[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21016-21058]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06504]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 67

April 7, 2023

Part III

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

33 CFR Part 181

46 CFR Parts 25, 28, 108, Et al.

Lifejacket Approval Harmonization; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 181

46 CFR Parts 25, 28, 108, 117, 133, 141, 160, 169, 180 and 199

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0120]
RIN 1625-AC62

Lifejacket Approval Harmonization

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the approval requirements
and follow-up program requirements for lifejackets by incorporating new
standards to replace existing legacy standards. The Coast Guard further
proposes to amend lifejacket and personal flotation device (PFD)
carriage requirements to allow for the use of equipment approved to the
new standards and remove obsolete equipment approval requirements. The
proposed amendments would streamline the process for the approval of
PFDs and allow manufacturers the opportunity to produce more innovative
equipment that would meet approval requirements in both Canada and the
United States while also reducing the burden of the approval process
and the production inspections on manufacturing firms.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0120 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
    Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. Make
arrangements to view this material by calling the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
document call or email Jacqueline Yurkovich, Coast Guard; telephone
202-372-1389, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Background, Basis, and Purpose
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    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. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment may help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. To do so, go
to www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0120 in the search box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results
column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you
cannot submit your material using www.regulations.gov, call or email
the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposed rule for alternate instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web
page. That web page also explains how to subscribe for email alerts
that will notify you when comments are posted or if a final rule is
published. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to
this document, see the Department of Homeland Security's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting but we will
consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a meeting
would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to
announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

ANSI American National Standards Institute
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IBR Incorporation by reference
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
ISO International Organization for Standardization
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NBSAC National Boating Safety Advisory Committee
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFD Personal flotation device
QMS Quality management system
RA Regulatory analysis
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
Sec.  Section
SBA Small Business Administration
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Background, Basis, and Purpose

    The Coast Guard has statutory authority under Title 46, U.S. Code,
Sections 3306(a) and (b), 4102(b), 4302(a) and (c), and 4502(a) and
(c)(2)(B), to prescribe regulations for the design, construction,
performance, testing, carriage, use, and inspection of lifesaving
equipment on commercial and recreational vessels. Under Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2,
paragraph (II)(92)(b), the Secretary delegated authority under these
statutes to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
    With this rulemaking, we are proposing to incorporate the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 for
Level 50 and Level 70 personal flotation devices (PFDs), ANSI/CAN/UL
12402-4 for Level 100 PFDs, and ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 for quality assurance.
In addition, we propose to incorporate the ANSI/UL 1123 and ANSI/UL
1175 standards for marine buoyant devices and inherently buoyant and
inflatable throwable PFDs, respectively. The Coast Guard currently
approves inherently buoyant and

inflatable throwable PFDs to these standards as a matter of policy, so
incorporating them in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) would not
result in any changes in practice but would improve transparency.
    We are also proposing to remove portions of Title 46 in part 160 of
the CFR, where the newly incorporated standards would supersede the
previous standards or requirements. Additionally, we are proposing
amendments to lifesaving equipment carriage requirements that would
permit the use of Level 50, Level 70, and Level 100 PFDs approved to
the new standards.
    The Coast Guard actively participates in the development of ANSI-
accredited industry consensus standards for lifesaving equipment. In
that capacity, the Coast Guard has worked with Transport Canada and
United States and Canadian stakeholders in the development of the suite
of harmonized ANSI/CAN/UL standards to streamline the process for
approval of PFDs. Additionally, the harmonization would allow
manufacturers the opportunity to produce more innovative equipment that
would still meet approval requirements in both Canada and the United
States. PFD manufacturers largely drove the development of these
standards; therefore, we expect PFD manufacturers to generally support
this proposed rulemaking.
    To further those efforts, on September 22, 2014, the Coast Guard
published a final rule to remove references to type codes in its
regulations on the carriage and labeling of Coast Guard approved PFDs
to facilitate the future incorporation by reference (IBR) of new
industry consensus standards (79 FR 56491, September 22, 2014). In
April 2017, the Coast Guard and Transport Canada signed a Memorandum of
Understanding outlining an intended cooperation for the approval of
personal lifesaving appliances that comply with mutually acceptable
standards, are tested by mutually accepted conformity assessment bodies
or independent test laboratories, and are covered by a mutually
acceptable follow-up program.
    On August 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice in the
Federal Register (83 FR 41095) regarding a policy letter and
deregulatory savings analysis on accepting the standard ANSI/CAN/UL
12402-5 for Level 70 PFDs, not including inflatable PFDs for use by
persons less than 16 years old. On November 15, 2019, the Coast Guard
published a notice (84 FR 62546) that finalized this policy.
    The Coast Guard published a final rule (77 FR 19937, April 3, 2012)
incorporating by reference updated revisions of industry consensus
standards for PFDs including UL 1180, ``UL Standard for Safety for
Fully Inflatable Recreational Personal Flotation Devices,'' Second
Edition (including revisions through December 3, 2010). The discussion
and response to comments in that rulemaking included a discussion on
inflatable PFDs for users less than 16 years of age. UL 1180 limits the
approval of inflatable PFDs to persons of at least 16 years of age, and
thus the final rule retained that age limit for approved users of
inflatable PFDs. No age limit was included in the regulatory text to
allow for a possible future rulemaking to incorporate by reference a
standard that sufficiently addresses the needs of younger wearers.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing seven main amendments to our
regulations:
    (1) Adding new subpart 160.255 and incorporating by reference ANSI/
CAN/UL 12402-4 for approval of Level 100 PFDs, and removing sections of
subpart 160.055.
    (2) Adding new subparts 160.264 and 160.276, which incorporate by
reference ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 for approval of Level 50 and Level 70
PFDs without additional buoyancy or age restrictions; removing the
sections of subparts 160.060, 160.064, and 160.076 pertaining to the
approval of new wearable PFDs; relocating the sections pertaining to
throwable PFDs from subpart 160.064 to new subpart 160.045 and
incorporating by reference ANSI/UL 1123 and ANSI/UL 1175; and removing
subpart 160.077 in its entirety.
    (3) Incorporating by reference ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 for quality
assurance requirements in subparts 160.045, 160.055, 160.060, 160.064,
160.076, 160.255, 160.264, and 160.276.
    (4) Removing subparts 160.001, 160.002, 160.005, 160.047, 160.048,
and 160.052, as these subparts are mostly or entirely obsolete, and
moving the remaining relevant material from subpart 160.001 to subpart
160.055.
    (5) Amending lifesaving equipment carriage requirements to include
the new approval categories, where appropriate, and removing any
remaining references to type codes.
    (6) Amending the requirements for instruction pamphlets for PFDs to
include the placard specified in subparts 160.055, 160.060, 160.255,
160.264, and 160.276.
    (7) Amending the existing regulatory text to make editorial
corrections and increase clarity.
    We provide additional details and discussion on each of these seven
main categories of amendments below. If we finalize this proposed rule,
then under 46 U.S.C. 4302(b) the effective date of provisions applying
to recreational vessels would be at least 180 days after publication.
For simplicity, we would likely delay the effective date of the entire
rule until 180 days after publication. We invite public comments on
that timing.
    The National Boating Safety Advisory Committee (NBSAC) was
consulted regarding the updated standards proposed in this rule, as
shown by NBSAC Resolutions 2009-83-01 and 2011-87-01, and the
revalidation of those resolutions found in Resolution 2022-03-01. We
also welcome comments from NBSAC on this proposed rule.

