[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44129-44140]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 108, 117, 133, 160, 164, 180, and 199

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

Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With
International Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the amendments to Coast Guard regulations
for certain lifesaving equipment, including launching appliances
(winches and davits), release mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats,
inflatable liferafts, and inflatable buoyant apparatus), rescue boats,
and automatic disengaging devices, which were published as an interim
rule and amended by a second interim rule. Additionally, it finalizes
the amendments to the requirements for Coast Guard-approved release
mechanisms proposed in a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM). This final rule harmonizes the Coast Guard's design,
construction, and performance standards for this lifesaving equipment
with international standards, while providing for the use of qualified
independent laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, during the
approval process and for production inspections of certain types of
lifesaving equipment.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 29, 2014. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register on August 29, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 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<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Discussion of Rule
    A. Background
    B. Discussion of Comments
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. 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. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
IMO LSA Code ``International Life-saving Appliance Code,'' IMO
Resolution MSC.48(66)

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
Revised recommendation on testing ``Revised recommendation on
testing of life-saving appliances,'' IMO Resolution MSC.81(70)
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SOLAS International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
2010 NPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization With International Standards,'' August 31, 2010, (75
FR 53458).
2011 IR ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization
With International Standards; Interim Rule,'' October 10, 2011, (76
FR 62962).
2011 SNPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization with International Standards'' Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking, October 10, 2011, (76 FR 62714).
2012 IR ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization
with International Standards'' Interim Rule, February 21, 2012, (77
FR 9859).
2012 SNPRM ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization with International Standards'' Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking, November 26, 2012, (77 FR 70390).

II. Regulatory History

    The complete regulatory history of the Lifesaving Equipment
rulemaking is summarized in Table 1 below.

                                           Table 1--Rulemaking History
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Document type             Federal Register cite   Date published                Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of proposed rulemaking       75 FR 53458                   8/31/2010  Proposed amendments to regulations
 (2010 NPRM).                                                                 for certain lifesaving equipment.
                                                                              Harmonized the design,
                                                                              construction, and performance
                                                                              standards for this lifesaving
                                                                              equipment with international
                                                                              standards and provided for the use
                                                                              of qualified independent
                                                                              laboratories, instead of Coast
                                                                              Guard inspectors, during the
                                                                              approval process and for
                                                                              production inspections.
Interim Rule (2011 IR)............  76 FR 62962                  10/11/2011  Established the requirements set
                                                                              forth in the 2010 NPRM, and
                                                                              indicated this would be an interim
                                                                              rule because of anticipated
                                                                              forthcoming changes to
                                                                              international standards for
                                                                              release mechanisms.
Supplemental notice of proposed     76 FR 62714                  10/11/2011  Proposed amending the 2011 IR
 rulemaking (2011 SNPRM).                                                     published on the same date to
                                                                              harmonize Coast Guard regulations
                                                                              for inflatable liferafts and
                                                                              inflatable buoyant apparatuses
                                                                              with recently adopted
                                                                              international standards.
Interim Rule Correction...........  76 FR 70062                  11/10/2011  Made four editorial corrections to
                                                                              the 2011 IR.
Interim Rule (2012 IR)............  77 FR 9859                    2/21/2012  Implemented the requirements set
                                                                              forth in the 2011 SNPRM,
                                                                              recognizing that before the 2011
                                                                              IR would become a final rule, an
                                                                              additional SNPRM would be issued
                                                                              to address release mechanisms for
                                                                              lifeboats and rescue boats.
Supplemental notice of proposed     77 FR 70390                  11/26/2012  Proposed amendments to the 2011 IR
 rulemaking (2012 SNPRM).                                                     to harmonize lifeboats and rescue
                                                                              boat release mechanism regulations
                                                                              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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2010, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and
Harmonization With International Standards'' (2010 NPRM) to harmonize
the Coast Guard's requirements for certain lifesaving equipment,
including launching appliances (winches and davits), release
mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and
inflatable buoyant apparatuses), rescue boats, and automatic
disengaging devices with international design, construction, and
performance standards, and to expand the use of qualified independent
laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, in the approval
process and for production inspections. A complete discussion of these
changes is available in the NPRM, published August 30, 2010. See 75 FR
53458, 53460.
    On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim rule
titled ``Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization
With International Standards; Interim Rule'' (2011 IR) making effective
the changes proposed in the NPRM. See 76 FR 62962. The Coast Guard
issued that interim rule in anticipation of future amendments to
international standards from the International Maritime Organization's
(IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) regarding release mechanisms. A
complete discussion of the 2011 IR, published October 11, 2011, is also
available. See 76 FR 62962.
    Concurrently on October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published a
supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (2011 SNPRM) proposing
amendments to the portion of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
modified by the 2011 IR regarding inflatable liferafts and inflatable
buoyant apparatuses. See 76 FR 62714. The 2011 SNPRM proposed
manufacturers conduct tests on prototype and production liferafts for
Coast Guard approval under subpart 160.151 (SOLAS liferafts) using the
new assumed average mass of liferaft occupants (82.5 kg), instead of
the previous assumed average mass (75 kg), without imposing this
requirement on liferafts currently in service. On February 21, 2012,
the Coast Guard published a second interim rule (2012 IR) which made
amendments to the 2011 IR by making the changes proposed in the 2011
SNPRM regarding inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses
effective. See 77 FR 9859. A complete discussion of these changes is
available in the 2011 SNPRM. See 76 FR 62714. A complete discussion of
the 2012 IR, published February 21, 2012, is also available. See 77 FR
9859.
    On November 26, 2012, the Coast Guard published a second SNPRM
(2012 SNPRM) proposing amendments to the portion of the CFR modified by
the 2011 IR regarding release mechanisms. See 77 FR 70390. We received
two public comments to the 2012 SNPRM, which we address below. No
public meeting was requested and none was held.
    The Coast Guard is making final the 2011 interim rule with some
changes. The only changes are those made by the 2012 IR, and the 2012
SNPRM

amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and 164. The rest of the 2011 IR remains
the same.

