[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53621-53631]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 2, 24, 25, 30, 70, 90, and 188

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0919]
RIN 1625-AB83

Lifesaving Devices--Uninspected Commercial Barges and Sailing
Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is aligning its regulations with the 2010
Coast Guard Authorization Act. Before 2010, certain uninspected
commercial vessels including barges and sailing vessels fell outside
the scope of the statute requiring the Coast Guard to regulate
lifesaving devices on uninspected vessels. Lifesaving devices were
required on such uninspected commercial vessels only if they carried
passengers for hire. The 2010 Act brought all uninspected commercial
vessels within the scope of the statutory requirement to carry
lifesaving devices even if they carry no passengers for hire. The
effect of the 2010 Act was to bring, for the first time, uninspected
non-passenger commercial barges and sailing vessels within the scope of
the lifesaving devices requirement. The Coast Guard is now requiring
the use of wearable personal flotation devices for individuals on board
those vessels, and amending several regulatory tables to reflect that
requirement. This rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety
mission.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2012-0919 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2012-0919 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Mr. Martin Jackson, Office of Design and Engineering
Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826, toll free 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

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

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFD Personal flotation device
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section symbol
The Act 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background

    Sections 2103 and 4102 of title 46, United States Code (U.S.C.),
provide the legal basis for this rule. Section 2103 gives the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating general
regulatory authority to carry out the provisions of 46 U.S.C. Subtitle
II (``Vessels and Seamen''). Section 4102(b) \1\ requires the Secretary
to ``prescribe regulations requiring the installation, maintenance, and
use of life preservers and other lifesaving devices for individuals on
board uninspected vessels.'' The Secretary of Homeland Security's
authority under 46 U.S.C. 2103 and 4102 is delegated to the Coast
Guard.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As amended by section 619 of the 2010 Coast Guard
Authorization Act, Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905.
    \2\ DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92)(a), (92)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The uninspected vessels to which section 4102(b) applies are not
subject to inspection under 46 U.S.C. 3301 and are not recreational
vessels.\3\ Until passage of the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act
(``the Act''), section 4102(b) applied only to uninspected vessels
``propelled by machinery,'' and thus excluded certain uninspected
commercial vessels including most

barges and some sailing vessels unless they carried passengers for
hire.\4\ Current Coast Guard regulations that implement section 4102(b)
reflect the ``propelled by machinery'' requirement and therefore
specifically exempt those excluded barges and sailing vessels.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 46 U.S.C. 2101(25) and (43) for the definitions of
``recreational vessel'' and ``uninspected vessel.''
    \4\ Vessels carrying passengers for hire are inspected vessels
covered by 46 U.S.C. 3301.
    \5\ See 46 CFR 25.25-1(c), (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the rule is to implement 46 U.S.C. 4102(b) as
amended by the Act. The Act deleted the requirement in section 4102(b)
that vessels be propelled by machinery. As amended, section 4102(b) now
requires all non-recreational uninspected vessels, regardless of vessel
type or mode of propulsion, to make an appropriate form of lifesaving
device available for the use of individuals on board the vessel. The
types and numbers of devices appropriate for each type of vessel are
left to the Coast Guard's discretion, as are the requirements for
installing, maintaining, and using those devices.

III. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    Our 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) \6\ drew comments
from 11 sources: 4 from the barge industry, 1 industry worker, 1
industry association, 1 association representing workers,\7\ and 4
individuals who did not indicate their affiliations, if any. We have
revised the regulatory text of this final rule in response to some of
the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 78 FR 42739 (Jul. 17, 2013).
    \7\ The association representing workers made two submissions to
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public meetings. One industry commenter said that changing the
regulations in a way that might make sense for its operations might
``be incorrect'' for another operator, and that therefore we should
hold public meetings in which members of the public could discuss how
best to change the regulations. In our view, it was not necessary to
hold public meetings because the NPRM proposed regulatory text that
would accommodate the circumstances of different industry segments.
    Vessels we overlooked. Two individuals said our proposals exclude
some vessel types that should be covered. The first commenter said that
the congressional intention in deleting ``propelled by machinery'' from
46 U.S.C. 4102(b) was to ``create parity for all uninspected vessels--
both recreational and commercial--with regard to lifesaving equipment
requirements.'' This commenter said that Table 24.05-1(a) in our
existing 46 CFR regulations misleadingly implies that the only ``non-
self-propelled vessels < 100 gross tons'' covered by 46 CFR chapter I,
subchapter C are ``barges carrying passengers or passengers-for-hire''
that are not also subject to inspection as 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter
H, K, or T passenger vessels. The commenter said that other non-self-
propelled vessels under 100 gross tons must also be subject to
subchapter C, and thus subject to lifesaving equipment requirements:
for example, dredges, non-self-propelled workboats, and rowed skiffs
and tenders. Finally, the commenter informed us of a Vermont-based
sailing vessel that has recently entered commercial service and should
be covered under the proposed rule. Likewise, the second commenter
mentioned vessels dredging for oysters in Maryland waters as examples
of commercial sailing vessels that we had overlooked.
    We acknowledge that the NPRM stressed its applicability to barges
and sailing vessels. However, the NPRM's proposed regulatory language
clearly applied to any vessel that is subject to 46 CFR chapter I,
subchapter C. As explained in Table 24.05-1(a), subchapter C applies to
all uninspected motor vessels, non-self-propelled vessels, sailing
vessels, and steam vessels. Skiffs and other motorized vessels are non-
exempt under subchapter C. Our population analysis includes any non-
self-propelled vessel in our database records that was previously
exempt and is now affected by this final rule, which includes unmanned,
non-self propelled dredges. Oyster dredges, if in commercial use, are
commercial fishing vessels that are already subject to the personal
flotation device (PFD) requirements of 46 CFR 28.110. We did, however,
add the Vermont-based sailing vessel to our population analysis,
although it is already in compliance with the proposed requirements.
    Wearing PFDs on barges. Two industry commenters, the industry
worker, the industry association, the association representing workers,
and two individuals addressed our proposed requirement for wearing PFDs
on board a barge. The industry worker estimated that only a small
percentage of tankermen on oil and petroleum barges wear PFDs, and said
it was time to require PFD use. The worker association and one
individual also endorsed our proposed requirement. One industry
commenter endorsed wearing a PFD ``where there is a risk of falling
overboard.'' The industry commenters, the industry association, and the
second individual provided examples of when wearing a PFD would not be
necessary to protect a person's safety on board a barge: for example,
while in an office or shop facility on the barge, while working in a
barge hopper, or when walls or stanchions protect a worker from falling
overboard from a moored barge. The association representing workers
acknowledged the second individual's comment, and seemed to imply that
a watch officer could use his or her discretion to determine under what
conditions wearing a PFD would be necessary. The worker association
also specified that the type of PFD we should require is the work vest
``commonly used on barges'' and ``worn properly to be useful as a piece
[of] personal protective gear.''
    We agree that workers in enclosed spaces on barges, or who are
otherwise protected by the barge's configuration from falling
overboard, do not need to wear PFDs to ensure their safety, and we have
revised 46 CFR 25.25-9(c) to require the wearing of a PFD only while a
worker is on board a barge and at risk of falling overboard. The
proposed regulatory language permits the use of ``commonly used'' PFDs
on barges, including work vests that are approved by the Coast Guard,
and we include this provision in the final rule.
    PFD storage. Three industry commenters and the industry association
commented on our proposal to allow PFDs for use on a barge to be stored
elsewhere than on the barge itself, for example on the barge's towboat.
Two of the industry commenters endorsed this proposal. Two industry
commenters and the industry association suggested changing our proposed
regulatory language, to make the regulations easier to understand. They
suggested, in proposed 46 CFR 25.25-5(b), striking ``which must comply
with paragraph (b)(1) of this section or make substitutions authorized
by paragraph (c) of this section.'' They also suggested rewriting
proposed 46 CFR 25.25-9(c) so that PFD storage would be required only
when PFD use is needed to ensure worker safety.
    We agree with these commenters. We made the suggested change in
Sec.  25.25-5(b), but went beyond that to remove the introductory
language altogether, lest it inadvertently serve to exempt all barges
from the requirements of Sec.  25.25-5. To ensure consistency, we also
revised Sec.  25.25-5(b)(3), to make it clear that barges are exempt
from that paragraph's lifebuoy requirements. We have revised Sec.
25.25-9(c) to require the wearing of a PFD only while a worker is on
board a barge and at risk of falling overboard.