1. Add New Subpart, 46 CFR 160.255, and Incorporate by Reference ANSI/
CAN/UL 12402-4

    We propose adding a new subpart, 160.255, to title 46 of the CFR.
PFDs approved under this new subpart would meet the carriage
requirements for wearable PFDs for inspected vessels that are neither
on an international voyage nor subject to the International Convention
for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), uninspected commercial vessels
over 40 feet (12m) in length, and uninspected passenger vessels.
    Newly proposed subpart 160.255 contains structural and performance
requirements for approval of Level 100 PFDs, as well as requirements
for production inspections and quality control, markings, information
pamphlets, and associated manuals. ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 would be
incorporated by reference. PFDs approved under this subpart could rely
upon inherently buoyant material, inflation, or a combination of the
two to achieve the minimum buoyancy.
    A Level 100 PFD has the same basic requirements as a PFD meeting 46
CFR 160.055. The minimum amount of buoyancy, basic mechanical
properties, and in-water performance requirements are the same.
However, ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 is less prescriptive regarding the design
requirements of a Level 100 PFD, so manufacturing firms would be able
to develop more innovative designs. The marking requirements in ANSI/
CAN/UL 12402-4 specify pictorial graphics to communicate the
performance of the PFD and warnings for use. The Coast Guard conducted
research and focus groups to identify issues with the Type code labels
and to evaluate multiple new pictorial labeling options. Our research
indicated that people consistently preferred pictorial

markings.\1\ Therefore, we expect this marking format to be more easily
understandable to both English-speaking and non-English-speaking
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Revision of Labeling and Classification for Personal
Flotation Devices (PFDs),'' Applied Safety & Ergonomics, Inc.,
December 28, 2004, Young et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 does not require fully or partially inflatable
Level 100 PFDs to provide redundant back-up inflation chambers. Current
regulations require inflatable lifejackets under approval series
160.176 to have at least two inflation chambers and to reach minimum
in-water performance with any one chamber deflated. These inflatable
lifejackets meet the International Maritime Organization Life-Saving
Appliance code and are intended for use on vessels subject to SOLAS.
    Back-up chambers were originally required for inflatable
lifejackets intended for use on inspected vessels as an additional
safety measure in case the primary inflation chamber failed to inflate
(54 FR 50320). In that rulemaking, the Coast Guard noted that we would
continue discussions with industry, standards organizations, and state
boating law administrators regarding the reliability of inflatable
PFDs. We also indicated that when new developments or innovations
reduced the risk of inflation failure to an acceptable level, we could
address this issue with a subsequent rulemaking. Since the publication
of that rule in 1989, the Coast Guard has no evidence that a well-
maintained PFD with a single inflation chamber is less reliable than an
inherently buoyant PFD. Additionally, the Coast Guard has approved
inflatable PFDs without back-up chambers under approval series 160.076.
Such devices have been in use in the United States on uninspected
commercial vessels less than 12 m in length and recreational vessels
and in Canada on small vessels for over a decade. Therefore, the Coast
Guard believes that the material testing of the PFD components coupled
with the required annual servicing of inflatable Level 100 PFDs is
sufficient, and that redundant back-up inflation chambers are not
necessary to provide an equivalent level of safety to PFDs meeting 46
CFR 160.055.
    Because newly proposed subpart 160.255 would supersede the
requirements for life preservers in subpart 160.055, we propose to
delete structural and performance requirements for approval of life
preservers in subpart 160.055, but maintain the requirements for
production inspections, tests, and quality assurance. Manufacturers
could continue to produce life preservers currently approved under
subpart 160.055, while all new lifejackets would require Coast Guard
approval under new subpart 160.255.
    At the same time, we propose to restructure subpart 160.055 to
include a statement of the subpart's scope and to mirror the structure
of other PFD-related subparts. We would add the scope as Sec.  160.055-
1 and definitions in Sec.  160.055-3, and the documents incorporated by
reference would be moved from Sec.  160.055-1 to Sec.  160.055-5.
Because no new approvals would be granted under Sec.  160.055, we
propose to remove existing requirements for materials and construction,
marking, and procedure for approval, including current 46 CFR 160.055-
3, 160.055-4, 160.055-5, 160.055-6, 160.055-8, and 160.055-9. We
propose independent laboratory requirements for addition in Sec.
160.055-11. We would move sampling, tests, and inspections from Sec.
160.055-7 to newly created Sec.  160.055-15 and pamphlet requirements
would be included in new Sec.  160.055-19. Procedures for the approval
of design or material changes would be included in new Sec.  160.055-23
and information on suspension or termination of approval would be
included in new Sec.  160.055-25.

2. Add New Subparts 46 CFR 160.045, 160.264, and 160.276, and
Incorporate by Reference ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5, ANSI/UL 1123, and ANSI/UL
1175

    We propose three new subparts in Title 46 of the CFR: 160.045,
160.264, and 160.276. PFDs approved under these subparts would meet the
carriage requirements for uninspected commercial vessels less than 40
feet (12m) in length and not carrying passengers for hire, and
recreational boats, in accordance with 33 part CFR 175 and 46 CFR
subpart 25.25.
    Newly proposed 46 CFR 160.264 contains structural and performance
requirements for approval of Level 50 and Level 70 inherently buoyant
PFDs, as well as requirements for production inspections and quality
control, markings, information pamphlets, and associated manuals. Newly
proposed 46 CFR 160.276 contains structural and performance
requirements for approval of Level 50 and Level 70 fully and partially
inflatable recreational PFDs, as well as requirements for production
inspections and quality control, associated manuals, information
pamphlets, and markings. ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 would be incorporated by
reference in both subparts.
    ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 prescribes minimum performance requirements
instead of prescribing design requirements. These performance-based
standards allow manufacturing firms to design more innovative,
comfortable, and stylish PFDs. New PFD designs could lead to more
individuals choosing to wear their PFDs, resulting in fewer
drownings.\2\ Drowning is the leading cause of death in recreational
boating accidents, accounting for 79 percent of all recreational
boating casualties where the cause of death is known.\3\ Of those who
drowned, 86 percent were not wearing a lifejacket. Wearing a lifejacket
is one of the best means available of preventing accidental drowning in
recreational boating. Unfortunately, recreational boaters only wear
lifejackets about 24 percent of the time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Readers should reference the National Center for
Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which is part of the National
Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), and perform a literature search for articles on the topic of
PFDs and their usage. Readers can access this website at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. More specifically, readers should reference
the following articles for further information: ``Personal, social,
and environmental factors associated with lifejacket wear in adults
and children: A systematic literature review'' (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931488) and ``Barriers to life
jacket use among adult recreational boaters'' (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310692).
    \3\ United States Coast Guard, ``2019 Recreational Boating
Statistics.'' https://uscgboating.org/library/accident-statistics/Recreational-Boating-Statistics-2019.pdf.
    \4\ United States Coast Guard, ``2019 Life Jacket Wear Rate
Observation Study.'' https://uscgboating.org/library/national-live-jacket-wear-study/2019-Life-Jacket-Wear-Rate-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discomfort, whether real or perceived, is negatively associated
with PFD wear.\5\ ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 allows manufacturers more
flexibility when selecting materials, design, and construction of new
PFDs. Because manufacturers would be less limited in the materials,
design, and construction, we expect new PFDs might be slimmer, lighter
in weight, or more comfortable to wear than PFDs approved under the
current requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Amy Peden, Daniel Demant, Martin Hagger, and Kyra Hamilton,
``Personal, social, and environmental factors associated with
lifejacket wear in adults and children: A systematic literature
review.'' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931488/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our 2018 policy letter, the Coast Guard determined that Level 70
inherently buoyant devices, Level 70 inflatable devices, and Level 70
multi-chamber devices that meet the requirements of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5
provide equivalent performance to wearable PFDs meeting 46 CFR 160.064
or 160.076.
    Now, the Coast Guard is proposing this rule based on our assessment
that

a Level 50 PFD, when worn and used in accordance with the label,
provides an equivalent level of safety as a wearable PFD meeting
subpart 160.064 or 160.076. A Level 50 PFD has a lower minimum amount
of buoyancy than the current minimum requirement for Coast Guard
approved PFDs. However, ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 requires that a Level 50
PFD keep the user's airway above the water, as demonstrated by in-water
performance testing. A Level 50 PFD is intended for use by those who
can swim and who have help or rescue nearby. As required in ANSI/CAN/UL
12402-5, Level 50 PFDs must be marked: ``Not recommended for weak or
non-swimmers.'' Every PFD offered for sale must have a placard
providing users with information on how to select the appropriate PFD,
and reminding users to try the PFD on in the water to ensure proper fit
and performance. To satisfy requirements of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5, Level
50 PFDs must be worn and must be marked: ``Approval conditions state
that this device must be worn to be counted as equipment required by
vessels meeting Transport Canada or USCG regulations.'' A Level 50 PFD,
when worn by a person who can swim and used in accordance with ANSI/
CAN/UL 12402-5, provides an equivalent level of safety as a PFD meeting
46 CFR 160.064 or 160.076. By approving Level 50 PFDs, the Coast Guard
would provide a critical level of oversight to the currently
unregulated Level 50 competition watersports PFDs, resulting in safer
products for the public.
    In this proposed rule, we are not proposing additional requirements
that would limit users of inflatable PFDs based on age. There are
already requirements in ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 addressing inflatable PFDs
for users less than 16 years of age. To be certified as meeting ANSI/
CAN/UL 12402-5, an inflatable PFD intended for wearers less than 16
years of age must automatically inflate, must not require secondary
donning, must be worn, and must include a warning statement about adult
supervision. The Coast Guard believes these requirements are adequate
to ensure safety for wearers less than 16 years of age, so we are
proposing to fully incorporate ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 without any
additional age restrictions beyond those included in the standard.
    New proposed subparts 160.264 and 160.276 would supersede the
requirements for foam buoyant vests in subpart 160.060, marine buoyancy
devices in subpart 160.064, inflatable recreational personal flotation
devices in subpart 160.076, and hybrid inflatable personal flotation
devices in subpart 160.077.
    We propose removing the structural and performance requirements for
the approval of foam buoyant vests, marine buoyant devices, and
inflatable recreational flotation devices in subparts 160.060, 160.064,
and 160.076, respectively, but retaining the requirements for
production inspections, tests, and quality control of wearable PFDs. We
are proposing to delete subpart 160.077 entirely and modify the scope
of subpart 160.076 to include PFDs previously approved under subpart
160.077. By retaining the requirements for production inspections,
tests, and quality control, the Coast Guard would ensure that
manufacturing firms producing PFDs currently approved under approval
series 160.060, 160.064, 160.076, or 160.077 could continue to
manufacture and sell these PFDs, but would not approve new products
under these approval series. At the same time, we are proposing to
reformat the remaining text of subparts 160.060, 160.064, and 160.076,
without amending the language, to align with the other subparts related
to PFDs and increase the ease of understanding for the reader.
    To eliminate confusion over approval categories, we are proposing
to relocate the requirements for throwable PFDs from subpart 160.064 to
newly proposed subpart 160.045. Newly proposed subpart 160.045 would be
dedicated to throwable PFDs intended for carriage on recreational
boats. We propose to permit the use of inflatable compartments to meet
the minimum required buoyancy in Sec.  160.045-7. This proposed new
subpart would incorporate by reference the ANSI/UL 1175 standard for
inherently buoyant and inflatable throwable PFDs and the ANSI/UL 1123
standard for marine buoyant devices. The Coast Guard already approves
throwable PFDs to these standards; we are formally incorporating them
by reference in this rulemaking to increase clarity and transparency of
the approval requirements.