III. Basis and Purpose

    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. See 46 U.S.C.
3306. 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-approval review of 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. Please see the 2010 NPRM for further information on the Coast
Guard's International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as
amended, (SOLAS) obligations.

IV. Discussion of Rule

A. Background

    In the 2012 SNPRM, amendments were proposed to the Coast Guard's
standards for release mechanisms found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart
160.133 to implement current SOLAS requirements for lifeboat release
mechanisms. The Coast Guard also proposed amendments to subpart 160.115
to clarify the winch drum design requirements, and also proposed
technical amendments to correct non-substantive errors in 46 CFR part
160, subparts 160.133, 160.135, and 160.156, and in 46 CFR part 164.
    Current requirements for lifeboat release mechanisms are the IMO
standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS. Those IMO standards are
the ``International Life-saving Appliance Code,'' IMO Resolution
MSC.48(66), as amended (IMO LSA Code), and the ``Revised recommendation
on testing of life-saving appliances,'' IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), as
amended (Revised recommendation on testing). The IMO updates these
standards by adopting MSC Resolutions which promulgate amendments to
these standards. The 2011 IR incorporated by reference all MSC
Resolutions affecting release mechanisms adopted at the time the 2010
NPRM was published.
    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 design and performance
requirements for release mechanisms in the IMO LSA Code, which entered
into force on January 1, 2013. The amendments include specific
requirements for increased hook stability, corrosion-resistance, and
additional safety features. Resolution MSC.321(89) specifies revisions
to the prototype testing of release mechanisms supporting the
amendments to the IMO LSA Code's Revised recommendation on testing,
which entered into force on January 1, 2013.
    The Coast Guard proposed in the 2012 SNPRM to revise subpart
160.133 to incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and
MSC.321(89). These changes affect release mechanisms approved under
approval series 160.133, applying new design, performance, and
prototype testing requirements, as set forth in IMO Resolutions
MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89). The changes also affect davit-launched
lifeboats approved under subpart 160.135, and SOLAS rescue boats and
fast rescue boats approved under subpart 160.156 (other than those
fitted with automatic release hooks under approval series 160.170).
These lifeboats and rescue boats are required to have a release
mechanism approved under subpart 160.133 as revised by this final rule.
However, davit-launched lifeboats, SOLAS rescue boats, and fast rescue
boats already installed prior to the implementation of this final rule
are not affected.
    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 higher standards of safety and performance than those of the
existing requirements incorporated by reference in 46 CFR 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 and conducted a series of
outreach sessions with the public. The Coast Guard considers these IMO
standards to represent the best available standards for the design and
performance of release mechanisms. 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, pursuant to 46 U.S.C.
3306, considers them to be appropriate for lifeboats and rescue boats
subject to inspection by the United States.
    A complete discussion of these changes is available in the 2012
SNPRM. See 77 FR 70390.
    In this final rule, the Coast Guard is making final the 2011 IR
with some changes. The changes are those made by the 2012 IR, and the
2012 SNPRM amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and 164. The rest of the 2011
IR remains the same.

B. Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received two comments in response to the 2012
SNPRM.
    The first commenter was generally supportive of the suggested
changes, but noted that the IMO Standardized Life-Saving Appliance
Evaluation and Test Report Forms published in IMO MSC Circular 980 have
not been updated since they were originally issued in 2001.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that the standardized IMO forms are
out of date. However, the forms were developed by the IMO to provide
guidance on how to conduct the proscribed tests, how to record data,
and how to report the results, and are within IMO's control to change.
Use of these forms is not required. It is the responsibility of the
manufacturer to ensure that the test reports submitted for approval
appropriately document both the tests performed and the results.
Therefore, no changes to the 2012 SNPRM were made based on this
comment.
    The second commenter applauded the Coast Guard's actions to
harmonize U.S. regulations with international standards, but expressed
concern that the IMO Resolutions incorporated by reference,
specifically Resolution MSC.321(89), and the resolution that it amends
(MSC.81(70)), are written in non-mandatory language. The commenter
requested clarification on how the Coast Guard will apply the
provisions of an otherwise non-mandatory document when it is referenced
in a regulatory requirement.
    The Revised recommendation on testing, as amended by Resolution
MSC.321(89), sets forth requirements for

prototype testing of release mechanisms. It is accepted as the best
available standard to demonstrate compliance with the LSA Code. The
Coast Guard makes these requirements mandatory by incorporating by
reference the Revised recommendation on testing and IMO Resolution
MSC.321(89) into the regulations. Alternative standards or tests to
demonstrate compliance with the LSA Code may be accepted in accordance
with 46 CFR 159.005-7(c). The non-mandatory language in these documents
does not matter for the purposes of Coast Guard regulations, as the
standards become mandatory when incorporated by reference into Coast
Guard regulations, as we do in this final rule. Therefore, no changes
to the 2012 SNPRM were made based on this comment.
    Based on the above discussion of the two comments received, no
changes were made to the regulatory text proposed in the 2012 SNPRM.
All comments received on the NPRM and the 2011 SNPRM were addressed in
the 2011 and 2012 IRs, respectively. See 76 FR 62962 and 77 FR 9859.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in
46 CFR 160.133-5(c)(6) and (c)(7) for incorporation by reference under
5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available
from the sources listed in paragraph (a) of that section.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on several of these statutes or E.O.s.

