisms
while the second is not currently producing both mechanisms, but
cited a price difference that existed when it produced both.
    \12\ Based on telephone discussions with numerous distributors
and manufacturers of release mechanisms in the U.S.
    \13\ Information supplied by U.S. manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits

    The proposed rule would amend the existing regulations for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats in order to harmonize Coast
Guard regulatory requirements with the international standards
established by the IMO. The harmonization specifically requires U.S.
standards regarding design, construction, performance, and testing of
release mechanisms to be harmonized to the IMO's standards.
    Benefits from the harmonization of the Coast Guard regulatory
requirements to the IMO standards include the following:
    (1) Fulfilling U.S. treaty obligations to the IMO;
    (2) The Coast Guard and vessel owners and operators would face less
uncertainty and more efficient Coast Guard inspections during vessel
inspections because only one type of release mechanism would have to be
inspected as opposed to two.
    (3) The inclusion of performance criteria for approval of non-
grooved or smooth winch drums to the language contained in Sec.
160.115-7(b)(5)(i), and the addition of proposed new Sec.  160.155-
13(d)(4), reduces any uncertainty to U.S.-based manufacturers and users
of such winch drums. If the proposed regulation is finalized, it will
be clear that such products, when approved by the Coast Guard, will be
equivalent to grooved winch drums in terms of performance.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast
Guard has considered whether this proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of fewer than 50,000.
    There are three industries that may potentially face a direct cost
resulting from the proposed rule. The first industry consists of the
single U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms. The second industry
consists of the five manufacturers of winch drums. The third industry
consists of owners and operators of vessels equipped with in-scope
lifeboats and rescue boats. Based on data from the Coast Guard's Marine
Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, the Coast
Guard estimates the total number of vessels affected by the proposed
rule to be 391, of which 289 \14\ are SOLAS certified and 102 are non-
SOLAS. \15\ The Coast Guard has determined that a significant number of
small entities in these three industries will not be substantially
impacted and the explanation for this determination appears in the
paragraphs that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Data source: Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) system.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the single U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms,
the Coast Guard does not expect that there would be any cost impact
because, as stated previously, prior to January 1, 2013, the only U.S.
manufacturer of the galvanized steel mechanisms is planning to
discontinue manufacturing them.\16\ Based on our research (as of March
2012), there are no manufacturers of galvanized steel release
mechanisms (or their equivalent) outside of the U.S. Therefore, the
galvanized steel mechanisms (or their equivalent) will no longer be
available for purchase. Only the non-galvanized, corrosion-resistant
mechanisms that are in compliance with the IMO requirements will be
available. The single U.S. manufacturer is phasing out the galvanized
steel mechanisms irrespective of whether the proposed rule is enacted.
The single U.S. manufacturer is planning this phase-out because it no
longer sees a future market for the galvanized steel mechanisms.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Based on telephone conversation with the manufacturer held
in June 2012.
    \17\ Information supplied by U.S. manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the five U.S. manufacturers of winch drums, as
stated previously, the proposed regulation will not modify the
requirements regarding production, design, or testing standards for
non-grooved and smooth winch drums. The proposed regulation will also
not impose further reporting burdens on manufacturers. This is because
there is no specific application, per se, regarding non-grooved and
smooth drums that must be sent to the Coast Guard and processed by the
Coast Guard. Approval requests for non-grooved winch drums are a
component of the application process for all winch drums (grooved and
non-grooved), along with many other lifesaving appliances (i.e.,
davits, lifeboats, etc.), that must be approved by the Coast Guard.
    With respect to the in-scope owners and operators of vessels, the
marginal additional cost stemming from the requirements to fulfill the
proposed rule are expected to be minimal. This is because, as stated
previously, regardless of whether or not the proposed rule is
implemented (i.e., independent thereof), prior to the implementation of
the proposed rule the cheaper galvanized steel release mechanisms will
no longer be available in the market place. The single U.S.
manufacturer will no longer be manufacturing galvanized steel release
mechanisms. Thus vessel owners will only be able to purchase stainless
steel release mechanisms.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule, if promulgated, 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 Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist
small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. George Grills,
Commercial Regulations and Standards Directorate, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4),
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>1385, or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) nor
would it adjust an existing collection of information.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power among the various levels of government. The Coast
Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under that order and has
determined that it does not have implications for federalism. A summary
of our analysis follows.
    The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the field preemptive
impact of the Federal regulatory regime for inspected vessels. See,
e.g., Kelly v. Washington ex rel Foss, 302 U.S. 1 (1937) and the
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 113-116 (2000). Therefore, the Coast Guard's view is that
regulations issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306 in the areas
of design, construction, alteration, repair, operation,
superstructures, hulls, fittings, equipment, appliances, propulsion
machinery, auxiliary machinery, boilers, unfired pressure vessels,
piping, electric installations, accommodations for passengers and crew,
sailing school instructors, sailing school students, lifesaving
equipment and its use, firefighting equipment, its use and
precautionary measures to guard against fire, inspections and tests
related to these areas, and the use of vessel stores and other supplies
of a dangerous nature have preemptive effect over State regulation in
these fields, regardless of whether the Coast Guard has issued
regulations on the subject, and regardless of the existence of conflict
between the state and Coast Guard regulation.
    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, as these categories are within a field foreclosed
from regulation by the states (see U.S. v. Locke, above), the Coast
Guard recognizes the key role State and local governments may have in
making regulatory determinations. Additionally, Sections 4 and 6 of
Executive Order 13132 require that for any rules with preemptive
effect, the Coast Guard will provide elected officials of affected
state and local governments and their representative national
organizations the notice and opportunity for appropriate participation
in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult with such officials early
in the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Coast Guard invites affected
State and local governments and their representative national
organizations to indicate their desire for participation and
consultation in this rulemaking process by submitting comments to the
docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. In
accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Coast Guard will provide a
federalism impact statement to document (1) the extent of the Coast
Guard's consultation with State and local officials that submit
comments to this proposed rule, (2) a summary of the nature of any
concerns raised by State or local governments and the Coast Guard's
position thereon, and (3) a statement of the extent to which the
concerns of State and local officials have been met.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any 1 year. Although this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, the Coast Guard does discuss the effects
of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