3. Incorporate by Reference ANSI/CAN/UL 9595

    We propose to incorporate by reference new industry consensus
standard ANSI/CAN/UL 9595, ``Standard for factory follow-up of Personal
Flotation Devices (PFDs)'' (First Edition, June 4, 2020), into subparts
160.055, 160.060, 160.064, 160.076, 160.255, 160.264, and 160.276. This
standard covers the basic elements of a production inspection program
for various types of PFDs.
    The Coast Guard currently requires a satisfactory follow-up
(production testing and inspection) program administered by an
independent laboratory recognized by the Coast Guard for each approved
PFD. A task group of experts and stakeholders convened over the past
decade to develop ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 to improve the consistency of
follow-up programs among different recognized independent laboratories
and to provide a binational harmonized standard for production testing
acceptable to the Coast Guard and Transport Canada. ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
establishes a set of Process Ratings (A, B, and C) based on the quality
management system (QMS) at each facility. Process Rating C is
equivalent to current industry practice for follow-up programs and
meets the current minimum requirements. Process Rating B is assigned to
facilities with a good QMS including a Quality Manual that incorporates
the requirements in ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 but is not approved by a third
party. Process Rating A is reserved for facilities that have
demonstrated a superior QMS that meets International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) standard ISO 9001 or a comparable quality
standard, either by audits or acceptance of a third-party
registration.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information on process ratings, see the preliminary
regulatory analysis in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Process Rating C, ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 provides a minimum
requirement for production inspections that is equivalent to the
production inspection programs currently accepted by the Commandant.
For Process Ratings A and B, this standard provides the option for the
manufacturer to implement a QMS to reduce the number of inspections
required. ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 sets forth roles and responsibilities;
required tests, sample sizes, and acceptability criteria; and specific
requirements for inspection frequency, traceability of components,
critical dimensions verification, visual inspection of completed PFDs,
and review of records. Annex A provides test methods and Annex B
provides information on the elements of a QMS.
    We propose to include ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 in the newly proposed
subparts and in existing subparts 160.055, 160.060, 160.064, and
160.076, to allow manufacturers that implement a QMS to be evaluated as
Process Rating A or B, resulting in fewer required inspections. A QMS
can result in greater production consistency, a reduction in defects
and errors, increased efficiency, and continuous improvement.

4. Remove Obsolete Material and Relocate Pertinent Material

    We propose to remove subparts 160.002, 160.005, 160.047, 160.048,
and 160.052, while also removing or relocating the entirety of subpart
160.001.
    Subpart 160.001 provides general requirements for all life
preservers. Most of this information is either obsolete or found
elsewhere in the CFR. We propose to delete subpart 160.001, preserving
the still-pertinent information on production oversight by relocating
it to Sec.  160.055-15.
    Subpart 160.006 provides two paragraphs related to the repairing of
life preservers. Subpart 160.006 is no longer relevant and is not
referenced in any approval or carriage requirement; therefore, we
propose to remove it.
    Subparts 160.002, 160.005, 160.047, and 160.048 provide
specifications and requirements for kapok and fibrous glass life
preservers. Subpart 160.052 provides specifications and requirements
for a unicellular plastic foam buoyant vest. Manufacturers no longer
produce any of these types of life preservers due to the unavailability
of material, the advancement of foam technology, and improvements to
the fit and function of PFDs industry-wide. With no current approvals
for equipment under any of these subparts, these approval categories
have become obsolete. Therefore, we propose to delete subparts 160.002,
160.005, 160.047, 160.048, and 160.052. All new PFD approvals would
have to meet the requirements in proposed subparts 160.255, 160.264,
and 160.276, which incorporate current industry standards.

5. Amend Lifesaving Equipment Carriage Requirements

    Where current carriage requirements specify approval series for
PFDs, we propose to add the new proposed approval series, as
applicable. The affected Subchapters are Subchapter C (uninspected
commercial vessels), Subchapters K and T (small passenger vessels),
Subchapter L (offshore supply vessels), Subchapter M (towing vessels),
and Subchapter W (lifesaving appliances for certain inspected vessels).
    For example, according to the current requirements, an uninspected
vessel carrying passengers for hire must have at least one PFD approved
under approval series 160.055, 160.155, or 160.176 for each person on
board. We propose to add approval series 160.255 to the list of
approval series, to permit the use of PFDs approved under this new
approval series. We are not proposing to remove any of the currently
accepted approval series from the carriage requirements. Therefore, it
would not be necessary for owners and operators to purchase new
equipment if their current equipment is in good and serviceable
condition.
    We also propose to remove references to PFDs approved under
approval series 160.177 because there have never been any approvals
granted under that series. All new commercial PFDs, including
commercial hybrid PFDs, would be approved under approval series
160.255.

6. Amend the Requirements for Instruction Pamphlets for PFDs

    We propose to amend the requirements for instruction pamphlets for
PFDs in 33 CFR 181 to allow both pamphlets and placards to meet the
requirements for information furnished with each PFD sold or offered
for sale for use on recreational boats. As previously described, we
propose to incorporate both ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 and ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5
with respect to the approval of PFDs. Both these standards require that
a PFD include an informational placard in a pictographic format
containing specific information on PFD performance, selection,
approval, and maintenance, as well as general water safety information.
To permit the placard to be used in place of the currently required
pamphlet, the Coast Guard is proposing to add the term ``placard'' to
33 CFR 181.701-702. We also propose to remove 33 CFR 181.703, which
requires that placards conform with UL 1123, and would add text to 33
CFR 181.702 specifying that a pamphlet or placard must meet the
requirements in the applicable subpart of 46 CFR part 160 or be
accepted by the Commandant. All currently approved PFDs have pamphlets
or placards that have been accepted by the Commandant. Removing 33 CFR
181.703 would eliminate all references to UL 1123 in this subpart, so
we would remove 33 CFR 181.4, which incorporates that standard, as
well. Finally, we propose to remove the separate requirements for
hybrid and inflatable PFDs in 33 CFR 181.704 and 181.705, respectively,
and include requirements for all PFDs in 33 CFR 181.702.