    Operator responsibility. Four industry commenters, the industry
association, and the worker association commented on our proposal to
make the barge operator responsible for ensuring compliance, in
particular with the proposed requirement to wear a PFD on board a
barge. All five commenters agreed that placing this responsibility on
the barge operator would create ambiguity. Two of the industry
commenters and the industry association said that ``barge operator''
could refer to ``the barge owner, the operator of an attending vessel,
or even a fleet or dock worker.'' The worker association said that the
barge operator might not be in a position to ensure that the device is
donned properly or worn at all times. The worker association suggested
that the officer in charge of the watch would be the proper person to
carry those responsibilities. The four industry commenters pointed out
that personnel representing many different operators might be on board
a barge at any given time, and that the only effective way to enforce
the proper wear of PFDs on board the barge would be make each
individual's employer responsible for ensuring compliance.
    We understand that the identity of the ``barge operator'' may
change over time depending on the barge's operation at any given moment
and that the key is to determine who controls access to the barge at
the moment. When the barge's owner controls that access, the owner is
also the operator; if it is the master of another company's tow that
controls access, that master is the operator; and if the barge is being
fleeted and access is controlled by the dock master, the dock master is
the operator for purposes of these regulations.
    Throwable devices. The worker association and one individual
commented on devices that can be thrown to a person overboard, to
assist in the person's rescue. The individual said ``there are many
instances where barges could be equipped with a throwable (Type IV)
device that is readily accessible in the event that a crewmember or
other individual falls in the water.'' The worker association said we
should require a barge to carry a throwable device if there are
occasions when two or more persons are on board, and recommended a
trademarked model of lifebuoy that is equipped with a 100-foot lifeline
because of its superiority as an effective rescue tool.
    We recommend the use of throwable devices when two or more persons
are on a barge, but we will not require that use at this time. Our
emphasis in this final rule is on wearable personal devices. Developing
requirements for throwable devices is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.
The worker association recommended that Coast Guard follow OSHA's
example in certain areas. The recommendations included determining
whether towboats should be required to carry lifesaving skiffs (as
``many of them already do''), requiring a lifebuoy to be equipped with
at least 90 feet of retrievable line, and adopting a regulation for
working over or near water that would be similar to OSHA
requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 29 CFR 1926.106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recommend the carriage of lifesaving skiffs and lifebuoys on
vessels where that carriage makes sense, but we will not require it at
this time. Our emphasis in this final rule is on wearable personal
devices. Developing requirements for skiffs and lifebuoys is outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
    Economic data and analysis. The worker association and one
individual commented on our economic data and analysis. The association
questioned our estimate that 35,568 barges would be subject to our
proposed regulations, and commented that although our proposals seem to
carry low cost, they also would do nothing to improve safety on
uninspected barges. The individual was disturbed by our data,
indicating that out of 40 casualties we examined, only one casualty was
not wearing a life preserver/PFD; he said that before changing any
regulations, we should determine why so many individuals died despite
wearing a life preserver/PFD.
    Based on comments regarding the population, we re-evaluated the
affected population and determined that an estimated 62,240 vessels are
affected by this rule. We made this determination by removing a filter
for ``uninspected'' vessels, as some barges may not be listed as
uninspected.
    As for the casualty data, it is important to keep in mind, when
consulting our data, that they are limited to the statistics we collect
when investigating actual injuries and deaths. The data do not reflect
the many near misses that have occurred to people who fell overboard
without a life preserver/PFD and fortunately survived without major
injury.
    Beyond scope. The worker association made three comments that we
consider to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and we have not
reflected these comments in our revisions to regulatory text. In each
of this commenter's two submissions to the docket, the submission
included copies of articles or previous comments relating to a variety
of maritime safety considerations. These were not presented in the
context of this specific rulemaking and did not indicate the relevance
of this material to other specific comments made by the association.
The third comment was that the safety needs of persons working below
deck on uninspected barges, ``in confined spaces to pump, plug holes,
inspect, etc.'' need attention by the Coast Guard. Persons in confined
work spaces in shipyards are subject to OSHA regulations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 29 CFR part 1915, subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is amending 46 CFR subpart 25.25, which concerns
life preservers and other lifesaving equipment on uninspected
commercial vessels.
    Section 25.25-1 exempts certain types of vessels from subpart
25.25. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section exempt non-commercial
vessels and vessels leased, rented, or chartered to another for that
person's non-commercial use. Paragraphs (c) and (d) exempted
uninspected commercial sailing vessels and barges that do not carry
passengers for hire. Paragraphs (c) and (d) reflected the pre-2010
inclusion of the ``propelled by machinery'' condition in 46 U.S.C.
4102(b). Because section 4102(b) now mandates the Coast Guard to
require some form of lifesaving devices on uninspected commercial
vessels even if they do not carry passengers for hire, irrespective of
propulsion, we are removing 46 CFR 25.25-1(c) and (d).
    We are amending the definitions in 46 CFR 25.25-3 by adding a
definition for ``approval series,'' a term we use elsewhere in the
subpart to describe equipment requirements.
    We are amending 46 CFR 25.25-5, revising current paragraphs (b)
through (f) to eliminate references to equipment specifications that
have become obsolete or that have lost their Coast Guard-approved
status since this section was last amended in 2002. Although the
regulatory text omits the language of current Sec.  25.25-5(f)(3),
requiring Type V commercial hybrid PFDs approved under approval series
160.077 to be worn when a vessel is underway and the intended wearer is
not within an enclosed space, the substance of that provision is
covered by the requirement in Sec.  25.25-5(c)(2)(i) for approved
commercial hybrid PFDs to be used in accordance with the conditions
marked on the PFD and in the owner's manual. All Coast Guard-approved
Type V