    The Coast Guard has 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

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Coast Guard has 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

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, 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 other than voluntary
consensus standards:
     International Life-Saving Appliance Code, (IMO Resolution
MSC.48(66)), as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.320(89);
     IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), Revised recommendation on
testing of

life-saving appliances, as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.321(89).
    The proposed sections that reference these standards and the
locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR
160.133-5. They are used because we did not find voluntary consensus
standards that are applicable to this rule. If you are aware of
voluntary consensus standards that might apply, please identify them by
sending a comment to the docket using one of the methods under
ADDRESSES. In your comment, please explain why you think the standards
might apply.
    If you disagree with our analysis of the voluntary consensus
standards listed above or are aware of voluntary consensus standards
that might apply but are not listed, please send a comment to the
docket using one of the methods under ADDRESSES. In your comment,
please explain why you disagree with the Coast Guard's analysis and/or
identify voluntary consensus standards not listed that might apply.

M. Coast Guard Authorization Act Sec. 608 (46 U.S.C. 2118(a))

    Section 608 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-281) adds new section 2118 to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and
Seamen), Chapter 21 (General). New section 2118(a) sets forth
requirements for standards established for approved equipment required
on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Part
B (Inspection and Regulation of Vessels). Those standards must be ``(1)
based on performance using the best available technology that is
economically achievable; and (2) operationally practical.'' See 46
U.S.C. 2118(a). This proposed rule addresses lifesaving equipment for
Coast Guard approval that is required on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C.
Subtitle II, Part B, and the Coast Guard has ensured that this proposed
rule would satisfy the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 2118(a), as necessary.

N. Environment

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Department of
Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f),
and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments''' section of this preamble.
This proposed rule involves regulations that are editorial, regulations
concerning equipping of vessels, and regulations concerning vessel
operation safety standards. This proposed rule is categorically
excluded under Section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (d) of
the Instruction and under paragraph 6(a) of the ``Appendix to National
Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical
Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR 48243, July 23,
2002). The Coast Guard seeks 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 160

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

46 CFR Part 164

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 160 and 164 as follows:

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

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

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

Subpart 160.115--Launching Appliances--Winches

    2. In Sec.  160.115-7, revise paragraph (b)(5)(i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  160.115-7  Design, construction, and performance of winches.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Winch drums must either be grooved or otherwise designed to
wind the falls evenly on and off each drum.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  160.115-13, add new paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  160.115-13  Approval instructions and tests for prototype
winches.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Winch drum. Each winch designed without grooved drums must
demonstrate during prototype testing that the falls wind evenly on and
off each drum.
* * * * *

Subpart 160.133 [Amended]

    4. Amend the title to Subpart 160.133 by removing the word
``(SOLAS)''.

Subpart 160.133--Release Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats

Sec.  160.133-3  [Amended]