7. Amend the Existing Regulatory Text To Make Editorial Corrections and
Increase Clarity

    We propose to update the introductory IBR text, in accordance with
current practice, in 46 CFR 160.055, 160.060, 160.064, and 160.076. We
propose to amend table 28.110 to replace ``Do'' (meaning ``ditto'')
with the actual text to clarify the requirements in plain language, and
to remove references to type codes from the table without modifying the
intent or application of the requirements. We further propose to remove
reference to approval series 160.177 in 46 CFR 108, 133 and 199,
because this unused approval series does not exist, and to remove
outdated provisions allowing cork and balsa wood lifejackets until
March 11, 1999, from 46 CFR 117 and 180. Finally, we are proposing to
consistently use the term ``lifejacket'' by amending instances of
``life jacket'' from two words to one.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for IBR appears in 46 CFR 160.045, 160.055,
160.060, 160.064, 160.076, 160.255, 160.264, and 160.276. The standards
proposed for IBR are summarized in section IV, paragraphs (1) through
(3), of this preamble. They are:

(1) ANSI/CAN/UL 9595:2021, Standard for Factory Follow-Up on
Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs), First Edition, June 4, 2020
(including revisions through September 9, 2021) (``ANSI/CAN/UL
9595''). This standard specifies the basic elements of a production
inspection program for various types of PFDs.
(2) ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4:2020, Standard for Personal Flotation
Devices--Part 4: Lifejackets, Performance Level 100--Safety
Requirements, First Edition, July 9, 2020 (``ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4'').
This standard specifies safety requirements for Level 100
lifejackets for use by adults, children, and infants.
(3) ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5:2022, Standard for Personal Flotation
Devices--Part 5: Buoyancy Aids (Level 50)--Safety Requirements,
First Edition, December 31, 2015 (including revisions through
January 27, 2022) (``ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5''). This standard specifies
safety requirements for Level 50 and Level 70 buoyancy aids for use
by children and adults.
(4) ANSI/UL 1123, Standard for Marine Buoyant Devices, Seventh
Edition, October 1, 2008 (including revisions through November 23,
2020) (``ANSI/UL 1123''). This standard specifies requirements for
marine buoyant devices intended for recreational use.
(5) ANSI/UL 1175, Standard for Buoyant Cushions, Fourth Edition,
April 20, 2007 (including revisions through January 10, 2020)
(``ANSI/UL 1175''). This standard specifies construction,
performance, and markings requirements for inherently buoyant and
inflatable throwable PFDs.
    These standards are reasonably available to, and usable by, the
class of persons affected by this proposed rule. PFD manufacturing
firms have access to these standards in their normal course of
business. These standards are

available for free digital viewing with the creation of a free account
at https://shopulstandards.com. Copies of the material are also
available for purchase from the publishers listed in 46 CFR 160.045,
160.055, 160.060, 160.064, 160.076, 160.255, 160.264, and 160.276. In
addition, any person may view the standards at a Coast Guard facility,
by making arrangements with the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble. Before publishing a final rule, we
will submit this material to the Director of the Federal Register for
approval of the IBR. We are also accepting comments on whether you use
the substance of these standards, or if certain standards can be simply
referenced where we no longer need to incorporate the full text of the
reference.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. We have prepared a full
regulatory analysis (RA) based on these statutes and Executive orders
and have placed it in the docket; a summary of our analysis follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. OMB has not reviewed this proposed rule. A
regulatory analysis (RA) is available in the docket and a summary
follows. Table 1 summarizes the impacts of this rulemaking.

            Table 1--Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability..........................  IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 9595, ANSI/
                                          CAN/UL 12402-5, and ANSI/CAN/
                                          UL 12402-4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population....................  2 recognized independent
                                          laboratories (1 U.S. and 1
                                          foreign), 57 PFD manufacturing
                                          firms (37 U.S. and 20
                                          foreign), the Coast Guard,
                                          recreational vessel operators,
                                          and commercial vessel
                                          operators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to U.S. Firms ($2019, 7% discount  10-year total: $1,401,108.
 rate).
                                         Annualized: $199,486.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Foreign Firms ($2019, 7%        10-year total: $340,229.
 discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $48,441.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs ($2019, 7% discount rate)..  10-year total: $1,741,338.
                                         Annualized: $247,927.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings to U.S. Firms ($2019, 7%    10-year total: $5,841,460.
 discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $831,693.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings to Foreign Firms ($2019,    10-year total: $1,453,901.
 7% discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $207,003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings to the U.S. Government      10-year total: $27,414.
 ($2019, 7% discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $3,903.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings to All Entities       10-year total: $7,322,776.
 ($2019, 7% discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $1,042,599.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings to U.S. Firms ($2019,   10-year total: $18,405,217.
 7% discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $2,620,489.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings to Foreign Firms        10-year total: $4,401,743.
 ($2019, 7% discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $626,709.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings to the U.S. Government  10-year total: $22,806,961.
 ($2019, 7% discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $3,247,198.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings to All Entities         10-year total: $4,440,352.
 ($2019, 7% discount rate).
                                         Annualized: $632,206.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified Benefits..................  The newer performance-based
                                          standards would allow for the
                                          development of more innovative
                                          PFD designs that might better
                                          meet boaters' needs. New PFD
                                          designs that may be more form
                                          fitting, in addition to the
                                          requirement that Level 50
                                          devices be worn to count for
                                          carriage, could lead to higher
                                          PFD wear rates and additional
                                          lives saved from drowning.
                                          Placards are cheaper to
                                          produce than pamphlets and
                                          provide pictorial
                                          instructions, understandable
                                          by non-English reading
                                          populations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard proposes to harmonize its approval process for PFDs
with that of Canada, resulting in cost savings from eliminating
duplicative requirements. The proposed rule would introduce harmonized
performance standards instead of design standards for PFDs, allowing
manufacturers the opportunity to produce more innovative equipment that
meets the approval requirements of both Canada and the United States.
The proposed rule would amend PFD approval and follow-up program
requirements by incorporating three new binational standards into
regulations, amend PFD carriage requirements to allow for the use of
equipment approved to the new standards, and remove obsolete equipment
approval requirements. The proposed performance-based standards are
more current and intended to replace the legacy design standards. The
proposed amendments would streamline the process for approval of PFDs
and allow manufacturers the opportunity to produce more innovative
equipment that meets the approval requirements of Canada and the United
States, while reducing the burden for manufacturers in the approval
process and follow-up program.
    Specifically, the Coast Guard proposes to incorporate by reference
the following binational industry consensus standards:
    1. ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4. This binational standard specifies the
safety requirements for lifejackets that provide face-up flotation for
use in sheltered or calm water, where users may have to wait for
rescue. A lifejacket meeting the requirements of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
provides an equivalent level of safety to a lifejacket currently
approved under 46 CFR subpart 160.055.
    2. ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5. This binational standard specifies the
safety requirements for buoyancy aids used in sheltered waters with
help and rescue nearby. A PFD meeting the requirements of ANSI/CAN/UL
12402-5 provides an equivalent level of safety as a PFD currently
approved under 46 CFR 160.064 or 160.076.
    3. ANSI/CAN/UL 9595. This binational standard covers the basic
elements of a production inspection program for various types of PFDs,
and formalizes and modifies current industry standards.
    Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to incorporate two national
standards (ANSI/UL/1123 and ANSI/UL/1175) and to amend numerous CFR
parts to remove obsolete PFD design standards and update carriage
requirements to include PFDs approved to the new proposed subparts. As
mentioned earlier, ANSI/UL/1123 and ANSI/UL/1175 are both currently in
use as a matter of policy and are being incorporated by reference for
the sake of clarity, so we do not estimate any costs or benefits from
their incorporation by reference into the CFR. Similarly, we do not
anticipate any quantifiable costs or benefits from the removal of
obsolete design standards, as these design standards are not currently
in use.
Affected Population
    To determine the affected population of the rule, it is first
necessary to describe the economic impacts from this proposed rule. The
economic impacts would stem from the following proposed provisions:
    (1) The IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 in 46 CFR 160.255 to replace the
design requirements in 46 CFR 160.055.
    (2) The IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5 in 46 CFR 160.264 and 160.276 to
replace the design standards in 46 CFR 160.064, 160.076, and 160.077.
    (3) The IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 for follow-up service into the PFD
approval requirements of existing subparts 46 CFR 160.055, 160.060,
160.064, 160.076 and new proposed subparts of 46 CFR 160.045, 160.255,
160.264, and 160.276.
    (4) The proposed edits to 33 CFR 181 subpart G, which would permit
manufacturers of all PFDs to provide placards instead of information
pamphlets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Coast Guard lists all approved products on the Coast
Guard Maritime Information Exchange website, https://cgmix.uscg.mil/
.
    \8\ We used the headquarters location of a firm's parent
company, as indicated on the company website, to determine whether a
firm was U.S. or foreign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These four provisions would affect PFD manufacturers, the two
recognized independent laboratories, and the Coast Guard. Before we
present the affected population for each of these provisions, we
present the overall PFD manufacturing firm population.
    As of 2021, there are over 800 models of PFDs approved by the Coast
Guard, manufactured by 57 separate manufacturing firms worldwide.\7\
Based on a review of publicly available information across the 57
manufacturing firms, the Coast Guard estimates that 37 are U.S. firms
and 20 are foreign firms. Market share and production volumes are not
equal across the firms.\8\