hybrid PFDs are labeled with, and their user manuals refer to, the
conditions contained in current Sec.  25.25-5(f)(3). Otherwise, the
requirements currently found in Sec.  25.25-5(b) through (f) are not
substantively changed, but are incorporated into revised Sec.  25.25-
5(b) and (c). As revised, Sec.  25.25-5 requires the operator of each
vessel to which subpart 25.25 applies to provide some form of wearable
PFD, or an immersion suit, for individuals on board. Except for barges,
vessels longer than 26 feet must also be equipped with lifebuoys.
Lifebuoys typically are mounted on stanchions. Given the configuration
of some barges, installation of a lifebuoy stanchion could unreasonably
interfere with operations, and because often only one individual is on
board a barge at any given time, should that individual fall overboard
there would be no one available to throw the lifebuoy to the
individual.
    We are amending 46 CFR 25.25-9 to allow PFDs for barge personnel to
be stowed remotely rather than on the barge itself, and to require
barge operators to ensure that PFDs are worn by individuals while they
are on board a barge and at risk of falling overboard. In addition,
this requirement could be met by donning a work vest approved under
approval series 160.053, routinely used by personnel on barges. This is
consistent with current industry practice. Typically, barge operators
stow PFDs on the barge's towboat, and require crew members to don PFDs
before they go aboard a barge and to wear them while on board. Allowing
this not only increases safety but also does so at a lower cost
relative to the lifebuoy and barge stowage options.
    We are amending tables in 46 CFR 2.01-7, 24.05-1, 30.01-5, 70.05-1,
90.05-1, and 188.05-1. These tables describe the applicable Coast Guard
regulations for different vessel types, and are being revised to remove
references to the 46 CFR 25.25-1(c) and (d) exemptions that we are also
removing.
    Finally, we are revising the authority lines for each part affected
by this rule, to ensure that each authority line cites the Secretary of
DHS's general regulatory authority (delegated to the Coast Guard) to
implement 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Vessels and Seamen.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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).
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed
it under that Order. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs
and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry.
    A final regulatory assessment follows:
    As described in section II (Background) of this final rule, 46
U.S.C. 4102(b), as amended by the Act, now makes all previously exempt
uninspected commercial barges and sailing vessels subject to Coast
Guard regulation for the installation, maintenance, and use of life
preservers and other lifesaving devices for individuals on board. The
Act removed language that formerly limited the applicability of section
4102(b) to vessels ``propelled by machinery,'' which effectively kept
most commercial barges, which are not self-propelled by machinery, as
well as commercial sailing vessels, outside the scope of section
4102(b). At this time, we are aware of only one uninspected commercial
sailing vessel not carrying passengers for hire currently in service
(the Vermont vessel brought to our attention by a public comment) but
we determined that it has an auxiliary motor and therefore can be self-
propelled by machinery. That vessel has PFDs stored on board. Thus the
data on which the rest of this discussion is based relate exclusively
to uninspected commercial barges not carrying passengers for hire.
    As amended, 46 CFR 25.25-5(b) requires operators of affected
vessels to store and maintain at least one PFD for each person on board
a barge.\10\ In lieu of storing a PFD for each individual on board a
barge, PFDs can be stored and maintained on another vessel so long as
crewmembers wear the PFDs while on board the barge when they are at
risk of falling overboard. For instance, uninspected commercial barges
not carrying passengers for hire carry low-cost cargos in bulk and
generally do not carry individuals on board. However, towing vessel
personnel may be on board the barge to perform specific tasks such as
securing the barge to other barges or the towing vessel, or providing
lookout for the towing vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While barges may in practice be tied together, there is no
exception as to storing a set of lifesaving devices for each barge
rather than one per set of barges or around the perimeter of a set
of barges. Towing vessels may transport barges from various barge
owners and drop them off on a schedule, so having lifebuoys and sets
of PFDs on a perimeter of a set of barges may not be feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some firms that operate barges may also own them, for the
purposes of this analysis, we treat barge owners and operators as
different entities. We assume that the barge operators would be
responsible for the PFDs because they are responsible for the safety of
their crews and therefore they would store a sufficient number of PFDs
for each crewmember on board the towing vessel. Under 46 CFR 25.25-
9(c), a barge operator may comply with Sec.  25.25-5(b) by storing PFDs
elsewhere and ensuring that each individual dons the equipment before
boarding the barge and keeps it on for as long as the individual
remains on board, in lieu of maintaining PFDs on each barge. This would
reduce costs by eliminating the need to install storage facilities on
each barge, and would enable the typical industry practice of PFDs
being worn to be substituted.\11\ We also assume that the barge owners
would then negotiate the PFD wear conditions with the barge operators.
While most barge operators require the wearing of PFDs on board a
barge, we received two comments that suggested that there may be a few
barges that will store PFDs on board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Based on information from the American Waterways Operators
(AWO), we believe that the prevailing practice is that crewmembers
wear PFDs while on board a barge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also received one comment that our estimated affected population
may be too low. In the NPRM, we had estimated a population of 35,568
barges (including currently inactive and new barges). We revisited the
Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)
database and estimate that there are 49,150 non-self propelled,
uninspected vessels not carrying passengers for hire. We made this
determination by removing a filter for ``uninspected'' vessels, as some
vessels may not be listed as uninspected. We then included an

