Inflatable Liferafts; Proposed Rule
Federal RegisterOct 18, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 159 and 160
[CGD 85-205]
RIN 2115-AC51
Inflatable Liferafts
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to completely revise its regulations
for the approval and servicing of inflatable liferafts, and to add
provisions for the approval of inflatable buoyant apparatus. These
changes are intended to implement the 1983 Amendments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74/
83), add provisions for approval of a new ``Coastal Service'' liferaft
for use on certain uninspected fishing vessels, introduce requirements
for the stability of inflatable liferafts, and reduce direct Coast
Guard involvement in liferaft production and servicing inspections. The
proposed rules would bring Coast Guard-approved liferafts into
compliance with SOLAS 74/83, improve the seaworthiness of approved
inflatable liferafts, and increase manufacturer flexibility in
scheduling liferaft inspections while reducing the associated burden on
Coast Guard personnel resources.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 15, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 85-205), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
A copy of the material listed in ``Incorporation by Reference'' of
this preamble is available for inspection at room 1404, U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters.
The revised Chapter III of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention is
published by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in ``SOLAS
(Consolidated edition, 1992)'' (IMO catalogue number IMO-110E). IMO
also publishes the ``Recommendation on Testing of Life-saving
Appliances'' (IMO Assembly Resolution A.689(17)) and the ``Code of
Practice for the Evaluation, Testing and Acceptance of Prototype Novel
Life-saving Appliances and Arrangements'' (IMO Assembly Resolution
A.520(13)) in a document titled ``Testing and Evaluation of Life-saving
Appliances (1992 edition)'' (IMO catalogue number IMO-982E). These
publications, and other IMO documents referred to in this notice, are
available from:
a. The International Maritime Organization, Publications Section, 4
Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England, telephone 44 (Country Code)
71-735 7611.
b. New York Nautical Instrument Co., 140 West Broadway, New York,
NY 10013, (212) 962-4522.
c. Southwest Instrument Co., 235 W. Seventh St., San Pedro, CA
90731, (213) 519-7800.
d. Marine Education Textbooks, 124 North Van Ave., Houma, LA 70360-
3866, (504) 879-3866.
e. Baker-Lyman & Co., 308 Magazine St., New Orleans, LA 70130,
(504) 522-0745.
Those interested in ordering publications should contact the suppliers
listed above for current price and ordering information.
This notice refers to several technical reports. These reports have
been placed in the docket for examination and copying. A limited number
of single copies are available free of charge from Office of Marine
Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection, Survival Systems Branch
(G-MVI-3), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second St. SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The reports are:
a. ``Inflatable Liferaft Stability Lift-Out Force Test'', COR,
Inc., April 1, 1986.
b. ``Model Tests of Inflatable Life Rafts in Breaking Waves'', U.S.
Coast Guard Research and Development Center, February, 1990.
``Model Tests of Inflatable Life Rafts in Breaking Waves'' is also
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The
accession number is ADA 229406. Orders may be placed by phone at (703)
487-4650, or by mail to the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161.
Coast Guard publication ``Equipment Lists'' (COMDTINST M16714.3D)
is available for sale through the Government Printing Office (GPO). The
stock number is 050-012-00-306-8. Orders may be placed by phone at
(202) 783-3238, or by mail from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kurt J. Heinz, Office of Marine
Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection, Survival Systems Branch
(G-MVI-3), (202) 267-1444.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written views, data, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their name and address,
identify this rulemaking (CGD 85-205) and the specific section of this
proposal to which each comment applies, and give a reason for each
comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of
receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or
envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the address
under ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a hearing
would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for oral
presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a
public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting these regulations are
Mr. Kurt J. Heinz, Mr. Milton Daniels, and Mr. Robert Markle, Project
Managers, Office of Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental
Protection; and Ms. Helen Boutrous, Project Counsel, Office of Chief
Counsel.
Background and Purpose
On June 17, 1983, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee approved SOLAS
74/83, including a new Chapter III, ``Life-saving Appliances and
Arrangements.'' Under the SOLAS ``tacit amendment'' procedure, with no
objections from any contracting government, SOLAS 74/83 was deemed to
be accepted on January 1, 1986, and came into force for the United
States and all other contracting governments on July 1, 1986. Ships
whose keels were laid or which are at a similar stage of construction
on or after that date must comply in order to qualify for a SOLAS
Safety or Safety Equipment Certificate. Coast Guard-approved inflatable
liferafts on these ships are required to meet the inflatable liferaft
requirements of SOLAS 74/83. In addition, any ship with a SOLAS Safety
or Safety Equipment Certificate replacing a liferaft on or after July
1, 1986 is required to replace the raft with one meeting SOLAS 74/83.
Implementation of SOLAS 74/83 has been the subject of previously
published rulemaking documents. The Coast Guard held a series of
meetings, announced in the Federal Register of July 30, 1984 (49 FR
30339) (CGD 84-051), with the U.S. Lifesaving Manufacturers Association
(now the United States Marine Safety Association). The implications of
the SOLAS 74/83 Chapter III requirements on Coast Guard-approved
lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and their launching equipment were
discussed. Guidelines were also developed for lifesaving equipment
manufacturers regarding the additions and deviations from current Coast
Guard regulations that are necessary to meet the new SOLAS 74/83
Chapter III. The rules proposed in this notice reflect some of the
discussions held at those meetings.
The Coast Guard published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) on December 31, 1984 (49 FR 50745) describing major changes
under consideration for implementation of SOLAS 74/83. These changes
included proposed revision of regulations involving inflatable
liferafts, but that notice did not describe any revisions to liferaft
regulations in detail.
On September 27, 1984, the Coast Guard published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposed rules for the approval and
production testing of lifeboats, liferafts, and lifeboat launching
equipment (49 FR 38151)(CGD 83-030). A public hearing on the proposal
was also held at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC on February
19, 1985.