                           Table 2--Distribution of Market Share of PFD Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                U.S. firm     Foreign firm
                       Manufacturing firms                         Total market    market share    market share
                                                                     share (%)          (%)             (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top 5 Manufacturing Firms.......................................              75           65.00           10.00
Manufacturing Firms 6-13........................................              20           12.50            7.50
All Other Manufacturing Firms...................................               5            3.20            1.80
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             100           80.70           19.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first provision, the IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4, would affect
three populations:
    (1) PFD manufacturers that would seek approval to manufacture
devices meeting the requirements of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4;
    (2) The two recognized independent laboratories that would review
and certify these devices; and
    (3) The Coast Guard, which would correspond with the recognized
independent laboratories and manufacturers on device approval.
    In table 3, we list the number of PFD manufacturing firms that
would be affected by ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4. We estimate that each of the
top 13 firms would produce ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 devices or components of
those devices at 2 facilities each and firms outside of the top 13
firms would produce ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 devices at 1 facility each.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The PFD manufacturing firm does not necessarily own the
facilities where its products are produced. Instead, the facility
may be producing PFDs on contract for the PFD manufacturing firm.
Additionally, much production for U.S. firms occurs at overseas
facilities. We call these ``U.S. Associated Facilities'' not because
they are in the United States but because they have a longstanding
relationship with U.S. firms, while ``Foreign Facilities'' have
longstanding relationships with foreign firms.

                                       Table 3--Manufacturing Firms and Facilities Impacted by ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                U.S. associated       Foreign
                          Firm ownership                              U.S. firms     Foreign firms     facilities        facilities     Total facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms in top 13...................................................               5               3                10                 6                16
All other firms...................................................               4               2                 4                 2                 6
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total facilities..............................................               9               5                14                 8                22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second provision, by incorporating by reference ANSI/CAN/UL
12402-5, the Coast Guard would introduce new categories for youth
inflatables and Level 50 PFDs for approval. Permitting youth
inflatables and Level 50 devices would affect three populations:
    (1) PFD manufacturers that would seek Coast Guard approval to
produce youth inflatables or Level 50 devices;
    (2) The two recognized independent laboratories that would review
and certify youth inflatables and Level 50 devices; and
    (3) The boating public that would purchase youth inflatables or
Level 50 devices instead of Level 70 or Type III devices, because youth
inflatables and Level 50 devices are likely to be more form-fitting
than Level 70 or Type III devices.
    In the third provision, the Coast Guard intends to incorporate by
reference ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 covering production inspections and
inspection frequency into multiple newly proposed and existing subparts
in Title 46, as listed in table 4.

               Table 4--PFDs Impacted by ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Proposed or
            Subpart                    PFD type        existing  subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
160.045.......................  Throwable PFDs.......  Proposed.
160.255.......................  Level 100 PFDs.......  Proposed.
160.264.......................  Inherently Buoyant     Proposed.
                                 Level 50 and Level
                                 70 PFDs.
160.276.......................  Inflatable Level 50    Proposed.
                                 and Level 70 PFDs.
160.055.......................  Life Preservers......  Existing.
160.060.......................  Buoyant Vests........  Existing.
160.064.......................  Marine Buoyant         Existing.
                                 Devices.
160.076.......................  Inflatable PFDs......  Existing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 establishes a set of Process Ratings (A, B, and C)
based on the QMS at each facility. Process Rating C is assigned to
facilities with a minimally compliant QMS. The requirements for Process
Rating C are equivalent to the current minimum requirements. Process
Rating B is assigned to facilities with a good QMS, and Process Rating
A is reserved for facilities that have demonstrated a superior QMS.
Because Process Rating C is equivalent to current industry practice,
the affected population for the IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 would be

any PFD manufacturer producing a device approved under one of the
subparts listed in table 4 and eligible to gain a Process Rating of A
or B.
    In table 5, we estimate the market share likely to be at Process
Rating A, B, or C and whether they are foreign or domestic firms.\10\
Because a QMS system is expensive to set up, industry stakeholders
informed the Coast Guard that firms are not expected to develop a QMS
solely to secure the cost savings of ANSI/CAN/UL 9595. However, a
number of firms have already established QMS systems at their
facilities because of other benefits, such as production consistency
and quality control. The firms that have already established a QMS
system would experience net cost savings from the proposed IBR of ANSI/
CAN/UL 9595. As a result, we estimate the process rating distribution
recorded in table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The process rating applies to a facility owned by a PFD
manufacturing firm. The lowest process rating is C; if manufacturers
seek a higher process rating of A or B, then an independent
laboratory must certify that each facility owned by a manufacturing
firm meets the standard of the higher rating, which is determined
through an audit of a facility. A PFD manufacturing firm incurs the
cost of a higher process rating at each facility. A PFD
manufacturing firm who currently has a QMS (at least partially in
place) would be able to seek a higher process rating, A or B, for
each facility it owns (process rating C is the current baseline or
default rating and represents the current inspection volume at
facilities). A separate QMS inspection or audit is necessary for
this to occur. A higher process rating would result in a reduction
in the inspection volume at facilities, which would save PFD
manufacturing firms money.

 Table 5--Market Share of Production Likely To Be at Each Process Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Market share
             Firm category                Process rating        (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Firms.............................               A             26.5
Foreign Firms..........................               A             15.0
U.S. Firms.............................               B             51.0
Foreign Firms..........................               B              2.5
U.S. and Foreign Firms.................                C             5.0
                                                         ---------------
    Total..............................  ...............           100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth provision, permitting the option for placards to replace
instruction pamphlets, would affect all firms manufacturing PFDs
approved to any of the categories in table 6 that list placards as
permitted under the proposed rule.

        Table 6--Device Category and Permitted Instruction Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Types of
                                     instructions          Types of
         Device category            allowed by the       instructions
                                     proposed rule     currently in use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Level 50 Devices (ANSI/CAN/   Placard...........  N/A because these
 UL 12402-5).                                          devices are not
                                                       yet produced.
New Level 70 Devices (ANSI/CAN/   Placard...........  Placard.
 UL 12402-5).
New Level 100 Devices (ANSI/CAN/  Placard...........  N/A because these
 UL 12402-4).                                          devices are not
                                                       yet produced.
Existing Type I Commercial        Placard or          Information
 Devices.                          Information         Pamphlet.
                                   Pamphlet.
Existing Type II Recreational     Placard or          Information
 Devices.                          Information         Pamphlet.
                                   Pamphlet.
Existing Type III Recreational    Placard or          Information
 Devices.                          Information         Pamphlet.
                                   Pamphlet.
Existing Type IV Throwable        Information         Information
 Devices.                          Pamphlet.           Pamphlet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4

Costs
    There are two sources of costs from this provision: (1) independent
laboratories would need to train their staff to these new standards and
(2) manufacturing firms that intend to sell in only one market (the
United States or Canada) would experience additional costs due to an
increase in the cost of testing according to ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 when
compared to the cost of testing to the legacy standards.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We estimate the increase in the cost of testing based upon
data provided by representatives of independent laboratories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We provide our estimate for the total costs of the proposed IBR of
ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 to U.S. firms in table 7. These costs would include
$25,000 paid by independent laboratories in the first year to develop
the instructions and manuals on how to conduct the new ANSI/CAN/UL
12402-4 testing and the estimated $1,406 per year manufacturers would
spend on the more expensive ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 certification as
opposed to the legacy certification.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We estimate the cost of Level 100 testing and approval to
be about $44,280 and we estimate the cost for the new Type I
approval to be about $40,000. The Coast Guard estimates 0.45 new
approvals annually for products intended for sale exclusively in the
United States. Therefore, the total additional cost to manufacturers
for the more expensive Level 100 certification would be about $1,926
($4,280 x 0.45). There are currently 51 products approved as Type I
devices under 46 CFR part 160.055, of which 37 (73 percent) are
produced by U.S. PFD firms and 14 (27 percent) are produced by
foreign PFD firms. Therefore, we estimate the cost to U.S. PFD firms
for the new UL 12402-4 approval would be about $1,406 annually
($1,926 x 0.73). We estimate the cost to foreign PFD firms would be
about $520 ($1,926 x 0.27) annually.

         Table 7--Estimated Costs to U.S. Firms for Level 100 Devices Under Standard ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
                                   [2019 dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $26,406         $24,678         $25,637
2...............................................................           1,406           1,228           1,325
3...............................................................           1,406           1,148           1,287
4...............................................................           1,406           1,073           1,249
5...............................................................           1,406           1,002           1,213
6...............................................................           1,406             937           1,177
7...............................................................           1,406             876           1,143
8...............................................................           1,406             818           1,110
9...............................................................           1,406             765           1,078
10..............................................................           1,406             715           1,046
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          39,060          33,240          36,265
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          $4,733          $4,251
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present the 10-year total costs to foreign firms from the
proposed IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 in table 8. Foreign firms would
only experience the additional approval costs of $520 per year.