additional 13,090 vessels to account for currently inactive and new
vessels, which increases our overall population to 62,240 vessels.
Table 1 summarizes the affected population, costs, and benefits of this
rule.

       Table 1--Summary of Affected Population, Costs and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                           Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability................  Uninspected commercial vessels.
                               Not propelled by machinery.
                               Not carrying passengers for hire.
                               62,240 barges. (including new and
                                currently inactive barges)
                               0 sailing vessels.
Costs........................  $140,420 10-Year, undiscounted cost.
Benefits (Qualitative).......  Improves regulatory efficiency by
                                providing technical updates to the Code
                                of Federal Regulations, aligning them to
                                the U.S. Code and thereby reducing the
                                potential for uncertainty and confusion.
                               Reinforces existing company policy and
                                current industry practice of PFD use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
    Based on the Coast Guard's MISLE database, we determined that there
are 49,150 uninspected, commercial barges. Table 2 provides the list of
barges by type.

                  Table 2--Affected Population by Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Barge type                 NPRM Barges         FR Barges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered Dry Bulk..................                 85                191
Covered General Cargo.............                  2                 41
Derrick/Crane Barge...............                  2                  0
Flat Deck Barge...................                 41                322
General...........................                126             48,004
Open Dry Bulk.....................                156                430
Open General Cargo................                 15                128
Pontoon Barge.....................  .................                  6
Roll-on Roll-off..................  .................                 28
Unspecified.......................             22,050                  0
Work Platform.....................                  1                  0
(blank)...........................  .................  .................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Subtotal......................             22,478             49,150
Currently Inactive................              4,500              4,500
New...............................              8,590              8,590
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total.....................             35,568             62,240
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We took the average number of newbuilds from Informal Economic from
years 2006 to 2010 (859 newbuilds annually).\12\ Based on information
from Coast Guard subject matter experts, we also estimated an
additional 450 barges are currently inactive, but could be added to the
list of active barges in any given year. The number of newbuilds and
currently inactive barges adds 1,309 barges to the population annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Barge Fleet Profile'', March 2012, Informal Economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost
    The majority of barge operators require the wearing of PFDs while
on board the barge because it is a standard industry practice to wear
one.\13\ In 46 CFR 25.25-5, if a barge operator stores PFDs elsewhere
and ensures that each individual dons the equipment before boarding the
barge and keeps it on for as long as the individual remains on board,
they can use the PFDs stored on the towing vessel in lieu of
maintaining a set on each barge. Presumably, a crewmember coming from a
towing vessel would wear the PFD that was originally stored on the
towing vessel, which discussions with industry show to be standard
practice. Since this rule primarily deals with unmanned barges, we
assume that the majority of persons on a commercial barge will wear
PFDs while on board. However, based on two public comments, there may
be a small number of barges that will have PFDs stored on board. As
stated by the commenters, these may be for office or shop facilities
located on a barge, crane and loader operators working on a barge, or
barge cleaners working in the hopper of a barge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Based on information from the American Waterways Operators
(AWO), we believe that the prevailing practice is that crewmembers
wear PFDs while on board a barge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determined the likelihood of PFDs stored on board a barge by the
barge type; covered dry bulk, covered general cargo, and pontoon barges
were considered the most likely to stow PFDs on board, due to clear
perimeter deck area. Other barges tend to be built with open hoppers
and configured such that, when loaded with cargo, quick access to PFDs
on board may not be feasible. Based on this information, we estimate
that at most 238 barges may need to provide 5 PFDs on board and store
them to be readily accessible in a bin ($60).\14\ We also took the
price of various PFDs and came up with an average cost of $47 per PFD.
We estimate the per-vessel cost to be $295 for a set of PFDs and a
storage bin (5 * $47 PFDs + $60 storage

bin). At the per-barge rate of $295, we anticipate the first year cost
to be $70,210 ($295 * 238 barges.) We assume that all vessels comply in
year one. Due to general deterioration, we estimate that the lifespan
of a PFD is 5 years; therefore, vessels will need to periodically
replace their PFDs. Table 3 provides the 10-year breakdown in cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Costs range from $20, $40, $120, depending on the type of
storage. http://www.amazon.com/KwikTek-T-Top-storage-holds-PFDs/dp/B0000AY25C, http://www.landfallnavigation.com/-sj110.html, http://www.stowmate.com/shop/pc/Life-Jacket-PFD-Storage-c8.htmhttp://www.stowmate.com/shop/pc/Life-Jacket-PFD-Storage-c8.htm