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 rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not
reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of
the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on
industry. A final regulatory assessment follows.
    As this regulatory assessment is based on the regulatory analyses
contained in the previously published documents and supporting
documentation for the 2011 IR, the 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM, the
regulatory assessment below is only a summation of the analyses
performed in those documents.\1\ A summary of each rulemaking is
provided here. Those interested in the full analyses contained in those
documents should refer to them on the docket as indicated in Table 1 of
this preamble. As all the documents, with the exception of the 2012
SNPRM, are already effective, the emphasis of the discussion below will
be on the 2012 SNPRM. As the phases of this rulemaking prior to the
2012 SNPRM are already effective, and the 2012 SNPRM does not impose
costs, the final rule also does not impose any new costs. We received
no additional information from the public or from other sources to
cause us to modify our estimated costs and benefits for any of these
phases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2010 NPRM, 2011 SNPRM, 2011 IR and the 2012 SNPRM. The
2010 NPRM and 2011 SNPRMs also contained regulatory analyses, but as
the analyses in these documents were the same as those in the 2011
IR and the 2012 IR, they are not discussed separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the 2011 IR Regulatory Assessment
    The 2011 IR became effective November 10, 2011. As a result, this
final rule does not add any incremental costs or benefits to that IR.
This summary of the 2011 IR provides background into the regulatory
history surrounding the final rule.
    In the 2011 IR, which promulgated the requirements set forth in the
2010 NPRM, the Coast Guard amended 46 CFR part 160 to harmonize its
regulations with IMO standards governing certain types of lifesaving
equipment. The Coast Guard also allowed the use of independent
laboratories under Coast Guard approval procedures for certain types of
lifesaving equipment, including requiring the use of independent
laboratories at certain stages of the approval procedures, instead of
Coast Guard personnel to perform these inspections and witness these
tests. We expected that the changes to harmonize existing regulations
with international standards would have no additional costs for
manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. In order for their lifesaving
equipment to be used on vessels for international voyages from any
nation that is signatory to SOLAS, equipment manufacturers must comply
with the international standards for lifesaving equipment established
by SOLAS. We further expected that the 2011 IR reflected existing
industry practices adopted in response to these international standards
governing the performance of certain types of lifesaving equipment.
    We expected the changes requiring the use of independent
laboratories, instead of Coast Guard personnel, would result in
additional costs for manufacturers of certain types of lifesaving
equipment. The Coast Guard did not have a regulatory mechanism to
charge for any step in the approval process for lifesaving equipment.
The use of independent laboratories required by the 2011 IR created a
new cost for manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. However, we
expected that the costs of inspections by independent laboratories
would be partially offset by an overall reduction in the number of
inspections, made possible through the coordination of independent
laboratories. Manufacturers, as a result of the 2011 IR, are able to
schedule inspections and testing for independent laboratories acting on
behalf of multiple nations, including the United States, rather than
requiring separate Coast Guard inspections and testing. This
coordinated use of independent laboratories avoids multiple inspections
and testing of the same equipment.
    Data obtained from the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange
indicated that the population affected by the 2011 IR included eight
U.S. manufacturers. We estimated the annual costs to manufacturers for
using independent laboratories was approximately $130,000 for U.S.
firms, in 2008 dollars. After converting to 2012 dollars, the cost
comes to $138,597.\2\ Over a 10-year period the nominal non-discounted
cost is estimated at $1,385,969. The cost is $973,447 when discounted
at 7 percent, and $1,182,260 when discounted at 3 percent. These
estimates, along with the annual costs, can be seen in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The deflator used for conversion was the consumer price
index (all urban consumers), series CUUR0000SA0. This data was
downloaded on December 12, 2013 from the Bureau of Labor (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost). Data from the ``Annual'' column in
this table, for 2008 and 2012, was used (215.303 and 229.594).
Dollars were converted to 2012 instead of 2013 because the 2013 data
was not available as of the date the calculations were made. Unless
otherwise stated, all conversions in this regulatory analysis to
2012 dollars were made using this BLS dataset.