       Table 8--Estimated Costs to Foreign Firms for Level 100 Devices Under Standard ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
                                   [2019 dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................            $520            $486            $505
2...............................................................             520             454             490
3...............................................................             520             424             476
4...............................................................             520             397             462
5...............................................................             520             371             449
6...............................................................             520             347             436
7...............................................................             520             324             423
8...............................................................             520             303             411
9...............................................................             520             283             399
10..............................................................             520             264             387
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           5,200           3,652           4,436
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............             520             520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present the 10-year total costs to U.S. and foreign firms from
the proposed IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 in table 9.

       Table 9--Estimated Total Cost to All Firms for Level 100 Devices Under Standard ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
                                   [2019 dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $26,926         $25,164         $26,142
2...............................................................           1,926           1,682           1,815
3...............................................................           1,926           1,572           1,763
4...............................................................           1,926           1,469           1,711
5...............................................................           1,926           1,373           1,661
6...............................................................           1,926           1,283           1,613
7...............................................................           1,926           1,199           1,566
8...............................................................           1,926           1,121           1,520
9...............................................................           1,926           1,048           1,476
10..............................................................           1,926             979           1,433
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          44,260          36,892          40,701
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............           5,253           4,771
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost Savings
    By adopting ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4, the Coast Guard would be able to
harmonize commercial PFD requirements of the United States with those
of Transport Canada. Harmonization of commercial PFD standards would
lead to cost savings for PFD manufacturing firms through less expensive
approval requirements and less frequent ongoing facility inspections.
    Additionally, as a performance-based standard ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
would allow for more innovative designs than the current standards and
regulations. The newer performance-based standards would allow for the
development of more innovative PFD designs that might better meet
boaters' needs. The adoption of a performance-based standard would
spare the Coast Guard from making the equivalency determinations
frequently necessary when using the current prescriptive requirements.
Consequently, the Coast Guard would experience time savings from
reducing the review time of new device applications during the approval
process.
    In total, we estimate three sources of quantifiable benefits in the
form of cost savings associated with the proposed IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL
12402-4:
    (1) The Coast Guard would spend less time reviewing approval
applications and making equivalency determinations for the approval of
innovative PFDs because ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 is a performance-based
rather than prescriptive standard and would allow more innovative
designs to meet the standard;
    (2) All firms that would apply for approval in both Canadian and
United States markets would save the difference between one
certification to ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 and separate United States and
Canadian certifications to legacy standards; and
    (3) Manufacturing facilities producing devices meeting the
requirements of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 for the United States and Canadian
markets could be inspected just once for both United States and
Canadian approval instead of the current requirement to be inspected
twice, once for United States approval and once for Canadian approval.
    We summarize the total quantified benefits for the cost savings of
the proposed IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 by reporting the annual
undiscounted cost savings in table 10.

  Table 10--Estimated Annual Cost Savings of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 to the
                    Industry and the U.S. Government
                             [2019 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cost savings    Cost savings
        Annual cost savings item              to U.S.       to foreign
                                             entities        entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of Coast Guard time saved.........          $3,903              $0
Canadian and United States approval               23,551           8,711
 savings................................
Billed facility inspection savings......          13,129           7,502
Quality manager's time saved............           3,054           1,182
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................          43,637          17,395
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In table 11 and table 12, we record the 10-year cost savings from
the proposed adoption of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 to U.S. and foreign firms,
separately. In table 13, we record the total 10-year cost savings from
this proposed provision to the U.S. government.

                     Table 11--Estimated Cost Savings to U.S. Firms From ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total          Discounted cost savings
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                   cost savings         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $39,734         $37,135         $38,577
2...............................................................          39,734          34,705          37,453
3...............................................................          39,734          32,435          36,362
4...............................................................          39,734          30,313          35,303
5...............................................................          39,734          28,330          34,275
6...............................................................          39,734          26,476          33,277
7...............................................................          39,734          24,744          32,307
8...............................................................          39,734          23,126          31,366
9...............................................................          39,734          21,613          30,453
10..............................................................          39,734          20,199          29,566
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         397,340         279,075         338,939
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          39,734          39,734
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Table 12--Estimated Cost Savings to Foreign Firms From Adopting ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total          Discounted cost savings
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                   cost savings         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $17,395         $16,257         $16,888
2...............................................................          17,395          15,193          16,396
3...............................................................          17,395          14,200          15,919
4...............................................................          17,395          13,271          15,455
5...............................................................          17,395          12,402          15,005
6...............................................................          17,395          11,591          14,568
7...............................................................          17,395          10,833          14,144
8...............................................................          17,395          10,124          13,732
9...............................................................          17,395           9,462          13,332
10..............................................................          17,395           8,843          12,944
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         173,950         122,175         148,383
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          17,395          17,395
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Table 13--Estimated Cost Savings to the United States Government of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total          Discounted cost savings
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                   cost savings         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................          $3,903          $3,648          $3,789
2...............................................................           3,903           3,409           3,679
3...............................................................           3,903           3,186           3,572
4...............................................................           3,903           2,978           3,468
5...............................................................           3,903           2,783           3,367
6...............................................................           3,903           2,601           3,269
7...............................................................           3,903           2,431           3,174
8...............................................................           3,903           2,272           3,081
9...............................................................           3,903           2,123           2,991
10..............................................................           3,903           1,984           2,904
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          39,032          27,414          33,295
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............           3,903           3,903
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In table 14, we record the total discounted, 10-year cost savings
to the U.S. and foreign PFD industry for the ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
portion of this proposed rule. We estimate this proposed provision
would save the U.S. and foreign PFD industry about $57,129 annually and
produce cost savings for the industry of about $401,250 over a 10-year
period of analysis using a 7-percent discount rate.

         Table 14--Total Estimated Cost Savings to Industry of the Proposed Rule for ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total          Discounted cost savings
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                   cost savings         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $57,129         $53,392         $55,465
2...............................................................          57,129          49,899          53,850
3...............................................................          57,129          46,634          52,281
4...............................................................          57,129          43,583          50,758
5...............................................................          57,129          40,732          49,280
6...............................................................          57,129          38,067          47,845
7...............................................................          57,129          35,577          46,451
8...............................................................          57,129          33,250          45,098
9...............................................................          57,129          31,074          43,785
10..............................................................          57,129          29,041          42,509
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         571,290         401,250         487,322
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          57,129          57,129
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5

Costs
    The PFD industry would also incur an increase in costs from this
proposed rule because, based on consultation with industry experts, we
estimate this rule would increase the PFD market by 5 percent (meaning
manufacturing firms would seek new device approvals and produce more
devices).\13\ The Coast Guard requests public comment on the
possibility that this rule would increase the PFD market by 5 percent.
We estimate the costs of this proposed provision as the costs of the
additional device approvals and the costs of the additional production
inspections for the greater volume of production that we estimate this
rule would generate.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As part of our discussion with PFD manufacturing firms, we
asked their representatives whether the introduction of Level 50
devices would lead to a net growth in the PFD market (inclusive of
substitution out of existing types of products). Manufacturing firm
representatives stated that they would expect the PFD market would
grow by about 5 percent from this provision. We interpret the 5
percent growth as a one-time growth in the level of manufacturing
spread over a 2-year period.
    \14\ We estimate the additional production inspections based on
the current production inspection requirements, and we estimate the
reduction in these inspections through the proposed incorporation by
reference of ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 in its associated section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present in table 15, table 16, and table 17 the discounted costs
of introducing Level 50 devices over the 10-year period of analysis to
U.S. firms, foreign firms, and all firms, respectively. The tables
include the estimated costs of Level 50 devices approved and inspected
under the current inspections regime. In Year 1, undiscounted costs
would only be the costs of Level 50 approval for manufacturers, or
$521,751 for U.S. manufacturers and $124,781 for foreign manufacturers.
For Year 2, the undiscounted costs would be the costs of Level 50
approvals to manufacturers ($521,751 for U.S. firms and $124,781 for
foreign firms) plus the cost of inspections ($29,325 for U.S. firms and
$6,516 for foreign firms), for a total of about $551,076 ($521,751 +
$29,325) to U.S. firms and $131,297 ($124,781 + $6,516) to foreign
firms. In Years 3-10, the costs would be the cost of inspections of
$71,682 ($58,650 for U.S. firms and $13,032 for foreign firms). The
estimated 10-year cost discounted at 7 percent would be $1,274,842 or
$181,509 annualized for U.S. firms, and the 10-year cost discounted at
7 percent would be $299,267 or $42,609 annualized for foreign firms.