               Table 3--Undiscounted Cost To Provide PFDs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Discount rates
             Year                Undiscounted  -------------------------
                                                     7%           3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1........................         $70,210      $65,617      $68,165
Year 2........................               0            0            0
Year 3........................               0            0            0
Year 4........................               0            0            0
Year 5........................               0            0            0
Year 6........................          70,210       46,784       58,800
Year 7........................               0            0            0
Year 8........................               0            0            0
Year 9........................               0            0            0
Year 10.......................               0            0            0
                               -----------------------------------------
    Total.....................         140,420      112,401      126,965
Annualized....................  ..............       16,003       14,884
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
    A benefit of this rule is the improvement in regulatory efficiency
by providing technical updates to the Code of Federal Regulations,
aligning them to the U.S. Code and thereby reducing the potential for
regulatory uncertainty and confusion. Additionally, it reinforces
existing company policy and current industry practice with regard to
PFD use.
    In the NPRM, we reviewed MISLE casualty cases from the years 2003
to 2010 that could have been impacted by this proposed rule. During
this time, there were 49 reported casualties involving falls overboard
from barges, an average of approximately four casualties a year. We
reviewed these cases to see if the individual overboard wore a PFD (or
had ready access to one) and whether the availability of such devices
could have reduced the risk of death in a fall overboard. Of the
casualties that we reviewed, we found only one instance where the
individual did not wear a PFD (despite company policy requiring the use
of a PFD). The casualty report noted that the failure to wear a PFD was
a contributing factor to the fatality. In this case, this proposed
regulation may have reinforced existing company policy of PFD use.
Since the publication of the NPRM, we reviewed additional MISLE
casualty cases (2011 to 2012) for any additional cases related to this
rule and did not find any other falls overboard.
Alternatives
    We examine four alternatives for this regulation.
    Adopted Alternative--Store and maintain enough PFDs for all persons
on board. The PFD can be worn in lieu of storage: This alternative was
chosen because it meets the statutory requirement at a minimal
additional cost. Furthermore, this requirement would be more in line
with existing PFD requirements for other vessels and provides
regulatory flexibility in the option of storage or wearing of PFDs.
Uninspected vessels (such as towing vessels) must store and maintain a
sufficient number of PFDs for every individual on board the vessel in
accordance with 46 CFR 25.25-5. In lieu of storing PFDs, companies can
require individuals to wear a PFD or work vest. Companies have the
option of either instituting a policy of wearing PFDs while on board
(which discussions with industry and reviews of their casualty data
show to be the case on the majority of vessels) or otherwise making
PFDs readily accessible. Compared to other listed alternatives, this
alternative provides the greatest flexibility and safety, at a minimal
cost.
    Alternative 1--No action Current industry practice is to require
the wearing of PFDs while on board a barge. However, some may not
follow that practice and would need to store the PFD on board.
Furthermore, the Act directs the Secretary of DHS to carry out specific
regulatory actions; therefore if no action is taken, the Coast Guard,
having been delegated this rulemaking authority by the Secretary, will
not fulfill its Congressional mandate. This will further cause a
conflict between U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations,
resulting in regulatory uncertainty and confusion.
    Alternative 2--Require that all vessels have a ring buoy, and store
a sufficient number of PFDs on board. In lieu of storing PFDs, persons
can wear PFDs. This alternative is similar to the proposed alternative
in that it requires the wearing or storing of PFDs (which we estimate
to be no additional cost), but owners would also need to install a ring
buoy on board barges at an estimated cost of $267 per vessel (barge)
every 5 years.\15\ Table 4 provides the breakdown of labor and material
costs to install a ring buoy on board a barge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Welder: 4 hours (Coast Guard subject matter expert)*$27 per
hour (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/oes514121.htm) * load factor
of 1.49. Therefore the welder's loaded wage rate is $27.22 = ($18.23
wage rate * 1.49 load rate).

                                 Table 4--Cost to Install a Ring Buoy on a Barge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Labor hours
  Per barge cost        (welder)          Wage rate          Ring buoy           Brackets          Stanchion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          $267                  4                $27                $71                $46                $42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 provides the raw material cost to install a ring buoy. The
averages of the cost points were used.

                                      Table 5--Cost Sources for Ring Buoys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Date
                     Item                          Cost                      Source                   Accessed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ring buoy (24 inch)..........................        $71.00  Average cost.                          ............
Low..........................................         64.99  http://store.poolcenter.com/ring-         02-Apr-14
                                                              buoy--uscg-approved-ring-buoy-24in-
                                                              diameter-w-rope-p169873.aspx.
High.........................................         77.99  http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/     02-Apr-14
                                                              stores/servlet/
                                                              Product111511000139507-
                                                              1?cid=chanintelgoogle&cisrc=14110944
                                                              &cisku=39507.
Brackets.....................................         46.00  Average cost. Cost includes 3
                                                              brackets for mounting.
Low..........................................          6.99  http://www.boatbandit.com/ring-buoy-      02-Apr-14
                                                              bracket-4344.aspx?gclid=CMukr8D-
                                                              wb0CFUYV7AodbVAAaQ.
High.........................................         23.98  http://www.rakuten.com/prod/whitecap-     02-Apr-14
                                                              ss-ring-buoy-bracket/
                                                              258723308.html?listingId=335700363&s
                                                              cid=plagoogleelmart&adid=18178&gclid
                                                              =CK2yqef-wb0CFQ5gMgod5hUAZQ.
Stanchion....................................         42.00  2 x 2 of 1/4
                                                              inch thickness, 10 feet long.
                                                      42.00  http://www.discountsteel.com/items/       02-Apr-14
                                                              A36HotRolledSteelEqualLegAngle.cfm?i
                                                              temid=183&sizeno=19&skuno=74&pieceLe
                                                              ngth=cut&lenft=8&frmGS=true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We anticipate that the 10-year undiscounted cost would be $31.6
million for this alternative. This alternative was not chosen because
it would cost more and not provide additional benefit as the ring buoy
would provide protection redundant to the PFD, and in most cases, there
would be no one available to deploy it. We estimate that all existing,
new, and currently inactive barges would need to install ring buoys.
Table 6 provides the breakdown in population and undiscounted costs by
year.