    5. In Sec.  160.133-3, in the introductory text, after the words
``IMO LSA Code'', add the words ``, as amended by Resolution
MSC.320(89)''.
    6. Amend Sec.  160.133-5 as follows:
    a. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5);
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6) as
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), respectively;
    c. In paragraph (c)(3), after the words ``Revised recommendation on
testing of'', remove the words ``live-saving'' and add, in their place,
the words ``life-saving''; and
    d. Add paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  160.133-5  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) Annex 4 to MSC 89/25, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee
on its Eighty-Ninth Session, ``Resolution MSC.320(89), Adoption of
Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code,''
(adopted May 20, 2011), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  160.133-3, 160.133-
5(c)(6), 160.133-7(d)(1), 160.133-7(b)(8), and 160.133-7(b)(9)
(Resolution MSC.320(89)).
    (7) Annex 5 to MSC 89/25, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee
on its Eighty-Ninth Session, ``Resolution MSC.321(89), Adoption of
Amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving
Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)),'' (adopted May 20, 2011), IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  160.133-5(c)(7), 160.133-7(a)(2), and 160.133-
13(d)(2) (Resolution MSC.321(89)).
    7. Amend Sec.  160.133-7 as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(1), after the words ``IMO LSA Code,'' add the
words ``as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
    b. In paragraph (a)(2), after the words ``IMO Revised
recommendation on testing,'' add the words ``as amended by Resolution
MSC.321(89),'';
    c. Revise paragraph (b)(3) as set out below;
    d. In paragraph (b)(8), after the words ``required by'', add the
word ``IMO'', and after the words ``LSA Code'', add

the words ``, as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
    e. In paragraph (b)(9), after the words ``required by'', add the
word ``IMO'', and after the words ``LSA Code'', add the words ``, as
amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),''; and
    f. Remove paragraph (b)(15).

Sec.  160.133-7  Design, construction, and performance of release
mechanisms.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Steel. Each major structural component of each release
mechanism must be constructed of corrosion-resistant steel. Corrosion-
resistant steel must be a type 302 stainless steel per ASTM A 276, ASTM
A 313 or ASTM A 314 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.133-5 of
this subpart). Other corrosion-resistant materials may be used if
accepted by the Commandant as having equivalent or superior corrosion-
resistant characteristics;
* * * * *

Sec.  160.133-13  [Amended]

    8. Amend Sec.  160.133-13 as follows:
    a. In paragraph (d)(2), after the words ``tests described in IMO
Revised recommendation on testing,'' add the words ``as amended by
Resolution MSC.321(89),'' and after the words ``with these paragraphs
of IMO Revised recommendation on testing,'' add the words ``as amended
by Resolution MSC.321(89),'';
    b. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(iii); and
    c. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v), and (d)(2)(vi) as
paragraphs (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), and (d)(2)(v), respectively.

Sec.  160.133-15  [Amended]

    9. In Sec.  160.133-15, amend paragraph (e) by removing the words,
``Each approved release mechanism constructed with non-corrosion-
resistant steel must be confirmed to have met the coating mass and bend
tests requirement specified under ASTM A 653 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  160.133-5 of this subpart) after galvanizing or
other anti-corrosion treatment has been applied. This compliance can be
ascertained through a supplier's certification papers or through
conducting actual tests.''

Subpart 160.135 [Amended]

    10. Amend the title to Subpart 160.135 by removing the word
``(SOLAS)''.

Subpart 160.135--Lifeboats

Sec.  160.135-5  [Amended]

    11. In Sec.  160.135-5, amend paragraph (d)(4) by removing the word
``and'' and adding, in its place, the punctuation ``,'', and, after the
numbers ``160.135-13'', adding the words ``, and 160.135-15''.
    12. Amend Sec.  160.135-15 as follows:
    a. In paragraph (d), remove the word ``(e)(2)'' and add, in its
place, the word ``(e)'';
    b. In paragraph (e)(1)(iv), remove the reference ``Sec.  160.135-
13(c)(2)(i)(B)'' and add, in its place, the reference ``Sec.  160.135-
11(c)(2)(i)(B)''; and
    c. Revise paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  160.135-15  Production inspections, tests, quality control, and
conformance of lifeboats.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Post assembly tests and inspections. The finished lifeboat must
be visually inspected inside and out. The manufacturer must develop and
maintain a visual inspection checklist designed to ensure that all
applicable requirements have been met and the lifeboat is equipped in
accordance with approved plans. Each production lifeboat of each design
must pass each of the tests described in the IMO Revised recommendation
on testing, part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
160.135-5 of this subpart).

Sec.  160.156-5  [Amended]

    13. In Sec.  160.156-5, amend paragraph (d)(4) by removing the word
``and'' and adding, in its place, the punctuation ``,'', and, after the
numbers ``160.156-13'', adding the words ``, and 160.156-15''.