   Table 2--10-Year Estimated Costs of Inspection and Testing by Third-Party Inspectors to U.S. Manufacturers
                                                 [2012 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Discounted
                              Year                                    Nominal    -------------------------------
                                                                                7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $138,597        $129,530        $134,560
2...............................................................         138,597         121,056         130,641
3...............................................................         138,597         113,136         126,836
4...............................................................         138,597         105,735         123,142
5...............................................................         138,597          98,818         119,555
6...............................................................         138,597          92,353         116,073
7...............................................................         138,597          86,311         112,692
8...............................................................         138,597          80,665         109,410
9...............................................................         138,597          75,388         106,223
10..............................................................         138,597          70,456         103,129
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       1,385,969         973,447       1,182,260
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................         138,597         138,597         138,597
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other changes stemming from the 2011 IR, not resulting from
harmonization with international standards or use of independent
laboratories, updated Coast Guard regulations to reflect current
industry practice or to incorporate newer versions of existing
standards, and were determined to have no costs. These included an
amendment specifying the attachment point for sea anchors to liferafts,
the addition of a new subpart in 46 CFR part 164 addressing resins used
in the construction of lifeboats and rescue boats, and incorporating
the use of equivalent international standards as an alternative to
national consensus standards.
    The benefits of the 2011 IR included compliance with U.S.
obligations as a signatory nation to SOLAS, and the removal of
inconsistencies between international standards and the Coast Guard's
regulations. In addition, the rule also provided possible savings for
manufacturers from coordination efficiencies for inspections that were
not quantified in the IR. It also increased efficiency for the Coast
Guard by providing flexibility in assigning its human resources,
particularly those stationed at overseas Coast Guard offices.
    The 2011 IR's provisions relating to third-party inspections have
already been enacted, and the final rule makes no further modifications
to these provisions. Therefore, this final rule does not impose new
costs or benefits.
Summary of the 2012 IR Regulatory Assessment
    The 2012 IR became effective March 22, 2012. As a result, this
final rule does not add any incremental costs or benefits to that IR.
This summary of the 2012 IR provides background to the regulatory
history surrounding the final rule.
    In the 2012 IR, which implemented the requirements set forth in the
2011 SNPRM, the Coast Guard amended the 2011 IR addressing lifesaving
equipment to harmonize Coast Guard regulations for inflatable liferafts
and inflatable buoyant apparatuses with recently adopted international
standards affecting capacity requirements for such lifesaving
equipment. Having found no additional information (including public
comments) that changed our findings in the 2011 SNPRM, we adopted the
assessment in the 2011 SNPRM for the 2012 IR as final.
    The 2012 IR addressed the change in the international standard for
occupant weight used in testing equipment to establish the rated
capacity of inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses by
revising the occupant weight or ``assumed average occupant mass'' from
the previous 75 kg (approximately 165 pounds) \3\ to the current weight
standard of 82.5 kg (approximately 182 pounds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ One kilogram is equal to 2.20462262 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the 2012 IR required manufacturers to conduct prototype and
production tests for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant
apparatuses manufactured on or after March 22, 2012, using the new
occupant weight standard, it limited retesting of currently approved
equipment manufactured to only liferafts then currently rated for six
occupants. The 2012 IR did not apply to liferafts currently in service
aboard U.S. vessels. These were grandfathered in. As a result, no
vessel incurred replacement costs for liferafts based on the 2012 IR.
Therefore, only manufacturers were impacted. A summary of changes to
the baseline testing requirements is shown in Table 3. It should be
noted that Table 3 only applies to manufacturers of liferafts, not
vessels carrying liferafts.

                               Table 3--Summary of Changes to the Baseline Testing Requirements Stemming From the 2012 IR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Existing equipment (approval prior to January    New equipment (approval after January 1,
                                                                                1, 2012)                                        2012)
               Device                     Testing type      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Testing                Impacts                Testing                Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLAS Inflatable Liferafts           Prototype testing.....  Manufacturers must      Units with rated       All tests use the new  Units with rated
 (160.151).                                                   obtain a new            capacity of fewer      occupant weight        capacity of fewer
                                                              Certificate of          than six occupants     standard to            than six occupants
                                                              Approval certifying     are ineligible for     establish occupancy    are ineligible for
                                                              rated occupancy using   SOLAS service. Costs   rating. Costs of       SOLAS service.
                                                              the new occupant        of testing unchanged   testing unchanged as
                                                              weight standard.        as nature of the       nature of the test
                                                              Manufacturers may       test is unchanged.     is unchanged.
                                                              either retest or have
                                                              a certification made
                                                              using previous test
                                                              results adjusted for
                                                              the new occupant
                                                              weight standard.
                                     Production Testing....  All tests use the new   Costs of testing       All tests use the new  Costs of testing
                                                              weight standard to      unchanged as nature    occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              establish occupancy     of the test is         standard to            of the test is
                                                              rating.                 unchanged.             establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                rating.
Non-SOLAS Inflatable Liferafts       Prototype testing.....  Existing Certificates   No cost or benefit as  All tests use the new  Costs of testing
 (160.051).                                                   of Approval may be      the use of the new     occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              renewed without         occupant weight        standard to            of the test is
                                                              retesting.              standard is optional.  establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                rating.
                                                            -----------------------------------------------
                                     Production Testing....  No cost or benefit. The use of the new         All tests use the new  Costs of testing
                                                              occupant weight standard is optional for       occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              equipment manufactured under an existing       standard to            of the test is
                                                              Certificate of Approval.                       establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                rating.
                                                            -----------------------------------------------
Inflatable Buoyant Apparatus         Prototype testing.....  Existing Certificates   No cost or benefit as  All tests use the new  Costs of testing
 (160.010).                                                   of Approval may be      the use of the new     occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              renewed without         occupant weight        standard to            of the test is
                                                              retesting.              standard is optional.  establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                rating.
                                                            -----------------------------------------------
                                     Production Testing....  No cost or benefit. The use of the new         All tests use the new  Costs of testing
                                                              occupant weight standard is optional for       occupant weight        unchanged as nature
                                                              equipment manufactured under an existing       standard to            of the test is
                                                              Certificate of Approval.                       establish occupancy    unchanged.
                                                                                rating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 3, manufacturers of SOLAS inflatable liferafts
approved under subpart 160.151 and manufactured on or after March 22,
2012, were allowed the option of either retesting using the new
occupant weight standard or requesting certification for a lower rated
occupancy (adjusted for the new occupant weight standard) based on the
certification testing submitted for their current approval.
    We expected that the principal cost impact for manufacturers of
SOLAS liferafts would be for currently approved inflatable liferafts
whose rated capacity is six occupants using the current weight standard
of 75 kg. Since SOLAS requires that inflatable liferafts have a minimum
capacity of six occupants, any SOLAS liferaft currently approved for
six occupants had to be retested under the new occupant weight standard
in order to retain approval.
    We indicated in the 2012 IR that there were three U.S.
manufacturers of in-scope liferafts. These three firms manufactured a
total of five different models of liferafts with three of the models
having a capacity of six occupants. See Table 4. U.S. firms that
manufactured liferafts with a capacity of six occupants were assumed to
retest their liferafts in order to maintain their SOLAS certification.
From data obtained from industry and used in the 2012 IR, we estimated
the costs of retesting for compliance with the new occupant weight
standard at $1,800 for each model.
    We estimated the total cost to industry to retest all current SOLAS
liferaft models manufactured by U.S. firms to be $5,400. This figure is
in 2011 dollars. See Table 4. We show the converted 2011 dollars to
2012 dollars in Table 5. This cost was only incurred once, when the
2012 IR was implemented. There were no requirements to test in
subsequent years. Therefore, in terms of the overall cost of the 2012
IR, we expected that there were no additional costs, other than those
identified in Tables 4 and 5.