                                Table 6--Undiscounted Cost To Install Ring Buoys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per vessel     Undiscounted
                      Year                          Population      Replacement        cost            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................           50459               0            $267     $13,472,553
Year 2..........................................            1309               0             267         349,503
Year 3..........................................            1309               0             267         349,503
Year 4..........................................            1309               0             267         349,503
Year 5..........................................            1309               0             267         349,503
Year 6..........................................            1309           50459             267      13,822,056
Year 7..........................................            1309            1309             267         699,006
Year 8..........................................            1309            1309             267         699,006
Year 9..........................................            1309            1309             267         699,006
Year 10.........................................            1309            1309             267         699,006
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           62240          55,695  ..............      31,488,645
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the cost to install ring buoys, barge owners would
also need to provide PFDs. The cost to provide PFDs was illustrated in
Table 3, which was $70,210 in years 1 and 6. Table 7 combines the
undiscounted cost from Tables 3 and 6, and provides the 10-year
breakdown in cost for this final rule. The cost includes the cost to
provide PFDs as well as the cost to install ring buoys.

                                  Table 7--10-Year Cost for PFDs and Ring Buoys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Discount rates
                              Year                                 Undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                                7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................     $13,542,763     $12,656,788     $13,148,314
Year 2..........................................................         349,503         305,269         329,440
Year 3..........................................................         349,503         285,299         319,845
Year 4..........................................................         349,503         266,634         310,529
Year 5..........................................................         349,503         249,191         301,484
Year 6..........................................................      13,892,266       9,257,003      11,634,554
Year 7..........................................................         699,006         435,306         568,356
Year 8..........................................................         699,006         406,828         551,802
Year 9..........................................................         699,006         380,213         535,730
Year 10.........................................................         699,006         355,339         520,126
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

    Total.......................................................      31,629,065      24,597,870      28,220,179
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Annualized......................................................  ..............       3,502,183       3,308,266
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternative 3--Require that all vessels have a ring buoy only. This
change would have the effect of requiring one ring buoy on board each
vessel (barge). The ring buoy would need to be installed (and replaced
as needed) at an estimated cost to barge owners of $267 per vessel
(barge) every 5 years. At an estimated 62,240 active, inactive, and new
barges, we anticipate that this alternative would cost $31.5 million
overall, undiscounted. As mentioned above, the ring buoy would provide
protection redundant to the PFD, and in most cases, there would be no
one available to deploy it. Table 8 provides the undiscounted and
discounted costs for this alternative.

                                   Table 8--10-Year Cost To Install Ring Buoys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Discount rates
                              Year                                 Undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                                7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................     $13,472,553     $12,591,171     $13,080,149
Year 2..........................................................         349,503         305,269         329,440
Year 3..........................................................         349,503         285,299         319,845
Year 4..........................................................         349,503         266,634         310,529
Year 5..........................................................         349,503         249,191         301,484
Year 6..........................................................      13,822,056       9,210,220      11,575,754
Year 7..........................................................         699,006         435,306         568,356
Year 8..........................................................         699,006         406,828         551,802
Year 9..........................................................         699,006         380,213         535,730
Year 10.........................................................         699,006         355,339         520,126
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      31,488,645      24,485,469      28,093,215
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Annualized......................................................  ..............       3,486,180       3,293,382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This alternative was not chosen because it would not provide the
lowest cost with the maximum benefits.

B. Small Entities

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act,\16\ we have considered
whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We conducted a final regulatory flexibility analysis based on the
updated population numbers resulting from a comment received in the
NPRM. Using those updated population numbers, we can determine there
are approximately 2,893 owners of 49,151 barges. From the 2,893 owners,
we researched 276 randomly selected small entities to determine if they
fell below or exceeded the threshold for a small entity, as determined
by the U.S. Small Business Association (SBA). To establish whether an
entity was below the threshold or above the threshold, we used the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for each
industry and the small entity qualifying definitions for each NAICS
code established by the SBA for businesses. The following provides a
breakdown of the size determination for the entities:

 2 Government or non-profit exceeding the threshold
 0 Government or non-profit below the threshold
 32 businesses exceeding the threshold
 94 businesses below the threshold
 148 unknown and therefore considered small

    Based on this analysis, 88 percent of the sample is small entities.
    Table 3 provides a description of the most-prevalent NAICS for the
small entities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 SBA size
                                                                 threshold
           NAICS                  Industry        % of small    (less than     SBA size standard     Number of
                                                   entities      threshold           type            entities
                                                                  small)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238910....................  Site Preparation            7.45     $15,000,000  Revenue...........               7
                             Contractors.
336611....................  Ship Building and           7.45            1000  Employees.........               7
                             Repairing.
236115....................  New Single-family           6.38     $36,500,000  Revenue...........               6
                             Housing
                             Construction
                             (Except For-Sale
                             Builders).
237110....................  Water and Sewer             5.32     $36,500,000  Revenue...........               5
                             Line and Related
                             Structures
                             Construction.