Sec.  160.156-7  [Amended]

    14. In Sec.  160.156-7, amend paragraph (b)(13) by removing the
word ``lifeboat'' and adding, in its place, the words ``rescue boat''.

Sec.  160.156-9  [Amended]

    15. Amend Sec.  160.156-9 as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(22)(iv), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add,
in its place, the words ``rescue boat''; and
    b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add, in
its place, the words ``rescue boat''.
    16. Amend Sec.  160.156-15 as follows:
    a. In paragraph (e)(1), remove the words ``In accordance with the
interval prescribed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, each'' and
add, in their place, the word ``Each''; and
    b. Revise paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  160.156-15  Production inspections, tests, quality control, and
conformance of rescue boats and fast rescue boats.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Post assembly tests and inspections. The finished rescue boat
must be visually inspected inside and out. The manufacturer must
develop and maintain a visual inspection checklist designed to ensure
that all applicable requirements have been met and the rescue boat is
equipped in accordance with approved plans. Each production rescue boat
of each design must pass each of the tests described in the IMO Revised
recommendation on testing, part 2, section 5.3 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  160.156-5 of this subpart).

PART 164--MATERIALS

    17. The authority citation for part 164 is revised to read as
follows:

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

    Dated: November 15, 2012.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-28492 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19168-19169]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14750-000]

Energy Resources USA, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To
Intervene

    On December 22, 2015, Energy Resources USA, Inc. (Energy Resources)
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
the Lake Tuscaloosa Dam Hydroelectric Project (Lake Tuscaloosa Project
or project) to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Lake
Tuscaloosa Dam on the North River in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit

term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A control
structure with three 9.5-foot-wide, 25-foot-long spill gates; (2) one
6-foot-diameter, 98-foot-long penstock with a butterfly valve; (3) a
bifurcation structure; (4) two 4-foot-diameter, 32-foot-long penstocks;
(5) a powerhouse containing two generating units with a total capacity
of 1.65 megawatts; (6) a 1000-foot-long, 220-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a
substation; and (8) a 2.5-mile-long, 69 kV transmission line. The
proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation of
5,200 megawatt-hours, and operate as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, Energy Resources USA Inc.,
2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 804, Coral Gables, Florida 33134; Phone:
(954) 248-8425; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Christiane Casey; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-14750-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14750) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07531 Filed 4-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 52871]
[DOCID:fr17se07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC07-3-000]

Lee County, FL; Notice of Filing

September 11, 2007.
    Take notice that on September 7, 2007, Lee County, Florida (Lee
County) filed an appeal from the August 21, 2007 decision of the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to include Lee
County's municipal solid waste resource recovery generating facility on
the NERC compliance registry within the Florida Reliability
Coordinating Council for the function of generator owner. Lee County
states that it owns or operates a waste-to-steam facility which
generates electric through recovery of steam produced as a byproduct
from the combustion of municipal solid waste, which is a qualifying
facility (QF). Lee County asks the Commission to reverse the NERC's
inclusion of its QFs on the compliance registry and to stay the
effectiveness of the NERC decision pending resolution of the appeal by
the Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 9, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18249 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 20841]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1544-000]

Chesapeake Beach BESS LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Chesapeake Beach BESS LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 25, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 4, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07565 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76986]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30315]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM13-5-000; Order No. 791]

Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM13-5-
000) which was published in the Federal Register of Tuesday, December
3, 2013 (78 FR 72755). The regulations approved certain reliability
standards proposed by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation.

DATES: Effective on February 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office
of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Errata Notice

    On November 22, 2013, the Commission issued a Final Rule in the
above-captioned proceeding, Version 5 Critical Infrastructure
Protection Reliability Standards, 145 FERC ] 61,160 (2013).
    This errata notice serves to correct P 16. Specifically, the
reference to ``eighth'' in the seventh line of P 16 is changed to
``[ninth].'' The sentence as revised would thus read, ``NERC requests
that the CIP version 5 Standards become effective on `the first day of
the [ninth] calendar quarter after a Final Rule is issued in this
docket.' \27\''
    In FR Doc. 2013-28628 appearing on page 72758 in the Federal
Register of Tuesday, December 3, 2013, the same corrections are made:
    Specifically, the reference to ``eighth'' in the seventh line of P
16 is changed to ``[ninth].'' The sentence as revised would thus read,
``NERC requests that the CIP version 5 Standards become effective on
`the first day of the [ninth] calendar quarter after a Final Rule is
issued in this docket.' \27\''

    Dated: December 13, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30315 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P