                    Table 15--Estimated Costs to U.S. Firms From Introducing Level 50 Devices
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $521,751        $487,618        $506,554
2...............................................................         551,076         481,331         519,442
3...............................................................          58,650          47,876          53,673
4...............................................................          58,650          44,744          52,110
5...............................................................          58,650          41,817          50,592
6...............................................................          58,650          39,081          49,118
7...............................................................          58,650          36,524          47,688
8...............................................................          58,650          34,135          46,299
9...............................................................          58,650          31,902          44,950
10..............................................................          58,650          29,815          43,641
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       1,542,027       1,274,842       1,414,068
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............         181,509         165,772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Table 16--Estimated Costs to Foreign Firms From the Introduction of Level 50 Devices
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $124,781        $116,618        $121,147
2...............................................................         131,297         114,680         123,760
3...............................................................          13,032          10,638          11,926
4...............................................................          13,032           9,942          11,579
5...............................................................          13,032           9,292          11,242
6...............................................................          13,032           8,684          10,914
7...............................................................          13,032           8,116          10,596
8...............................................................          13,032           7,585          10,288
9...............................................................          13,032           7,089           9,988
10..............................................................          13,032           6,625           9,697
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         360,334         299,267         331,136
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          42,609          38,819
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Table 17--Total Estimated Costs to PFD Manufacturers From the Introduction of Level 50 Devices
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $646,532        $604,236        $627,701
2...............................................................         682,373         596,011         643,202
3...............................................................          71,682          58,514          65,599
4...............................................................          71,682          54,686          63,689
5...............................................................          71,682          51,108          61,834
6...............................................................          71,682          47,765          60,033
7...............................................................          71,682          44,640          58,284
8...............................................................          71,682          41,720          56,586
9...............................................................          71,682          38,990          54,938
10..............................................................          71,682          36,439          53,338
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       1,902,361       1,574,109       1,745,204
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............         224,118         204,591
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualitative Benefits of ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5

    The Coast Guard believes that the proposed introduction of Level 50
devices coupled with the requirement to wear them if they are to count
for the purposes of PFD carriage requirements may lead to an
unquantifiable increase in PFD wear rates among recreational boaters
and thereby potentially decrease the rate of drowning. The Coast Guard
requests public comment on whether Level 50 devices could lead to an
increase in PFD wear rates among recreational boaters. Drowning is the
leading cause of death in recreational boating accidents, accounting
for 79 percent of all recreational boating casualties where we know the
cause of death.\15\ Of those who drowned, 86 percent were not wearing a
lifejacket. Wearing a lifejacket is one of the best means available of
preventing accidental drowning in recreational boating. Unfortunately,
recreational boaters only wear lifejackets about 24 percent of the
time.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ United States Coast Guard, ``2019 Recreational Boating
Statistics.'' https://uscgboating.org/library/accident-statistics/Recreational-Boating-Statistics-2019.pdf.
    \16\ United States Coast Guard, ``2019 Life Jacket Wear Rate
Observation Study.'' https://uscgboating.org/library/national-live-jacket-wear-study/2019-Life-Jacket-Wear-Rate-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Level 50 devices are likely to be slimmer, lighter in weight, and
more comfortable to wear than current Type III and Level 70 devices.
Additionally, the Coast Guard would require recreational boaters to
wear Level 50 devices to count towards PFD carriage requirements.
Individuals who purchase Level 50 devices would be more likely to wear
PFDs than similar individuals who purchase bulkier Level 70 or Type III
devices without a requirement that they be worn for the purposes of
carriage. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) conducted a
literature review, and among other factors, found discomfort to be
negatively associated with lifejacket wear [NIH, 2018].\17\ It is the
Coast Guard's view that PFDs worn are more effective than PFDs carried
on board if a man overboard situation occurs. As a result, it is
possible that the public would be safer due to recreational boaters
wearing a greater number of PFDs while boating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ We cited this review from the NIH earlier in the preamble
in footnote number 2. Readers should reference that footnote for a
link to this article and other articles by the NIH for more
information on PFD usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Level 50 devices provide a lower level of buoyancy than
Level 70 devices, a direct comparison is not possible. However, the
view of the subject matter experts in the Coast Guard's Office of
Boating Safety is that the wearing of Level 50 PFDs by recreational
boaters and the general boating public would improve safety on the
water. Recreational boaters fail to wear lifejackets 76 percent of the
time, leaving themselves vulnerable to drowning. The Coast Guard
believes that by offering recreational boaters an additional choice of
a Level 50 PFD, which is required to be worn, more recreational boaters
will choose to wear their lifejacket while engaged in boating
activities. A lifejacket that is worn by the user is more effective
than a lifejacket stowed on the boat.

ANSI/CAN/UL 9595

    The third proposed change incorporates by reference the consensus
standard ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 to cover follow-up inspections and inspection
frequency for Coast Guard approved PFDs. Currently, when a
manufacturing firm produces a Coast Guard approved PFD there is a
required follow-up inspection regime to ensure that the devices
continue to meet the specifications under which the Coast Guard
approved them. Although the Coast Guard has not previously published a
substantive minimum requirement for what constitutes a follow-up
inspections regime, we set out general requirements in 46 CFR 159, 46
CFR 160.064-4, and 46 CFR 160.076-29. The Coast Guard reviews each
recognized independent laboratory's follow-up services program to
ensure compliance with these regulations.
    Incorporating by reference ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 would provide a few key
benefits to the regulated public and the testing laboratories. First,
ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 is one standard to ensure consistency across all
accepted and recognized independent laboratories. Second, ANSI/CAN/UL
9595 is a standard that would be widely available to the industry and
transparently clarifies guidance on what constitutes a follow-up
inspection regime. Third, and most importantly, ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
establishes a rating system for each facility, which would result in
cost savings for the firms manufacturing at facilities with a good or
superior QMS.
Costs
    There are three cost items associated with the proposed adoption of
ANSI/CAN/UL 9595. These costs are based on input from subject matter
experts from the PFD industry on how ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 is likely to be
implemented:
    (1) The two recognized independent laboratories would need to train
their staff to implement ANSI/CAN/UL 9595;
    (2) Manufacturing firms could request a special inspection in the
first year to certify their QMS at a given facility

meets the requirements for Process Rating of A or B. We expect the top
13 firms to request this certification across all 27 facilities at
which they manufacture. This special inspection would be expected to be
in addition to the regular production inspections required for Process
Rating C; and
    (3) After the first year where the QMS inspection would be
supplemental to standard inspections, the QMS inspection could replace
one of the mandatory inspections, but could cost more than a standard
inspection at the top 13 firms with 27 facilities.
    We estimate the 10-year discounted cost for inspections under this
proposed provision that are associated with U.S. firms would be
approximately $93,027, or $13,245 annualized using a 7-percent discount
rate. We estimate the total 10-year discounted cost for inspections
that are associated with foreign firms would be approximately $37,310,
or $3,000 annualized using a 7-percent discount rate. In total, we
estimate the 10-year discounted costs from ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 would be
$130,337 or $18,557 annualized using a 7-percent discount rate. We
present these amounts in table 18, table 19, and table 20.

                  Table 18--Estimated QMS Inspection Costs to U.S. Firms From ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $53,118         $49,643         $51,571
2...............................................................           7,125           6,223           6,716
3...............................................................           7,125           5,816           6,520
4...............................................................           7,125           5,436           6,330
5...............................................................           7,125           5,080           6,146
6...............................................................           7,125           4,748           5,967
7...............................................................           7,125           4,437           5,793
8...............................................................           7,125           4,147           5,625
9...............................................................           7,125           3,876           5,461
10..............................................................           7,125           3,622           5,302
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         117,243          93,027         105,431
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          13,245          12,360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 19--Estimated QMS Inspection Costs to Foreign Firms From ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $20,376         $19,043         $19,783
2...............................................................           3,000           2,620           2,828
3...............................................................           3,000           2,449           2,745
4...............................................................           3,000           2,289           2,665
5...............................................................           3,000           2,139           2,588
6...............................................................           3,000           1,999           2,512
7...............................................................           3,000           1,868           2,439
8...............................................................           3,000           1,746           2,368
9...............................................................           3,000           1,632           2,299
10..............................................................           3,000           1,525           2,232
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          47,376          37,310          42,461
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............           5,312           4,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table 20--Total Estimated QMS Inspection Costs for ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $73,494         $68,686         $71,353
2...............................................................          10,125           8,844           9,544
3...............................................................          10,125           8,265           9,266
4...............................................................          10,125           7,724           8,996
5...............................................................          10,125           7,219           8,734
6...............................................................          10,125           6,747           8,480
7...............................................................          10,125           6,305           8,233
8...............................................................          10,125           5,893           7,993
9...............................................................          10,125           5,507           7,760