441222....................  Boat Dealers.......         4.26     $32,500,000  Revenue...........               4
483211....................  Inland Water                4.26             500  Employees.........               4
                             Freight
                             Transportation.
488330....................  Navigational                4.26     $38,500,000  Revenue...........               4
                             Services to
                             Shipping.
236220....................  Commercial and              3.19     $36,500,000  Revenue...........               3
                             Institutional
                             Building
                             Construction.
237310....................  Highway, Street,            3.19     $36,500,000  Revenue...........               3
                             and Bridge
                             Construction.
237990....................  Other Heavy and             3.19     $36,500,000  Revenue...........               3
                             Civil Engineering
                             Construction.
423320....................  Brick, Stone, and           3.19             100  Employees.........               3
                             Related
                             Construction
                             Material Merchant
                             Wholesalers.
541330....................  Engineering                 3.19     $15,000,000  Revenue...........               3
                             Services.
                            All others.........        44.68  ..............  ..................              42
                                                -------------                                    ---------------
                               Total...........          100  ..............  ..................              94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Company revenue for businesses below the threshold, as established
by the SBA, ranges from $42,000 to $12.5 billion. The per company cost
ranges from $295 for one vessel to $6,195 for 21 barges. We anticipate
that 99 percent of the affected entities will have an impact of less
than 1 percent of revenue. Only one percent will have an impact of
between 1 and 3 percent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
              Impact range                   entities       Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% <= Impact < 1%.......................              93           98.94
1% <= Impact < 3%.......................               1            1.06
Impact > 5%.............................               0            0.00
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................              94  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    As required by section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\17\ we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. At this time no
requests for assistance by small entities have been submitted to the
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Pub. L. 104-121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132
(``Federalism'') if it has a substantial direct effect on State or
local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a
substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this
rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that it has the following
implications for federalism.
    Before passage of the Act, the lifesaving device requirements found
in 46 U.S.C. Sec.  4102(b) did not apply to certain uninspected vessels
not carrying passengers for hire. By passing the Act, Congress
expressly intended existing Coast Guard regulations to apply to these
vessels that were previously exempted. Therefore, existing State or
local laws or regulations that regulate the ``installation,
maintenance, and use of life preservers and other lifesaving devices
for individuals on board uninspected vessels'' are preempted, but only
insofar as a State or local law or regulation conflicts with the
federal regulation.
    Given our analysis, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role State
and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations.
Additionally, Sections 4 and 6 of E.O. 13132 require that for any rules
with preemptive effect, the Coast Guard shall provide elected officials
of affected State and local governments and their representative
national organizations the notice and opportunity for appropriate
participation in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult with such
officials early in the rulemaking process. Therefore, we invited
affected State and local governments and their representative national
organizations to indicate their desire for participation and
consultation in this rulemaking process by submitting comments to this
notice; no such comments were received.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995\19\ requires Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory
actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in
the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988

(``Civil Justice Reform''), to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175
(``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''),
because it 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 rule under E.O. 13211 (``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use''). We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy
action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act \20\ 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 \21\ that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272.
    \21\ For example, specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures, and related
management systems practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under DHS Management Directive 023.01
and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA),\22\ and have concluded that this action is one of a category of
actions, which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded
under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(d) and (e) of the
Instruction, and 6(a) of our 2002 Federal Register notice of
categorical exclusions.\23\ This rule involves regulations concerning
equipping of vessels, equipment approval and carriage requirements and
vessel operation safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f.
    \23\ 67 FR 48243 (Jul. 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 2

    Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 24

    Marine safety.

46 CFR Part 25

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

46 CFR Part 30

    Cargo vessels, Foreign relations, Hazardous materials
transportation, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Seamen.

46 CFR Part 70

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

46 CFR Part 90

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety.

46 CFR Part 188

    Marine safety, Oceanographic research vessels.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
46 CFR parts 2, 24, 25, 30, 70, 90, and 188 as follows:

PART 2--VESSEL INSPECTIONS

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 2 to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 622, Pub. L. 111-281; 33 U.S.C. 1903; 43 U.S.C.
1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2110, 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3
CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1-105; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(77), (90), (92)(a), (92)(b).

Sec.  2.01-7  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  2.01-7 to remove the phrase ``carrying passengers or
passengers-for-hire'' from Table 2.01-7(a), column 5, rows 3 and 4, and
remove the phrase ``None'' from column 5, row 6, adding in its place
the phrase ``All vessels not covered by columns 2, 3, 4, and 6''.

PART 24--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
3. Revise the authority citation for part 24 to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2113, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1-105; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92)(a), (92)(b).

Sec.  24.05-1  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  24.05-1 to remove the phrase ``carrying passengers or
passengers-for-hire'' from Table 24.05-1(a), column 5, rows 3 and 4,
and remove the phrase ``None'' from column 5, row 6, adding in its
place the phrase ``All vessels not covered by columns 2, 3, 4, and 6.''

PART 25--REQUIREMENTS

0
5. Revise the authority citation for part 25 to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 4102, 4302;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(77),
(92)(a), 92(b).

Sec.  25.25-1  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  25.25-1 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a) following the text ``noncommercial use;'', add the
word ``and'';
0
b. In paragraph (b) following the text ``noncommercial use'', remove
the semicolon, and add, in its place, a period; and
0
c. Remove paragraphs (c) and (d).

0
7. Revise Sec.  25.25-3 to read as follows:

Sec.  25.25-3  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Approval series means the first six digits of a number assigned
by the Coast Guard to approved equipment. Where approval is based on a
subpart of subchapter Q of this chapter, the approval series
corresponds to the number of the subpart. A listing of current and
formerly approved equipment and materials may be found on the Internet
at: http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment. Each OCMI may be contacted for
information concerning approved equipment.
    (b) Approved means approved under subchapter Q of this chapter.
    (c) Use means operate, navigate, or employ.

0
8. Revise Sec.  25.25-5 to read as follows:

Sec.  25.25-5  Life preservers and other lifesaving equipment required.

    (a) No person may operate a vessel to which this subpart applies
unless it meets the requirements of this subpart.
    (b) (1) Each vessel not carrying passengers for hire and less than
40 feet in length must have on board at least one wearable personal
flotation device (PFD) approved under subchapter Q of this chapter, and
of a suitable size for each person on board.
    (2) Each vessel carrying passengers for hire, and each vessel not
carrying passengers for hire and 40 feet in length or longer, must have
at least one PFD approved under approval series 160.055, 160.155, or
160.176, and of a suitable size for each person on board.
    (3) In addition to the equipment required by paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of this section, each vessel 26 feet in length or longer, except
for a barge to which this subpart applies, must have at least one
approved lifebuoy, and each uninspected passenger vessel of at least
100 gross tons must have at least three approved lifebuoys. Lifebuoys
must be approved under approval series 160.050 or 160.150, except that
a lifebuoy approved under former 46 CFR 160.009 prior to May 9, 1979
(see 46 CFR chapter I, revised as of October 1, 1979), may be used as
long as it is in good and serviceable condition.
    (c)(1) Each vessel not carrying passengers for hire may substitute
an immersion suit approved under 46 CFR 160.171 for a wearable PFD
required under paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) On each vessel, regardless of length and regardless of whether
carrying passengers for hire, an approved commercial hybrid PFD
approved under approval series 160.077, may be substituted for a PFD
approved under approval series 160.055, 160.155, or 160.176, if it is--
    (i) Used in accordance with the conditions marked on the PFD and in
the owner's manual; and
    (ii) Labeled for use on commercial vessels.
0
9. Amend Sec.  25.25-9, as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ``Sec.  25.25-5 (b), (c) and (e)''
and add, in its place, the text ``Sec.  25.25-5(b) and (c)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the text ``Sec.  25.25-5(d)'' and add, in
its place, the text ``Sec.  25.25-5(b)''; and
0
c. Add a paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.25-9  Storage.