The rules proposed in this notice include approval and production
testing procedures which replace the proposals made for inflatable
liferafts under CGD 83-030. Written comments submitted under CGD 83-030
and comments made at the public hearing were considered in developing
the rules proposed in this notice. Separate rulemaking documents, to be
published at a later date, will propose revisions to regulations
involving inspection of lifeboats, rescue boats, davits and winches.
The system of periodic inspection and repair of inflatable
liferafts at approved facilities is referred to as liferaft
``servicing.'' Possible changes in servicing procedures were initially
raised in an ANPRM on August 14, 1986 (51 FR 29117) (CGD 81-010), and
discussed at public meetings held on January 27, 1987 and March 20,
1987. The primary objectives of the changes to inspection and servicing
of liferafts were to minimize the role of Coast Guard inspectors while
maintaining Coast Guard oversight for quality control, and to allow
private industry the flexibility necessary to meet the changing needs
of the marine industry. An additional objective was to update Coast
Guard regulations by implementing the relevant SOLAS 74/83 requirements
related to servicing. The proposals in this NPRM related to liferaft
servicing address the issues discussed in the 1986 ANPRM, and the
comments at the public meetings were considered in the development of
these proposals.
Proposals concerning improved liferaft stability first appeared in
an ANPRM in the Federal Register of June 29, 1981 (46 FR 33341) (CGD
80-113). That ANPRM presented a summary of research efforts, sea
trials, and yachting casualties from this country and Europe, and
invited comments from the public. A public hearing was held on
September 1, 1981. A NPRM published on January 11, 1985 (50 FR 1558)
summarized the comments received on the ANPRM, and also proposed
specific design and testing requirements to improve stability of
inflatable liferafts. The proposals in this notice are a further
refinement of the proposals in the January 11, 1985 NPRM, and are
based, in part, on the comments received in response to that NPRM.
In light of continuing developments since the time of the previous
rulemakings, only a portion of the comments received are discussed in
detail in this NPRM. However, all the comments received were considered
in developing this proposal.
Discussion of the Proposed Regulations
Changes Implementing SOLAS 74/83
SOLAS 74/83 includes detailed performance requirements for
inflatable liferafts. IMO Resolution A.689(17) adopts the
``Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving Appliances,'' set out in the
annex to the resolution, which describes approval and production tests
for inflatable liferafts meeting the SOLAS 74/83 requirements. This
NPRM proposes to incorporate by reference IMO Resolution A.689(17). The
United States delegation to IMO participated fully in negotiations
which developed these performance and test requirements. This proposal
attempts to conform the U.S. Coast Guard approval requirements as
closely as possible to the SOLAS 74/83 standards. The proposed rules
refer directly to the SOLAS 74/83 and Resolution A.689(17) provisions
required to be met. Additional clarifications, details, requirements or
testing conditions are included in the proposed regulatory language
only in those instances where the relevant SOLAS 74/83 regulation or
Resolution A.689(17) provisions are silent or ambiguous.
The new requirements that would be established due to the proposed
incorporation by reference of SOLAS 74/83 and Resolution A.689(17) are
discussed below, along with the various additional requirements
explicitly set forth in the regulatory language of this NPRM.
1. Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(f) would require liferafts to be fitted
with retroreflective material. [SOLAS 74/83, Chapter III, Regulation
30, Paragraph 2.7 (shortform citation for SOLAS 74/83 to be used
throughout this rulemaking: Regulation III/30.2.7)].
2. Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(h) would require that instead of the
current 400 lb weight limit, most inflatable liferafts would be limited
to 185 kg (407 lb), but there would be no weight limit on rafts
intended to be stowed ready for immediate drop-launching without
lifting, rafts launched by approved launching appliances, or rafts
otherwise not required to be ``portable.'' [Regulation III/38.2.2]
3. Under proposed Secs. 160.151-15(k) and 160.151-37(a)(9)-(10) an
inflatable liferaft would be approved for a specified maximum stowage
height above the waterline, which would correspond with a drop test
height, length of painter, and container markings. [Regulations III/
38.1.2, III/38.3.2, III/39.7.3.7, and III/39.7.3.8 and paragraph 1/5.1
of Resolution A.689(17)].
4. With the proposed adoption of the requirements of Regulation
III/38 in Sec. 160.151-7(b), a viewing port in the canopy would be
required. [Regulation III/38.1.5.5]
5. Prior to the 1990 SOLAS amendments implementing the Global
Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), Regulation III/38.3.2 of
SOLAS 74/83 required arrangements for siting and securing a portable
lifeboat radio antenna. However, the 1990 amendments, which included
mandatory carriage of Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons
(EPIRB's) and Search and Rescue Transponders (SART's), eliminated the
requirement for portable lifeboat radios on vessels required to comply
with SOLAS 74/83, effective August 1, 1993. Consequently, these
proposed rules would not require that liferafts be provided with
portable lifeboat radio antenna siting and securing arrangements.
6. Proposed Sec. 160.151-17(b) would require at least one entrance
on SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts to be fitted with a boarding ramp of
sufficient size and buoyancy to support a person weighing 100 kg (220
lb). [Regulation III/39.4.1]
7. ``Ocean service'' and ``Limited service'' equipment packs would
be replaced by ``SOLAS A'' and ``SOLAS B'' packs, as specified in
Regulation III/38.5.1. Notable differences include:
a. SOLAS 74/83 requires a buoyant safety knife, rather than a
jackknife. An additional knife, which may be a jackknife, is required
to be carried in inflatable liferafts accommodating 13 persons or more.