10..............................................................          10,125           5,147           7,534
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         164,619         130,337         147,892
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............          18,557          17,337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost Savings
    The proposed IBR of ANSI/CAN/UL 9595 would generate benefits in the
form of cost savings for PFD manufacturing firms who have a QMS in
place. Manufacturers with an audited QMS would be able to secure a
higher Process Rating, which in turn, would reduce the frequency of
production inspections for PFDs based upon their higher Process Rating.
    We estimate this proposed provision would generate benefits in the
form of cost savings for U.S. firms of $5,562,385, or $791,959
annualized, over a 10-year period of analysis using a 7-percent
discount rate, and we similarly estimate cost savings of $1,331,726, or
$189,608 annualized, to foreign firms over a 10-year period of analysis
discounted at 7 percent. In total, we estimate $6,894,111, or $981,566
annualized, in cost savings to all firms under this proposed provision
using a 10-year period of analysis and a 7-percent discount rate. We
present these 10-year cost savings to U.S., foreign, and both U.S. and
foreign firms in table 21, table 22, and table 23, respectively.

                      Table 21--Estimated Cost Savings to U.S. Firms From ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total          Discounted cost savings
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                   cost savings         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................              $0              $0              $0
2...............................................................         897,438         783,857         845,921
3...............................................................         916,206         747,897         838,458
4...............................................................         916,206         698,969         814,037
5...............................................................         916,206         653,242         790,327
6...............................................................         916,206         610,506         767,308
7...............................................................         916,206         570,567         744,959
8...............................................................         916,206         533,240         723,261
9...............................................................         916,206         498,355         702,195
10..............................................................         916,206         465,752         681,743
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       8,227,082       5,562,385       6,908,209
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............         791,959         809,853
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table 22--Estimated Cost Savings to Foreign Firms From ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total          Discounted cost savings
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                   cost savings         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................              $0              $0              $0
2...............................................................         214,989         187,780         202,648
3...............................................................         219,333         179,041         200,721
4...............................................................         219,333         167,328         194,875
5...............................................................         219,333         156,382         189,199
6...............................................................         219,333         146,151         183,688
7...............................................................         219,333         136,590         178,338
8...............................................................         219,333         127,654         173,144
9...............................................................         219,333         119,303         168,101
10..............................................................         219,333         111,498         163,204
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       1,969,655       1,331,726       1,653,917
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............         189,608         193,890
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table 23--Estimated Cost Savings to All Firms From ANSI/CAN/UL 9595
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total         Discounted costs savings
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                   cost savings         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................              $0              $0              $0
2...............................................................       1,112,427         971,637       1,048,569
3...............................................................       1,135,539         926,938       1,039,179
4...............................................................       1,135,539         866,297       1,008,912
5...............................................................       1,135,539         809,623         979,526
6...............................................................       1,135,539         756,657         950,996
7...............................................................       1,135,539         707,156         923,297
8...............................................................       1,135,539         660,894         896,405
9...............................................................       1,135,539         617,658         870,296
10..............................................................       1,135,539         577,250         844,948
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      10,196,737       6,894,111       8,562,126
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............         981,566       1,003,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Placards in Lieu of Information Pamphlets
    The fourth change in the proposed rule comes from details contained
within ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-4 and ANSI/CAN/UL 12402-5. These standards
specify requirements for a placard to be attached to all devices
certified to those standards. The placard provides information on PFDs'
performance, selection, and approval, warnings, maintenance, and
general water safety information in a pictographic format. This
proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 181 to permit manufacturing firms to
use a placard in lieu of the informational pamphlet.
Costs
    For the convenience of the reader, table 24 reproduces table 6 from
the Affected Population section to list the various types of PFDs
impacted by this rule, and whether they would be required to use
placards to covey safety instructions or whether they could use either
placards or information pamphlets.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Current marking requirements require a pamphlet, while the
proposed new marking requirement would be for a placard or pamphlet.
Because these placards and pamphlets are both produced in factories,
the Coast Guard estimates that it takes the same amount of time to
produce and include either a pamphlet or a placard with a newly
manufactured PFD for sale. As a result, we do not estimate there
would be any changes in the PRA burden brought on by the switch from
pamphlets to placards.

        Table 24--Device Category and Permitted Instruction Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Types of
                                     instructions          Types of
         Device category            allowed by the       instructions
                                     proposed rule     currently in use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Level 50 Devices (ANSI/CAN/   Placard...........  N/A because these
 UL 12402-5).                                          devices are not
                                                       yet produced.
New Level 70 Devices (ANSI/CAN/   Placard...........  Placard.
 UL 12402-5).
New Level 100 Devices (ANSI/CAN/  Placard...........  N/A because these
 UL 12402-4).                                          devices are not
                                                       yet produced.
Existing Type I Commercial        Placard or          Information
 Devices.                          Information         Pamphlet.
                                   Pamphlet.
Existing Type II Recreational     Placard or          Information
 Devices.                          Information         Pamphlet.
                                   Pamphlet.
Existing Type III Recreational    Placard or          Information
 Devices.                          Information         Pamphlet.
                                   Pamphlet.
Existing Type IV Throwable        Information         Information
 Devices.                          Pamphlet.           Pamphlet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in table 24 above, the proposed changes in instruction
information would either apply to PFD categories not yet produced or
permit an additional compliance option. No devices would have fewer
options for instruction materials than under current regulations. As a
result, we estimate there would be no additional costs from replacing
safety information pamphlets with placards because firms could either
continue their current activities or produce placards instead.
Unquantified Benefits
    There are two sources of unquantified benefits from the proposed
requirement for the use of placards on new device categories and the
proposed permitting of placard use on existing device categories. The
first source of unquantified benefits would occur because a placard is
likely less expensive to produce than an information pamphlet. A
representative from the PFD manufacturing industry told us that the
placard would likely be around $0.05 cheaper to produce than the
information pamphlet because the placard would contain fewer materials
than the information pamphlet. However, we could not find any data on
the costs to produce information pamphlets and the costs to produce
placards, so we cannot determine the relative size of this cost
savings. We believe based on the full discussion that the $0.05
estimate is a rough approximation of the fact that placards are
slightly less expensive than information pamphlets but ultimately about
the same price. Additionally, we have no way of estimating how large a
share of current production would switch from producing information
pamphlets to placards, as placards would not be required. Due to these
factors, we did not produce a quantitative estimate of the cost savings
due to placards.
    The second unquantified benefit would come from the fact that
placards use pictorial images to communicate safety information, while
information

pamphlets use English-language text. Pictorial information is superior
to text at communicating information to non-English-reading audiences.
We do not have a way of quantifying this benefit, but would like to
note that approximately 21 percent of the U.S. population has a ``low''
level of English literacy. For those populations, pictorial information
may be better than text-based information.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. Department of Education, ``Data Point: Adult Literacy
in the United States'' (July 2019). https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Costs
    We display the total costs from this proposed rule to U.S.
entities, foreign entities, and both U.S. and foreign entities using a
10-year period of analysis discounted at 7 percent in table 25, table
26, and table 27, respectively.

                                    Table 25--Estimated Costs for U.S. Firms
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $601,275        $561,939        $583,762
2...............................................................         559,607         488,782         527,483
3...............................................................          67,181          54,840          61,480
4...............................................................          67,181          51,252          59,689
5...............................................................          67,181          47,899          57,951
6...............................................................          67,181          44,766          56,263
7...............................................................          67,181          41,837          54,624
8...............................................................          67,181          39,100          53,033
9...............................................................          67,181          36,542          51,489
10..............................................................          67,181          34,151          49,989
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       1,698,330       1,401,108       1,555,764
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized..................................................  ..............         199,486         182,383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Table 26--Estimated Costs for Foreign Firms
                                   [2019 Dollars, 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total             Discounted costs
                              Year                                 undiscounted  -------------------------------
                                                                       costs            7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $145,677        $136,147        $141,434
2...............................................................         134,817         117,754         127,078
3...............................................................          16,552          13,511          15,147
4...............................................................          16,552          12,627          14,706
5...............................................................          16,552          11,801          14,278
6...............................................................          16,552          11,029          13,862
7...............................................................          16,552          10,308          13,458
8...............................................................          16,552           9,633          13,066
9...............................................................          16,552           9,003          12,686
10..............................................................          16,552           8,414          12,316
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         412,910         340,229         378,032