* * * * *
    (c) For a barge to which this subpart applies, the wearable
lifesaving equipment specified in Sec.  25.25-5 need not be stored on
board the barge if the barge's operator stores it elsewhere, and
ensures that each individual dons the equipment or a work vest approved
under 46 CFR 160.053 before boarding the barge and keeps it on for as
long as the individual remains on board and at risk of falling
overboard.

PART 30--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
10. Revise the authority citation for part 30 to read as follows:

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

Sec.  30.01-5  [Amended]

0
11. Amend Sec.  30.01-5 to remove the phrase ``carrying passengers or
passengers-for-hire'' from Table 30.01-5(d), column 5, rows 3 and 4,
and remove the word ``None'' from column 5, row 6, adding in its place
the phrase ``All vessels not covered by columns 2, 3, 4, and 6''.

PART 70--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
12. Revise the authority citation for part 70 to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1-105; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92)(a), (92)(b).

Sec.  70.05-1  [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  70.05-1 to remove the phrase ``carrying passengers or
passengers-for-hire'' from Table 70.05-1(a), column 5, rows 3 and 4,
and remove the word ``None'' from column 5, row 6, adding in its place
the phrase ``All vessels not covered by columns 2, 3, 4, and 6''.

PART 90--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
14. Revise the authority citation for part 90 to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1-105; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92)(a), (92)(b).

Sec.  90.05-1  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  90.05-1 to remove the phrase ``carrying passengers or
passengers-for-hire'' from Table 90.05-1(a), column 5, rows 3 and 4,
and remove the word ``None'' from column 5, row 6, adding in its place
the phrase ``All vessels not covered by columns 2, 3, 4, and 6.''

PART 188--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
16. Revise the authority citation for part 188 to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2113, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1-105; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92)(a), (92)(b).

Sec.  188.05-1  [Amended]

0
17. Amend Sec.  188.05-1 to remove the phrase ``carrying passengers or
passengers-for-hire'' from Table 188.05-1(a), column 5, rows 3 and 4,
and remove the word ``None'' from column 5, row 6, adding in its place
the phrase ``All vessels not covered by columns 2, 3, 4, and 6.''

J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U. S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-21541 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19034-19036]
[FR Doc No: E9-9583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0120]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Coronado Fourth of July Fireworks; San Diego Bay,
San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone
on the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay in support of the Coronado
Fourth of July Fireworks. This temporary safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of crew, spectators, and other users and vessels
of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this temporary safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0120 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Petty Officer Kristen Beer, USCG, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0120), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand delivery or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2009-0120'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2009-0120 in the Docket ID box, press

Enter, and then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also
visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Dr., San Diego, CA 92101 between
8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
Addresses. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Background and Purpose

    Coronado 4th of July, Inc., is sponsoring the Coronado Fourth of
July Fireworks, which would include a fireworks presentation
originating from a barge located in Glorietta Bay at approximately
32[deg]40.68' N., 117[deg]10.18' W. The safety zone would encompass all
navigable waters within 1200 feet of the fireworks barge. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
crew, spectators, and other users and vessels of the waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes establishing a safety zone that would be
enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. This safety zone
is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, and
other users and vessels of the waterway. Persons and vessels would be
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative. The limits of the safety zone are all
navigable waters within 1200 feet of the fireworks barge located in
Glorietta Bay at approximately 32[deg]40.68' N., 117[deg]10.18' W.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This determination is
based on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels
would not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels would
not be allowed to transit through the established safety zone during
the specified times unless authorized to do so by the Captain of the
Port or his designated representative.

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 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.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Glorietta Bay from
8:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule would be in effect for only 45 minutes late in the evening when
vessel traffic is low. Although the safety zone would apply to the
entire width of the bay, traffic would be allowed to pass through the
zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. Before
the effective period, the Coast Guard would publish a local notice to
mariners (LNM) and would issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM)
alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the temporary safety zone is
enforced.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Kristen Beer,
USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at (619)
278-7262. 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.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This 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.

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.

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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add a new temporary zone Sec.  165.T11-176 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-176   Safety Zone; Coronado Fourth of July Fireworks; San
Diego Bay, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone are all the navigable
waters within 1200 feet of the fireworks barge located in Glorietta Bay
at approximately 32[deg]40.68' N., 117[deg]10.18' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section would be enforced from 8:45
p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port would cease
enforcement of this safety zone and would announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local,State, and Federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local agencies.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-9583 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Conference Call with Ford Motor Company for Docket

December 8, 2005

On Thursday December 8, 2005, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had
a conference call with Susan Rokosz of the Ford Motor Company from 3:00
pm to 3:30 pm. The purpose of the call was to learn about Ford’s
practices for recycling secondary materials and the information will be
used to facilitate an analysis of overall good hazardous waste recycling
practices for a DSW rulemaking. The call focused on Ford’s use of an
outside company that provides a solvent supply and recovery process to
recycle solvents used in manufacturing automobiles and on Ford’s
practices regarding audits for waste or recycling vendors.

Kathy Blanton	Environmental Protection Agency

Susan Rokosz	Ford Motor Company