[Regulation III/38.5.1.2]
b. SOLAS 74/83 requires sea anchors to be fitted with swivels and a
tripping line. However, under proposed Sec. 160.151-21(e), swivels
would not be required if the towing test demonstrates that the sea
anchor is designed so that it does not rotate when streamed, and
tripping lines would not be required if the towing test demonstrates
that the sea anchors are of a design that allows them to be hauled in
by one person. [Regulation III/38.5.1.5]
c. Proposed Secs. 160.151-21 (j), (k), and (l) would require
pyrotechnic distress signals to be approved by the Commandant as
meeting the specified requirements of part 160 and SOLAS 74/83. To meet
the requirements of Regulations III/38.5.1.10-12 and III/38.5.3, four
rocket parachute flares would be required in SOLAS A inflatable
liferafts instead of the currently required two; two buoyant smoke
signals also would be required; and the number of required hand flares
would remain at six. These numbers would be halved for SOLAS B
equipment packs. Both the rocket parachute flares and hand flares would
be of the new higher-performance type approved by the Commandant as
meeting the requirements of Regulations III/35 and III/36. [Regulations
III/38.5.1.10-12 and III/38.5.3]
d. SOLAS 74/83 requires that the equipment pack include an
``efficient'' radar reflector. However, IMO circular MSC/Circ.447
allowed the radar reflector to be omitted because a suitable design for
inflatable liferafts was not available. The Coast Guard still does not
consider any available radar reflector design to be suitable.
Therefore, proposed Sec. 160.151-21(n) would allow the radar reflector
to be omitted from the equipment pack provided that the liferaft
container is marked to indicate that the equipment pack does not
include a radar reflector. [Regulation III/38.5.1.14]
e. Section 160.151-21(u) proposes two options for the anti-
seasickness medication required by regulation III/38.5.1.21. One option
is a combination of ephedrine sulfate and promethazine hydrochloride,
commonly known as meclizine, which the Coast Guard has found to be the
most effective seasickness medication available at the present time.
Meclizine is taken orally and must remain in the digestive system for
several hours to be completely absorbed. According to its manufacturer,
the other option, scopolamine in a transdermal patch, is significantly
more effective in preventing seasickness than either dramamine or
meclizine in clinical tests. Since its medication is released through
the skin, it is not lost due to regurgitation as is oral medication. It
takes four to six hours to become fully effective, and one patch
provides about three days of effective medication. The patches remain
effective when wet. Both medication options seem to be reasonably
stable throughout a wide temperature range, but both would probably be
damaged by extended storage at temperatures above 50-55 deg.C (122-
131 deg.F). [Regulation III/38.5.1.21]
f. Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(x) would require the thermal protective
aids as described by Regulation III/38.5.1.24 to be approved by the
Commandant as meeting the requirements of subpart 160.174 of this part.
8. With the incorporation by reference of Resolution A.689(17) in
Sec. 160.151-27(a), a number of new or revised approval tests would be
required, including:
a. A towing test to be conducted at three knots instead of the
previously required five knots. [Regulations III/38.1.4 and III/39.5.3
and paragraph 1/5.4 of Resolution A.689(17)]
b. A revised boarding test involving four attempts by different
individuals after each has swum 100 m, instead of one boarding attempt
by a fresh swimmer. [Regulation III/39.4 and paragraph 1/5.8 of
Resolution A.689(17)]
c. A new stability test involving bringing a simulated unconscious
person aboard the raft. [Paragraph 1/5.9.2 of Resolution A.689(17)]
d. A new maneuverability test requiring the inflatable liferaft to
be paddled over a 25 m distance. The purpose of this test is to
demonstrate the ability to maneuver the raft clear of the ship. There
is no time requirement. [Paragraph 1/5.10 of Resolution A.689(17)]
e. A new test to determine the buoyancy of a packed liferaft.
[Paragraph 1/5.13 of Resolution A.689(17)]
f. A new impact test for davit-launched liferafts, requiring an
impact with a vertical surface at 3.5 m/sec, and dropping to the water
from a height of 3 m. [Regulation III/38.4.1.1 and paragraphs 1/5.16.2
and 1/5.16.3 of Resolution A.689(17)]
g. A new test to determine speed of boarding and stability during
boarding for davit-launched liferafts. Although there is no time
requirement, the test is timed to allow estimation of total liferaft
evacuation capacity within the allowable evacuation time for a ship.
[Regulations III/38.4.2 and III/38.4.3 and paragraph 1/5.16.4 of
Resolution A.689(17)]
h. A righting test involving four attempts by different individuals
after each has swum 100 m, instead of one righting attempt by a fresh
swimmer. [Regulation III/39.5.2 and paragraph 1/5.17.2 of Resolution
A.689(17)].