                                       Table 4--SOLAS Liferafts; Costs To Retest From the 2012 IR, in 2011 Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total number of
                                                                               Total number of       models of        Cost to retest
                       Manufacturer                            Number of          models of      liferaft produced      each SOLAS       Total cost to
                                                             manufacturers    liferaft produced  with an occupancy       liferaft            retest
                                                                                rating of six
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. owned Total.........................................                 3                  5                  3             $1,800             $5,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 5--SOLAS Liferafts; Costs To Retest From the 2012 IR, in 2012 Dollars, for U.S. Manufacturers Producing
                                                 SOLAS Liferafts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total number of
                                       Total number of       models of
                                          models of          liferafts        Cost-to retest     Total cost to
 Number of U.S. owned manufacturers        lifeboat       produced with an      each SOLAS           retest
                                         manufactured     occupancy rating       liferaft
                                                               of six
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...................................                 5                  3             $1,876             $5,513
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal benefit of the 2012 IR was the protection of life at
sea by establishing capacity standards for inflatable liferafts and
inflatable buoyant apparatuses, reflecting a global increase in mariner
weights. Additionally, the 2012 IR ensured compliance with
internationally applicable standards for SOLAS and adopted by the IMO.
    This final rule does not change the requirements in the 2012 IR
discussed above, and it does not add additional costs or benefits
related to the 2012 IR.
Summary of the 2012 SNPRM Regulatory Assessment
    The 2012 SNPRM proposed amendments to the regulations promulgated
by the 2011 IR concerning release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue
boats with recently adopted international standards affecting design,
performance, and testing for such lifesaving equipment. It also
proposed to clarify the requirements concerning grooved drums in
launching appliance winches. The 2012 SNPRM had three components that
could potentially have cost impacts. The first component involved
amendments made to the IMO LSA Code by the IMO MSC regarding release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats. The second component was a
rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with respect to the
acceptance of non-grooved winch drums as an alternative to grooved
drums on launching appliance winches. The third component dealt with
the need for applications for pre-approval review for Certificates of
Approval.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These pre-approval reviews are in accordance with 160.133-
23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first component, the set of amendments made by the IMO's MSC to
design, performance and testing requirements for release mechanisms,
incorporated into the CFR, impacted one U.S. manufacturer of release
mechanisms. That one manufacturer had to design, manufacture and test a
release mechanism that fulfilled these new amendments. However, that
single manufacturer designed, tested, and began to manufacture, market
and sell release mechanisms that fulfilled the new requirements before
the 2012 SNPRM became effective on January 1, 2013.\5\ The manufacturer
did this independently of the Coast Guard's implementation of the 2012
SNPRM.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the
manufacturer.
    \6\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the
manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we had assumed the Coast Guard had promulgated the 2012 SNPRM in
the absence of an IMO amendment, there would have been a cost. The
single U.S. manufacturer would have experienced fixed testing and
design costs that it would not otherwise have incurred.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Based on telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and
the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second component, the rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115-
7(b)(5)(i), had no impact on the design, manufacturing or testing of
release mechanism, or on any process involving government approval. The
rewording only was intended to make it clear to the public that non-
grooved winch drums were acceptable as well as grooved winch drums.
This wording clarified the Coast Guard's previous practice of accepting
both.
    The third component was a requirement for manufacturers to provide
the Coast Guard with an application for pre-approval review for
certificates of approval for the new release mechanisms. However, as
already stated in this preamble, the single U.S. manufacturer phased in
production of release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO
requirements prior to January 1, 2013, and independently of whether the
Coast Guard put forth the requirements in the 2012 SNPRM.\8\ As the
introduction of a new release mechanism would have required, regardless
of its specifications, the completion of such paperwork, the cost was
already incurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The manufacturer told the Coast Guard this in a phone
conversation in June of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The incorporation of the IMO's new amendments to the LSA Code into
the CFR harmonized U.S. standards with the IMO's standards. This
harmonization was necessary for two reasons. First, it was needed for
the United States to comply with its treaty obligations as a signatory
to SOLAS. By harmonizing Coast Guard requirements for release
mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats, the United States now has
the same requirements as the international standards established by the
IMO LSA Code. Secondly, the harmonization was necessary to clarify
requirements and remove inconsistencies between the requirements for
SOLAS compliance and parts of Title 46 that regulate release mechanisms
on lifeboats and rescue boats.
    One benefit of U.S. harmonization with international standards is
that it allows the domestic manufacturer, as well as any future
manufacturers, of in-scope equipment to sell the equipment on the
international market and to do so in a more efficient manner. Adoption
of the international standards, and Coast Guard inspection and
certification of the equipment in line with those standards,

