[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62842-62920]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21032]

Vol. 85

Monday,

No. 193

October 5, 2020

Part III

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

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

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

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

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

Survival Craft Equipment--Update to Type Approval Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email LT Brock Hashimoto, Lifesaving & Fire Safety Division
(CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

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

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

II. Abbreviations

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

III. Basis and Purpose

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

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

IV. Background

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

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

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

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.015

Bilge Pump

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

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

Compass

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

Fire Extinguishers

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

First-Aid Kit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fishing Kit

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

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

Hatchet

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

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

Jackknife

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

Knife

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

Mirror

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

Provisions

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

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

Sea Anchor

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

Water

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

Sailing School Vessels

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

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

VI. Incorporation by Reference

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

VII. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.016

Affected Population

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

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

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

Manufacturers of Coast Guard Approved Equipment

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.017

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.018

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

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

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

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

Subchapter K and Subchapter T Vessels

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

Equipment Type for Each Survival Craft

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.020

Equipment Pack Types for Commercial Fishing Vessels

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

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

Equipment Pack types for Survival Craft

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.023

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.025

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.027

Cost Savings

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

Wages

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.028

Cost Savings to Equipment Manufacturers

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

Number of Survival Craft Products

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equipment Approval and Markings

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

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

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

    \25\ Based on information from the subchapter Q ICR.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.031

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

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

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

Instructions

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.033

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.034

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.035

Laboratory Testing and Recordkeeping

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.037

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.038

Laboratory Inspections

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.039

Total Cost Savings to Manufacturers

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.040

Cost Savings to Vessel Owners or Operators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.041

Jackknives as a Replacement for Can Openers

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

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

Emergency Water

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.042

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.044

First-Aid Kits

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.045

First-Aid Kits for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats

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

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

First-Aid Kits for Liferafts and IBAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Cost Savings to Vessel Owners and Operators

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.048

Total Cost Savings to Industry

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.049

Federal Government Cost Savings

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

Equipment Approval

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.050

Laboratory Inspections

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

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

Total Federal Government Savings

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.052

Change in Safety

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

Benefits

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

No Cost Changes

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC20.060

Total Cost Savings

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

Discussion of Alternatives

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

No Action

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

Preferred Alternative-- Remove the Need for Coast Guard Approval

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

Remove the Need for Coast Guard Approval and Marking Requirements

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

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

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard expects that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on small entities. We expect this proposed
rule to result in net cost savings to regulated entities.
    We estimate there to be 11,139 unique vessel operators and 16
equipment manufacturers affected by this proposed rule. For this
analysis, we presumed any company for which we were not able to find
Small Business Administration (SBA) size data to be a small entity. An
estimated 94 percent of the regulated entities (including the companies
without SBA size data) are considered to be small by SBA industry size
standards. Using MISLE data, the Coast Guard estimates there to be
11,155 unique companies affected in this proposed rule. We estimate
that the average costs to equipment manufacturers would be reduced by
$1,445 per year, and the average costs to vessel owners and operators
would be reduced by $37.14 per year as a result of removing Coast Guard
approval for the equipment subject to the proposed rulemaking. We
calculate that 100 percent of the 10,487 (0.94 x 11,155) small vessel
operators and 100 percent of small equipment manufacturers impacted by
this proposed rule would have a cost savings less than 1 percent of
their annual revenue. No small governmental jurisdictions would be
impacted by this proposed rule.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment, explain why you
think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would
economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

D. Collection of Information

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

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

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

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

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

E. Federalism

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

F. Unfunded Mandates

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

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

L. Technical Standards and Incorporation by Reference

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

M. Environment

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

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

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 121

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

46 CFR Part 160

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

46 CFR Part 169

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

46 CFR Part 184

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

46 CFR Part 199

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

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

PART 121--VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

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

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

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

Sec.  121.710  First-aid kits.

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

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

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

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

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

Sec.  160.010-3   Inflatable buoyant apparatus.

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

Subpart 160.013--[Removed and Reserved]

0
5. Remove and reserve subpart 160.013.

Subpart 160.026--[Removed and Reserved]

0
6. Remove and reserve subpart 160.026.

Subpart 160.041--[Removed and Reserved]

0
7. Remove and reserve subpart 160.041.