i. A revised cold inflation test requiring storage of the liferaft
at the test temperature for 24 hours instead of requiring the raft's
internal temperature to reach the test temperature, which could take
more than 24 hours. [Regulation III/39.2.3 and paragraph 1/5.17.5 of
Resolution A.689(17)]
j. A revised hot inflation test requiring storage of the liferaft
at the test temperature for 7 hours instead of requiring the raft's
internal temperature to reach the test temperature, which might take
longer than 7 hours. [Regulation III/39.2.3 and paragraph 1/5.17.6 of
Resolution A.689(17)]
k. An over-pressure test at 3 times working pressure instead of 2.5
times working pressure. [Regulation III/39.2.4 and paragraph 1/5.17.7
of Resolution A.689(17)]
l. A strength test for davit-launched liferafts to require loading
the suspended raft with a load equal to 4 times the weight of the rated
capacity of persons. It would also require a test at low temperature
with a load equal to 1.1 times the weight of the rated capacity of
persons. [Regulation III/39.9.1 and paragraphs 1/5.17.10 and 1/5.17.11
of Resolution A.689(17)]
m. A lowering test for davit-launched liferafts in which the raft
is loaded with a weight equivalent to its heaviest equipment pack and
the number of persons for which it is to be approved, and lowered in
contact with a structure simulating the side of a ship at 20 degrees
adverse list. [Paragraph 5.17.12 of Resolution A.689(17)]
9. Proposed Sec. 160.151-27(a) would require that to obtain
approval, each inflatable liferaft must pass specified tests described
in IMO Resolution A.689(17). Additional conditions for testing are
specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 160.151-27 as follows:
a. With the proposed incorporation of Resolution A.689(17), the
number of jumps required during the jump test would be equal to the
number of persons the liferaft is approved to carry. Proposed
Sec. 160.151-27(c)(2) would require that half the jumps would be onto
the canopy and half would be onto the floor. Currently, just one jump
is required. [Regulation III/38.1.3 and paragraph 1/5.2 of Resolution
A.689(17)]
b. With the proposed incorporation of Resolution A.689(17), a
revised loading and seating test requiring a loaded freeboard of at
least 300 mm (12 in) would be required. Proposed 160.151-27(c)(4) would
require that the test be performed by persons wearing buoyant insulated
immersion suits rather than lifejackets if the liferaft is not intended
for use with a launching or embarkation appliance. [Paragraph 1/5.7 of
Resolution A.689(17)]
c. With the proposed incorporation of Resolution A.689(17), a new
canopy closure test would be required which involves washing down the
inflatable liferaft with a large volume of water for 5 minutes, and
examining the interior of the raft for water infiltration. Proposed
Sec. 160.151-27(c)(5) would require that this test be performed on
SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts only, and provides additional
instructions for davit launched liferafts. [Paragraph 1/5.12 of
Resolution A.689(17)]
d. Proposed Sec. 160.151-27(c)(7) would specify the method used to
demonstrate compliance with the strength requirement in Paragraph 1/
5.16.1 of Resolution A.689(17) for lifting components of davit-launched
liferafts.
e. Proposed Sec. 160.151-27(d) would require a functional test to
ensure that a required boarding ramp is capable of supporting a sitting
or kneeling 100 kg person without holding onto the liferaft.
10. Under proposed Sec. 160.151-31(d), each inflatable raft would
be required to pass the production tests described in the specified
provisions of IMO Resolution A.689(17) under specified conditions. A
number of new or revised production tests would be required as follows:
a. A relief valve operation test at 2.0 times the working pressure,
instead of 140% as currently required. [Regulation III/39.2.4 and
paragraph 2/5.1.4 of Resolution A.689(17) and proposed Sec. 160.151-
31(d)]
b. A 30-minute over-pressure test at a minimum of 1.5 times working
pressure, instead of 10 minutes at 2.5 times working pressure
[Paragraph 2/5.1.4 of Resolution A.689(17) and proposed Sec. 160.151-
31(d)]. However, the IMO Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee
has tentatively approved the replacement of this test with the same
``Necessary Additional Pressure'' test required periodically during
servicing. If this change is approved by the IMO Maritime Safety
Committee as expected, it would be incorporated into the final rule.
c. A one-hour test of inflated floors allowing a 5% pressure drop
(uncorrected) instead of six hours and a 10% pressure drop. [Paragraph
2/5.1.6 of Resolution A.689(17) and proposed Sec. 160.151-31(e)(1)]
d. A new suspension test for davit-launched liferafts at a 10%
overload condition. [Paragraph 2/5.2 of Resolution A.689(17) and
proposed Sec. 160.151-31(e)(1)]
e. Proposed Sec. 160.151-31(f) would require measurement of the
force required to pull the painter during the operational inflation
test, with a maximum allowable force of 150 N. [Regulation III/39.6.1
and paragraph 2/5.1.1-2 of Resolution A.689(17)]
Additional Equipment Issues
Currently, 46 CFR 160.051-7(d)(3) requires inflatable liferafts to
be equipped with a repair kit consisting of six sealing clamps meeting
MIL-L-19496 for short term repair of buoyancy tube damage, along with
patches, cement, and a roughing tool for more permanent repairs. SOLAS
74/83, regulation III/39.10.1.1 requires a repair outfit for repairing
punctures, but does not specify its contents. For some years, the Coast
Guard and other countries' maritime Administrations have been accepting
serrated conical plastic or wooden plugs in SOLAS liferaft repair kits
as substitutes for some or all of the sealing clamps. The Coast Guard
has recently received reports, however, that these conical plugs may
not be as effective in repairing leaks as sealing clamps. Although
proposed Sec. 160.151-21(y) would allow the use of either plugs or
clamps, comments are requested on operational experience using serrated
repair plugs and whether they should be permitted in repair outfits as
substitutes for sealing clamps.
Neither 46 CFR 160.051 nor SOLAS 74/83 specifically require
pressure relief valve plugs as part of a liferaft's equipment pack.
However, where liferafts are fitted with pressure relief valves, these
plugs or some other means of rendering the pressure relief valves
inoperable are universally provided, and it is common practice to plug
the relief valves as one of the first steps upon entering an inflated
liferaft. The purpose is to prevent loss of gas from the inflation
tubes in the event that the tubes buckle in a seaway. Proposed
Sec. 160.051-21(aa) would require plugs to be provided for each
pressure relief valve fitted on a liferaft, unless the valves are of a
type which can be rendered inoperable without plugs. Responding to
reports that some pressure relief valve plugs are difficult to handle
in emergency conditions, this section would require that the plugs be
capable of being used with immersion suit gloved hands, and be either
of a floating type or secured to the liferaft by a lanyard in order to
prevent loss. Proposed Sec. 160.051-21(w)(4) would require that the
provided instructions for immediate action explain both the noise
accompanying the operation of any relief valves, and the need to render
the valves inoperative after they stop venting.