enables domestic manufacturers to enter foreign markets and to sell
more effectively as a result of the Coast Guard certification they
obtain.
    Harmonization also enables vessels with the in-scope equipment to
operate in international waters and ports without fear of detention or
fines. Without the adoption of the international standards, these
vessels would be in violation of IMO requirements. There are 170
members \9\ of the IMO. As member-nations of the IMO normally adopt IMO
requirements into their own legal maritime codes, vessels with in-scope
equipment would be able to operate in a large number of nations without
fear of legal repercussions and the implied fines and loss of revenue
stemming from associated delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ According to the official IMO's Web site, on March 14, 2014,
the IMO had 170 members and three associate members (http://www.imo.org/About/Membership/Pages/Default.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 SNPRM could also have affected U.S. vessel owners or
operators of U.S. vessels that were required to carry lifeboats and/or
rescue boats, which would need to be equipped with release mechanisms
that fulfilled the new requirements. However, only those release
mechanisms purchased after January 1, 2013, would need to be replaced.
If release mechanisms meeting both the pre-2012 SNPRM and post-2012
SNPRM requirements were available, the Coast Guard assumes vessel
owners or operators would purchase the less expensive of the two, which
were those mechanisms that met the pre-2012 SNRPM requirements (i.e.,
pre-January 1, 2013). As stated above, however, the one U.S.-based
supplier of in-scope, galvanized steel release mechanisms stopped
manufacturing them and began manufacturing and selling release
mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO LSA Code amendments proposed in
the 2012 SNPRM. This U.S. manufacturer was the only manufacturer of
galvanized steel (or its regulatory equivalent) in the world.\10\
Therefore, the galvanized steel mechanisms (or their regulatory
equivalent) would no longer be available for purchase after the single
U.S. manufacturer stopped producing them. Only the non-galvanized,
corrosion resistant mechanisms that were in compliance with the IMO
requirements would be available after January 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Based on telephone discussions with numerous distributors
and manufacturers of release mechanisms in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 SNPRM is adopted without change in this final rule. The
Coast Guard does not expect a change in the benefits or costs between
the 2012 SNPRM and this final rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ There were no public comments received, or other
information found, that implied any changes were needed in the 2012
SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summation of the Costs and Benefits of the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and 2012
SNPRM
    As stated previously, the 2011 and 2012 IRs have already been
implemented. The 2012 SNPRM had no quantifiable costs or benefits and
is being implemented in this final rule with no additional changes
being made that may impact either costs or benefits. Thus, this final
rule has no incremental costs or benefits associated with it. The
aggregate costs and benefits of the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012
SNPRM are only being presented to provide the reader with perspective
on the previous rulemakings.
    This section aggregates the monetized costs and qualitative
benefits relating to the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM. The
costs and benefits are each aggregated in Tables 6 and 7. In Table 6,
we aggregate the total nominal 10-year costs at $1,391,482. Discounted,
at 7 percent, the 10-year total came to $978,599 ($139,331 on an
annualized basis) and, at 3 percent, to $1,187,612 ($139,224 on an
annualized basis). The 2012 SNPRM had no monetized costs, and it is not
included in the table.
    It should be stressed that this final rule does not add additional
costs to those already established by the previous phases of this
rulemaking. Additionally, we received no public comments or other
information suggesting any change was required.

                                                                Table 6--Monetized Costs
                                                                     [2012 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2011 IR                                2012 IR                                 Total
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Estimated annual cost inspection and  Costs to U.S. manufacturers producing                      Discounted
                                     testing by third-party inspectors for   in-scope liferafts with the capacity              -------------------------
                Year                           U.S. manufacturers               of holding only six passengers
                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Nominal
                                                         Discounted                             Discounted                           7%           3%
                                       Nominal   --------------------------   Nominal   --------------------------
                                                       7%           3%                        7%           3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................     $138,597     $129,530     $134,560       $5,513       $5,152       $5,352     $144,110     $134,682     $139,913
2..................................      138,597      121,056      130,641            0            0            0      138,597      121,056      130,641
3..................................      138,597      113,136      126,836            0            0            0      138,597      113,136      126,836
4..................................      138,597      105,735      123,142            0            0            0      138,597      105,735      123,142
5..................................      138,597       98,818      119,555            0            0            0      138,597       98,818      119,555
6..................................      138,597       92,353      116,073            0            0            0      138,597       92,353      116,073
7..................................      138,597       86,311      112,692            0            0            0      138,597       86,311      112,692
8..................................      138,597       80,665      109,410            0            0            0      138,597       80,665      109,410
9..................................      138,597       75,388      106,223            0            0            0      138,597       75,388      106,223
10.................................      138,597       70,456      103,129            0            0            0      138,597       70,456      103,129
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................    1,385,969      973,447    1,182,260        5,513        5,152        5,352    1,391,482      978,599    1,187,612
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized.....................      138,597      138,597      138,597          551          734          627      139,148      139,331      139,224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM are
summarized in Table 7. The final rule does not change any of the
amendments discussed above relating to benefits, nor does it add or
delete any benefits. Therefore, the final rule will not change the
benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR and 2012 SNPRM.

                            Table 7--Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Benefits (qualitative)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 IR.......................  Harmonization of domestic and
                                 international standards will lead to--
                                   * The implementation of the
                                    regulation has led to the
                                    requirement for one homogeneous
                                    standard that replaces the more
                                    numerous standards being used
                                    domestically. This leads to reduced
                                    transaction costs due to the fact
                                    that there are fewer standards to
                                    follow.
                                   * Increased market size, and
                                    economies of scale, to manufacturers
                                    that will lead to lower costs in
                                    terms of investment that is fixed in
                                    manufacturing, research and
                                    development, marketing, and other
                                    fixed variables.
                                   * Common international standards also
                                    encourage new entrants into the
                                    market by reducing the barriers to
                                    entry encountered in markets
                                    fragmented by different standards.
                                   * Enabling the U.S. to fulfill its
                                    obligations as a signatory party to
                                    SOLAS.
                                New placement of anchor requirements
                                 will lead to--
                                   * Potentially fewer personnel
                                    casualties.
                                   * Updating and replacing some
                                    standards for fire retardant resins
                                    incorporated by reference in 46 CFR
                                    160.035(b) into a separate subpart,
                                    46 CFR subpart 164.017.
                                Possibly reduced costs of manufacturing
                                 and inventories because the adoption of
                                 international standards means the need
                                 for fewer models of in-scope equipment
                                 for both domestic and international
                                 markets.
                                The use of independent laboratories
                                 instead of Coast Guard personnel will
                                 lead to--
                                   * Manufacturers will have greater
                                    flexibility over when they can
                                    arrange inspections.
                                   * Enables the Coast Guard to
                                    concentrate on fulfilling its
                                    lifesaving and environmental
                                    stewardship functions.
2012 IR.......................  Higher weight testing standards lead to--