Approval and Production Inspection Procedures
The rules proposed in this notice would require an independent
laboratory to conduct certain inspections during construction of
prototype inflatable liferafts, and also at certain times during
production of inflatable liferafts after they have been approved. Coast
Guard inspectors would monitor all prototype testing required for
approval. At the present time, the Coast Guard monitors the inspection
and testing of each Coast Guard-approved inflatable liferaft when
manufactured.
On September 27, 1984, the Coast Guard published an NPRM proposing
that independent laboratories take over all of the inspections now
performed by the Coast Guard. A public hearing on the proposal was held
on February 19, 1985. The comments received in writing and at the
public hearing in response to that notice were taken into account in
the development of this proposal. Some of those comments are discussed
below.
Comments on the NPRM were received from 29 different parties,
representing manufacturers of lifesaving equipment, independent
laboratories, a classification society, shipowners and operators,
liferaft servicing organizations, and two members of Congress. Ten
comments from shipowners and operators, independent laboratories, and
the classification society expressed support for the proposal. In
general, the comments from this group indicated that delegating these
inspections to independent third parties was appropriate, and that the
laboratories were capable and would do a good job. Nine comments
expressed opposition to the proposal, including comments from a ship
operator and U.S. lifesaving equipment manufacturers. This group had
two main concerns: The cost to the manufacturers for the services of
the independent laboratory, and the impact of foreign-produced
lifesaving equipment on U.S. producers.
Some of the proposals in this NPRM should reduce servicing costs,
particularly those that would extend servicing periods, provide for
servicing at remote sites, not limit Coast Guard approval of otherwise
qualified servicing facilities to those franchised or authorized by the
liferaft manufacturer, and eliminate the requirement that a Coast Guard
inspector attend each servicing. The Coast Guard's position is that
these changes, together with increased flexibility of scheduling of
servicing due to reduced Coast Guard involvement in servicing
inspections, would more than outweigh any added costs associated with
occasional independent laboratory inspections.
It is difficult for Coast Guard personnel to perform some
lifesaving equipment factory inspections outside the U.S. in locations
not readily accessible to a Coast Guard inspector. Independent
laboratories would ease the inspection problem for foreign
manufacturers, potentially allowing greater use of foreign-manufactured
equipment. Though some of the U.S. manufacturers raised questions about
the quality of equipment produced and inspected outside the United
States, at this time the Coast Guard has no evidence that foreign-made
lifesaving equipment would necessarily be less safe than equipment
produced in the United States. To be approved, foreign-made lifesaving
equipment would be required to meet all of the applicable Coast Guard
and international regulations. Foreign-made lifesaving equipment
manufactured to a lesser standard would not be approved.
One member of Congress and one of the comments at the public
hearing requested that the Coast Guard retain its oversight of
lifesaving equipment inspections in an adequate manner and to make sure
there would be no adverse impact on safety. Another comment asked that
the Coast Guard continue to monitor approval testing. The Coast Guard
intends to maintain adequate oversight. Under the procedure proposed in
this notice, the Coast Guard would continue to review the
manufacturer's design prior to approval. An independent laboratory
would confirm conformance of the prototype liferaft with the plans
submitted to the Coast Guard for pre-approval review. A Coast Guard
inspector would then witness the approval testing of the prototype.
After approval, the manufacturer's production quality control would be
monitored by the independent laboratory, with annual summary reports
submitted to the Coast Guard. In a procedure proposed in this notice
for the first time for lifesaving equipment, the independent laboratory
would also annually conduct a design audit or detailed technical review
of production samples against the approved design. Finally, under these
proposed rules, inflatable liferafts would continue to be inspected
annually at approved servicing stations, which are themselves inspected
by Coast Guard or other qualified third party inspectors. Liferaft
design and long-term durability problems should be discovered during
these inspections. The Coast Guard is confident that these procedures,
taken together, will maintain the present quality level of this Coast
Guard-approved equipment.
Inspection Frequency
A comment on the NPRM cited procedures used in the aerospace
industry and suggested Coast Guard approval of a manufacturer's
``proven quality control department''. The comment did not include any
other suggested standards for a ``proven'' quality control department.
The Coast Guard has adopted this suggestion to some degree, since the
rules proposed in this notice require only periodic inspection by the
laboratory, and rely on the manufacturer's quality control procedures
to maintain quality when the laboratory inspector is not present.
Independent quality control inspection procedures often do include
provisions for reduced inspection for manufacturers maintaining a high
level of production quality, and increased inspections for
manufacturers which have difficulty maintaining quality. However, the
rules proposed in this notice do not include any such provisions, since
those procedures lend themselves more readily to high quantity mass
production. The liferafts produced under the rules in this notice are
constructed essentially by hand on a low-volume basis. The Coast Guard
solicits comments on the advisability of provisions to reduce or
increase inspection frequency based on a manufacturer's quality control
track record, and on what basis they could be incorporated.
An association of U.S. manufacturers stated that mass produced
items could not be compared to lifesaving equipment which is more
complicated and individually produced. Therefore, it could not be
assumed that laboratories which had successfully inspected mass
produced items would be capable of inspecting inflatable liferafts. The
Coast Guard agrees that there are important differences between mass
produced items and inflatable liferafts. However, that does not
necessarily mean that independent laboratories are unable to handle
these inspections. The Coast Guard considers that the established
production tests and inspections that must be performed whether or not
a third-party inspector is present are sufficient to ensure that new
inflatable liferafts are suitable for their intended purpose. Their
continued adequacy in the long term is assured by periodic servicing
tests and inspections, which should also be able to identify any
persistent production quality control problems. Also, since the Coast
Guard will continue to witness approval testing, there is continued
assurance that the basic design and construction of the equipment will
be adequately tested.
Servicing of Inflatable Liferafts
The current requirements for periodic servicing of inflatable
liferafts are contained in 46 CFR 160.051-6. Under the current system,
each servicing facility is designated by the manufacturer, then
formally approved by the Coast Guard after specified inspections and
tests. After a facility is approved, a Coast Guard marine inspector
attends the servicing of each liferaft taken from an inspected vessel.