                                   * Possibly fewer personnel casualties
                                    and less property damage.
                                   * Enabling the U.S. to fulfill its
                                    obligations as a signatory party to
                                    SOLAS.
2012 SNPRM....................  Adoption of new IMO LSA design,
                                 construction and testing standards
                                 leads to--
                                   * Potentially fewer accidents, and
                                    therefore few personnel casualties
                                    and less property damage.
                                Added wording on Coast Guard's
                                 acceptance of non-grooved drums as
                                 alternative to grooved drums on
                                 launching appliance winches is expected
                                 to--
                                   * Reduce uncertainty for both
                                    manufacturers and consumers. This,
                                    in turn, leads to more confidence in
                                    purchasing the appropriate in-scope
                                    equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this 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.
    A brief summary of the analyses performed for the 2011 IR, 2012 IR
and 2012 SNPRM for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is
provided below. Each of these analyses is discussed separately in its
own section. The discussions are only intended as a brief synopsis. In-
depth analysis can be found on the docket.
2011 IR
    As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2011 IR'' in Section VII.A of
this preamble, we determined that six of the eight U.S. firms
manufacturing in-scope lifesaving equipment were classified as small
entities under the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards.
We estimated the annual costs to use independent laboratories was less
than 0.5 percent of annual revenue for five of the six small entities,
and less than 1.25 percent of annual revenue for the other. However,
these estimates do not include adjustments for manufacturer savings
from the coordinated use of independent laboratories, which would avoid
multiple inspections and tests of the same equipment. This adjustment
could not be made, as there was no data on which to base an estimate,
but its omission should only serve to inflate costs. Based on available
information, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the
2011 IR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
2012 IR
    As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2012 IR'' in Section VII.A of
this preamble, the 2012 IR identified only one material cost, and that
was associated with testing three different inflatable liferafts that
had the capacity to hold exactly six passengers in order to determine
if they could meet the new weight standards of 82.5 kg instead of 75
kg. This cost was estimated at $1,876 \12\ per model. There were a
total of three in-scope models being produced, so the total industry
cost was estimated at $5,513. This cost was only incurred in the first
year of the implementation of the 2012 IR. No further testing would be
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In 2012 dollar terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard identified three manufacturers that could be
considered small entities according to SBA small business
requirements.\13\ For two of these companies, revenue data were not
available. For the third, the revenues were $20 million per year.\14\
The 2012 IR's costs came to 0.027 percent of total annual revenue.\15\
Based on this information, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that the 2012 IR would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 2011 SNPRM. 76 FR 62714, page 62719.
    \14\ Data was not available in 2010 when the search was
originally conducted. In December 2013 another search was conducted
for the same two companies' revenue in MANTA but the data was also
not available at that time.
    \15\ Total costs were estimated at $5,513 over the entire 10
year period. Total revenue was at least $20 million for the most
recent available year. Thus the cost/revenue ratio was
conservatively estimated at 0.027%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2012 SNPRM
    As discussed in the ``Summary of the 2012 SNPRM Regulatory
Assessment'' in Section VII.A of this preamble, there were no costs
estimated as a result of the implementation of the 2012 SNPRM. The
single U.S. manufacturing firm that produced the in-scope release
mechanisms had stopped manufacturing the release mechanisms that
fulfilled older IMO requirements and began manufacturing only those
release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO requirements prior to
January 1, 2013 (the date the new IMO requirements took effect). Only
those release mechanisms that fulfill the IMO requirements are
available on the

market. The manufacturer made this change prior to the publication of
the 2012 SNPRM and independently of whether or not the Coast Guard
would have implemented the 2012 SNPRM.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Telephone conversation between the Coast Guard and the
manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Final Rule
    The final rule does not amend the 2011 IR, 2012 IR or 2012 SNPRM in
any manner that may add costs and does not add any new requirements
that we find to add costs. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this 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 rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

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 and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered for inspected vessels in 46 U.S.C.
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning
of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other
category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole
source of a vessel's obligations are within fields 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
(March 6, 2000).)
    This rule amends regulations that establish the approval process
for lifesaving equipment designs, oversight of prototype construction,
prototype testing, and production monitoring of equipment for use on
U.S. vessels. As these regulations are promulgated under the authority
of 46 U.S.C. 3306, they fall within fields foreclosed from regulation
by State or local governments. Therefore, this final rule is consistent
with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements
described in E.O. 13132.

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 one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'').

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175
(``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''),
because it does 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 rule under E.O. 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 E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the
Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated it as a significant energy action.

L. Technical Standards

    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 the 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 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 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.
    Additionally, this rule finalizes technical standards, some of
which are voluntary consensus standards, which were addressed in the
2011 and 2012 IRs. Please see 76 FR 62962 and 77 FR 9859 for
information on these standards.