These proposed rules would shift the focus of the Coast Guard's
involvement in liferaft servicing from the individual liferafts to
qualifications of the servicing facility and servicing technicians. A
Coast Guard inspector would visit a servicing facility for the initial
inspection for approval, examine the facility, and make sure that there
is at least one servicing technician who has successfully completed a
training or refresher course in servicing the liferafts for which the
facility seeks approval. However, after approval of the facility, the
Coast Guard would not regularly inspect servicing of individual
liferafts.
This proposal also incorporates changes to liferaft servicing
procedures to conform with IMO Assembly Resolution A.761(18),
``Conditions for the Approval of Servicing Stations for Inflatable
Liferafts.'' This new IMO recommendation on liferaft servicing and
approval of servicing facilities updates, combines, and supersedes the
three previous IMO recommendations which covered these subjects.
Resolution A.761(18) is not proposed to be incorporated by reference,
however the substance of the recommendation is included in the proposed
requirements of this NPRM. Copies of Resolution A.761(18) may be
obtained by contacting the Commandant (G-MVI-3) at the address
indicated under ADDRESSES above.
Comments received in response to the ANPRM of August 14, 1986, and
the public hearings held on January 27, 1987 and March 20, 1987 were
also considered in the drafting of the changes proposed in this NPRM.
The proposed revised liferaft servicing procedures are contained in
Secs. 160.151-35 through 160.151-57. The proposed procedures differ
from the present procedures in a number of important ways:
1. The Coast Guard would no longer attend the servicing of every
raft taken from an inspected vessel. Under proposed Sec. 160.151-53,
the servicing facility would still have to notify the Coast Guard
whenever such a raft was taken in for servicing, but the Coast Guard
would have the option either of authorizing the facility to proceed
without an inspector present, or requiring the servicing to be
witnessed by a marine inspector. In cases where scheduling conflicts or
resource limitations might prevent the OCMI from providing a Coast
Guard marine inspector in a timely manner, the servicing facility would
have the option, upon the authorization of the OCMI, to engage the
services of an independent third-party inspector acceptable to the
OCMI. This procedure is generally consistent with existing policy in
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 6-82 (Servicing and
Inspection of Inflatable Liferafts Utilizing Voluntary Third Party
Inspection Organizations), which allows for use of properly qualified
third party inspection organizations for liferaft servicing inspections
in cases where scheduling is critical and a marine inspector is not
available in a timely manner. A significant difference is that under
these proposed rules, OCMI's would evaluate and accept third party
inspection organizations for liferaft servicing inspections within
their zones, as opposed to acceptance being undertaken exclusively by
the Commandant as specified in NVIC 6-82. The OCMI would evaluate the
suitability of a prospective third party organization to witness
liferaft servicing in accordance with 46 CFR 159.010. Although the OCMI
would have the authority to accept third party organizations for
inspections within his or her zone, there may be instances where
acceptance of a large third party inspection organization of national
scope would be undertaken by the Commandant (G-MVI). The OCMI would
retain the option of continuing to send Coast Guard marine inspectors
to witness liferaft servicing or to oversee the performance of third
party inspectors.
2. Approval of servicing facilities would no longer be conditional
upon designation by the liferaft manufacturer. A facility otherwise
meeting all of the Coast Guard and manufacturer requirements for
training, parts, tools, and servicing manuals could be approved without
prior explicit manufacturer authorization.
3. A new ``Necessary Additional Pressure'' test and a Floor Seam
test contained in IMO resolution A.761(18) have been added to the
required test procedures in Sec. 160.151-57. The time periods for some
of the air-holding tests have been changed in conformance with the IMO
recommendation.
Alternatives to Universal Coast Guard Inspection of Servicing
Since their inception, the Coast Guard's inflatable liferaft
servicing procedures have required a Coast Guard marine inspector to
inspect servicing facilities for approval, and then attend the
servicing (overhaul, pneumatic testing, equipment inventory, and
repacking) of each raft. In the majority of instances the Coast Guard
has performed this service without charge. The requirement in existing
regulations for a marine inspector to witness each raft's servicing is
at least in part a consequence of the rapid expansion of liferaft
servicing facilities in the 1960's. When inflatable liferafts first
came into widespread use, the servicing facilities were primarily ship
chandlers whose expertise in servicing inflatable liferafts was
limited. The Coast Guard, recognizing this limitation and the general
lack of experience concerning the use and servicing of inflatable
liferafts on merchant vessels, was unwilling to permit the unsupervised
servicing of these devices.
Although that system accomplished its purpose over the years, the
increase in the number of inflatable liferafts used on inspected
vessels over the last several decades has greatly increased the
associated burden on Coast Guard personnel resources. Exacerbating the
problem is the increased workload created by the Commercial Fishing
Industry Vessel Safety Act, and the large increase in the number of
liferafts under the Coast Guard's regulatory authority as a result of
that Act. Since there has been no corresponding increase in the Coast
Guard's personnel resources, the Coast Guard must find ways to utilize
its existing resources more efficiently.
Incorporating suggestions made in several comments, these proposed
rules would institute a system of periodic ``spot checking'' of
servicing by the OCMI, with the frequency of the spot checks being at
the OCMI's discretion.
Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(a) would require a servicing facility to
notify the OCMI each time it will service an inflatable liferaft under
the facility's Coast Guard approval. The notification of the OCMI must
be in sufficient time to allow a Coast Guard inspector to travel to the
site where the servicing is to be performed. A timely telephone call to
the OCMI, providing pertinent information concerning the raft(s) to be
serviced, is all that would be required. The OCMI would then decide
whether or not to attend some or all of the servicing of the raft. The
decision might be based on the interest the OCMI has in the raft due to
its age or perceived reliability, the confidence the OCMI has in the
capabilities of the servicing facility, the time which has passed since
the facility was last inspected, or any special tests (such as the
fifth-year inflation test) required for the raft. This procedure does
not represent any change from the current requirement for servicing
facilities to notify the OCMI each time a liferaft is to be serviced.
There may be instances where the OCMI is notified of a raft taken
in for service, and determines on the basis of the criteria discussed
above that the servicing should be witnessed, but is unable to do so in
a timely manner due to resource or schedule constraints. In such cases,
where the Coast Guard inspector informs the owner or operator that he
or she will not be available, these proposed rules would permit the
servicing facility, upon the authorization of the OCMI, to utilize a
third party inspection organization acceptable to the OCMI to witness
the servicing on behalf of the OCMI. The owner of the servicing
facility would be responsible for the cost of the third party
inspector. The third party inspection organization could be an
appropriately qualified independent laboratory inspector or an
inspector or surveyor from a classification society, working on a fee
basis paid by the facility. For servicing facilities located outside
the United States, it could also be the maritime safety administration
of a foreign government.
Inspection and Approval of Servicing Facilities
These proposed rules would retain the requirement in the current
regulations for a Coast Guard inspector to inspect each servicing
facility and witness certain qualifying tests for the initial approval
of the facility. Under proposed Sec. 160.151-41(c), the inspector would
witness the servicing of a liferaft and the inflation of that liferaft.
This single inflation is a reduction from the present three inflations
required for servicing facility approval. As one comment noted, with
more attention paid to the quality and currency of training of
servicing technicians by the manufacturer, as discussed in a later
section, the practical testing of technicians at the servicing facility
by the Coast Guard should become less important.
If the inspection and qualifying test are satisfactory, the
facility would be approved by the Coast Guard to service inflatable
liferafts for U.S. vessels. As under existing regulations, approval of
the facility would be limited to servicing only those makes of
liferafts for which the facility has been inspected. This procedure is
similar to proposals made by several comments.
Continuation of the practice of conditioning Coast Guard approval
of servicing facilities on manufacturer authorization was one of the
subjects specifically covered at the public meetings. Sixteen comments
supported the Coast Guard continuing to approve only servicing
facilities authorized or inspected by the manufacturer. One stated that
consultation and supervision of major repairs by the manufacturer was
important, and two said that the issues should be the qualifications of
the facility and the competence of the technician. Two comments stated
that it was important for inspection and repair to be in accordance
with the manufacturer's manual. Two comments stated that the Coast
Guard should approve qualified independent servicing facilities, and
that a servicing facility should not be subject to loss of approval
except for cause.
In a departure from the present regulations, approval of a
servicing facility by the Coast Guard would not be conditional upon
explicit authorization by the liferaft manufacturer under the rules
proposed in this notice. This would allow the Coast Guard to focus on
the technical qualifications of the servicing facility, and not the
facility's business arrangements with the manufacturer. If a facility
has currently trained servicing technicians and all of the parts,
tools, and manuals necessary to properly service a particular make of
raft, possession of documentation of a satisfactory business
relationship with the liferaft manufacturer would have no bearing on
whether a facility would be approved by the Coast Guard. Consultation
and supervision of major repairs by the manufacturer should not
generally be necessary, since the manufacturer's techniques on major
repairs should be covered in servicing technician training and in the
servicing manual.
Proposed Secs. 160.151-35(b)(3) and 160.151-35(b)(4) would require
that current manuals, as well as unique parts and tools, be made
available to qualified servicing technicians servicing that
manufacturer's liferafts and that a manufacturer have a training
program for certification of servicing technicians. Current information
indicates that repair parts, tools, and survival equipment are
generally available, but comments are specifically requested on the
proposed provision that would require the manufacturers, as a condition
of their approval, to make any unique parts and servicing tools
available, at a reasonable cost determined by the manufacturer, to
certified technicians servicing that manufacturer's liferafts.
The ANPRM discussed the possibility of requiring manufacturers to
inspect servicing facilities annually, and be responsible for their
quality, in addition to Coast Guard and third party inspections. The
Coast Guard has decided not to propose a requirement for manufacturer
inspections since the business relationship between the manufacturer
and the servicing facility could interfere with such inspections, and
the cost of such a requirement could be excessive for a manufacturer
with a large network of servicing facilities world-wide. However,
proposed Sec. 160.151-35(b)(5) would require manufacturers to notify
the OCMI whenever they become aware, by whatever means, of servicing
technicians at approved servicing facilities servicing rafts
incorrectly, or of any falsification of required documents relating to
servicing by an approved facility.
Servicing Manuals
Present regulations require the liferaft manufacturer to produce a
servicing manual. The manual has instructions on opening, inspecting,
testing, repairing, and repacking of each of the manufacturer's
approved liferafts. The present regulations do not specifically require
the manufacturer to keep this manual current, but a system of service
bulletins is normally used to alert facilities of any changes to
procedures in the manual. With time, these bulletins accumulate and can
be lost or mislaid. This can result in questions about whether or not a
servicing facility's servicing manual is current. To make sure that the
manuals are kept current, proposed Sec. 160.151-35(b)(2) would require
manufacturers to update their manuals at least annually, and would
require the manufacturer to issue a list of each servicing manual
revision and bulletin in effect at least once each year. The
manufacturer would be required to make available the servicing manual
and service manual revisions to each technician who has successfully
completed the manufacturer's training described in Sec. 160.151-39(a)
or (b) within the periods specified in Sec. 160.151-41(e). The
manufacturer could accomplish the annual manual update by reissuing a
complete corrected manual, by issuing revised pages along with a list
of current manual pages, by providing an annual listing of service
bulletins and manual revisions in effect, or simply by sending out a
letter that says no changes have been made to the manual in the last
year, to each certified servicing technician that received a servicing
manual from the manufacturer. Under proposed Sec. 160.151-45(c), each
servicing facility would be required to have a current copy of the
servicing manual, including all servicing bulletins and manual
revisions in effect as indicated on the current annual list. Servicing
technicians would be required to maintain a current copy of the manual
and all revisions and bulletins issued by the manufacturer.