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 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 rule
would satisfy the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 2118(a), as necessary.

N. Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 concluded that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(a), (d) and (e) and under section 6a of the ``Appendix
to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for
Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR 48244,
July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations which are editorial,
regulations concerning equipping of vessels, regulations concerning
equipment approval and carriage requirements, and regulations
concerning vessel operation safety standards. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 adopts
the interim rule amending 46 CFR parts 108, 117, 133, 160, 164, 180,
and 199, which published at 76 FR 62962 on October 11, 2011, as a final
rule without change, except as amended by the interim rule published at
77 FR 9859 on February 12, 2012, with the following changes:

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

0
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

0
2. Amend Sec.  160.115-7 by revising 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.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  160.115-13 by adding 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.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend the heading of Subpart 160.133 to read as follows:

Subpart 160.133--Release Mechanisms for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats

Sec.  160.133-3  [Amended]

0
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)''.

0
6. Amend Sec.  160.133-5 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6) as
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), respectively;
0
c. In paragraph (c)(2), after the words ``pages 7-71'', remove the
words ``(``IMO LSA Code'')'', and after the words ``and 160.133-7'' add
the words ``(``IMO LSA Code'')'';
0
d. 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 after the words ``pages 79-254'', remove
the words ``(``IMO Revised recommendation on testing'')''; and
0
e. 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)'').

0
7. Amend Sec.  160.133-7 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), after the words ``IMO LSA Code,'' add the words
``as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89),'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2), after the words ``IMO Revised recommendation on
testing,'' add the words ``as amended by Resolution MSC.321(89),'';
0
c. Revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as set forth below;
0
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),'';
0
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
0
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]

0
8. Amend Sec.  160.133-13 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text, 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),'';
0
b. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(iii); and
0
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]

0
9. Amend Sec.  160.133-15(e) by removing the last two sentences.

0
10. Amend the heading of Subpart 160.135 to read as follows:

Subpart 160.135--Lifeboats

Sec.  160.135-5  [Amended]

0
11. Amend Sec.  160.135-5(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''.

0
12. Amend Sec.  160.135-15 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d), remove the reference ``(e)(2)'' and add, in its
place, the reference ``(e)'';
0
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
0
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]

0
13. Amend Sec.  160.156-5(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]

0
14. Amend Sec.  160.156-7(b)(13) by removing the word ``lifeboat'' and
adding, in its place, the words ``rescue boat''.

Sec.  160.156-9  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  160.156-9 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(22)(iv), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add, in
its place, the words ``rescue boat''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the word ``lifeboat'' and add, in its
place, the words ``rescue boat''.

0
16. Amend Sec.  160.156-15 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, 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
0
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

0
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: July 22, 2014.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-17653 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13222]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-82-000]

Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

 March 5, 2008.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2008, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
(Trunkline), 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056-5306, filed in
Docket No. CP08-82-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.208 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to increase the
certificated Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) for the 15A-
Lateral Lines, and the corresponding Meters & Regulators (M&R),
originating and terminating in Bee County, Texas, and to thereafter
operate these 15A Laterals up to and including the higher MAOP, all as
more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the Web at 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. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, Trunkline proposes to uprate the MAOP of Lateral Line
15A-100 from the current MAOP of 814 psig to the requested MAOP of
1,313 psig; uprate Lateral Line 15A-200 from the current MAOP of 730
psig to the requested MAOP of 1,313 psig; and uprate Lateral Line 15A-
300 from the current MAOP of 750 psig to the requested MAOP of 1,313
psig. Trunkline states that in conjunction with the requested MAOP
increase on the 15A laterals, Trunkline is also requesting the
Commission's authorization to uprate the MAOP of the corresponding M&R
sites to 1,032 psig. Trunkline asserts that it is not requesting
authorization for construction of new facilities. Trunkline avers that
the uprating of the MAOP of the laterals will improve system
reliability, reduce operating costs, and reduce the constraint on the
deliverability of local natural gas supplies to the Trunkline system.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
Stephen T. Veatch, Regulatory Affairs, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, 5444
Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056-5306, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(713) 989-1158, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the
time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4848 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 65703-65704]
[DOCID:fr26oc10-147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending October 8,
2010

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21
days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0249.
    Date Filed: October 8, 2010.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC3 Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010a from Korea
(Rep. of) to South East Asia (except Guam, Northern Mariana Islands)
(Memo 1404). Intended effective date: 20 October 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0250.
    Date Filed: October 8, 2010.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC3 Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010b from Korea
(Rep. of) to Japan (Memo 1405). Intended effective date: 20 October
2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0251.
    Date Filed: October 8, 2010.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC3 Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010z from Korea
(Rep. of) to South Asian Subcontinent (Memo 1406). Intended effective
date: 20 October 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0252.
    Date Filed: October 8, 2010.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC23 Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010c from Korea
(Rep. of) to Middle East (Memo 0452). Intended effective date: 20
October 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0253.
    Date Filed: October 8, 2010.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC23 Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010d from Korea
(Rep. of) to Africa (Memo 0450).

 Intended effective date: 20 October 2010.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-27020 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 31041]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1844-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

South Dakota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-1844-DR), dated June 16,
2009, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 16, 2009, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of South Dakota resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning
on March 11, 2009, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of South Dakota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under
Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted,
Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy M. Casper, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of South Dakota have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Brown, Butte, Campbell, Corson, Day, Dewey, Edmunds, Harding,
Marshall, McPherson, Perkins, Roberts, Spink, and Ziebach Counties
and the portions of the Cheyenne River Reservation and the Standing
Rock Reservation that lie within the designated counties for Public
Assistance.
    All counties and Tribal Reservations within the State of South
Dakota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-15348 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P