Training of Servicing Technicians and Inspectors
The existing regulations at 46 CFR 160.051-6(d)(2) require approved
servicing facilities to be staffed by one or more persons documented to
have satisfactorily completed a factory training course in the
servicing of approved inflatable liferafts. However, the regulation
contains no requirement for currency of training or refresher training.
Lack of current training has been identified as a contributing factor
in several incidents of improper liferaft servicing.
The Coast Guard has determined that there is a need for refresher
training. A number of reports of deficient servicing over the past
several years have been attributable to lack of currency or proficiency
by the servicing technicians involved. The fact that a technician has
``continuous experience'' in servicing a particular type of raft does
not necessarily mean that the rafts were serviced correctly, and a
technician may service some makes of rafts only infrequently.
Under these proposed rules, manufacturers would be required to
establish and maintain a training program for certification of
servicing technicians, including both initial training and refresher
training. Each trainee would be evaluated at the end of the course, and
only those successfully completing the evaluation would be given a
certificate indicating their competence to service the manufacturer's
liferafts. This rule does not propose to mandate who must receive
training or that the manufacturer must provide training on demand. The
Coast Guard requests comments on whether the industry foresees problems
with training availability.
Also to be considered is the manner in which the training is
delivered. Nothing in these regulations would limit training locations
to the U.S. or to the manufacturer's factory. Manufacturers could
conduct training wherever there is sufficient demand for it. Training
could even be conducted at individual servicing facilities for one or
two technicians at a time. The training could be provided directly by
the manufacturer in a vocational-type classroom setting. Training might
also be conducted for one or more manufacturers by a commercial
training organization or other educational organization.
Servicing of Unapproved Liferafts
On August 14, 1991, the Coast Guard published a final rule
containing new safety regulations for uninspected fishing vessels (56
FR 40364). These rules at 46 CFR part 28 require many fishing vessels
to carry inflatable liferafts for the first time. The regulations
include ``grandfathering'' provisions to allow fishing vessels which
carried unapproved liferafts prior to the effective date of the
regulations to continue to carry those liferafts as long as they were
serviced annually at a Coast Guard-approved servicing facility. Under
proposed Sec. 160.151-35(c), manufacturers of unapproved liferafts
could establish a system of Coast Guard-approved servicing facilities.
If a manufacturer of unapproved liferafts was unwilling to participate,
the Coast Guard could recognize another appropriately qualified
corporation or individual as a substitute manufacturer for the purposes
of Coast Guard-approved servicing. This corporation or individual would
have to perform all of the functions of a manufacturer related to
servicing, including maintaining servicing manuals and providing
service technician training. Such a procedure could also be followed
for ``orphaned'' liferafts of manufacturers who leave the liferaft
manufacturing business. Three comments expressed concern about such an
occurrence. The rules proposed in this notice would make it easier for
rafts on uninspected vessels to be serviced at approved facilities,
since Coast Guard marine inspectors would not be required to be present
at every servicing.
Coast Guard approval of servicing facilities for unapproved
liferafts would mean that the Coast Guard could also oversee the
inspection and servicing of liferafts approved by the maritime
administrations of other countries. Many foreign ships call at U.S.
ports and need to have their liferafts serviced here. The Coast Guard
has occasionally overseen such inspections at the specific request of a
foreign maritime safety administration. However, the procedure proposed
in this notice would make such inspections by Coast Guard or third
party inspectors routine, and would, in effect, allow reciprocal
servicing inspections with those countries which oversee the servicing
of liferafts from U.S. vessels taking place in their countries.
International Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) Circular 300 ``Recommendation On Servicing Of
Inflatable Liferafts'', dated February 2, 1981, recommended that
maritime safety administrations oversee the inspection and servicing of
all inflatable liferafts in their countries. A participant in one of
the public meetings made the same suggestion, and one comment on the
ANPRM was in favor of Coast Guard monitoring of inflatable liferaft
servicing in the U.S. for foreign vessels.
The Coast Guard solicits comments on the issue of servicing of
unapproved liferafts, and the resolution of problems which might arise
from such a procedure. Included in this issue is the handling of Coast
Guard-approved liferafts from uninspected vessels which have either not
been serviced regularly, or have been serviced at an approved facility
but without an inspector present.
Unauthorized Liferaft Servicing
The danger presented by unauthorized servicing organizations is
that they may not have all of the manufacturer's servicing and repair
information, they may not have access to the necessary tools and repair
parts, and they may not know with certainty the correct method of
packing a liferaft in its container so that it inflates properly when
needed. Each manufacturer's liferafts and containers are different, so
a servicing organization that is fully qualified to service one
particular make of liferafts is not necessarily qualified to service
the rafts of another manufacturer.
Because Coast Guard-approved rafts used on merchant vessels are
presently inspected by a Coast Guard marine inspector when they are
serviced, and because servicing records are often checked by another
Coast Guard inspector when the raft is installed on the vessel,
unauthorized servicing is an infrequent problem on inspected vessels.
It may become more of a problem if the Coast Guard reduces its
frequency of inspections at the servicing facility. A more serious
problem concerns rafts on uninspected vessels, where a servicing
organization that is Coast Guard-approved to service certain rafts on
inspected vessels attempts to service other rafts, for which they are
not approved, from uninspected vessels.
Proposed Secs. 160.151-47(e) and (f) would require an approved
servicing facility to specify which makes of liferafts it is approved
to service when it represents itself as approved by the U.S. Coast
Guard, and not service any liferaft for a U.S. registered commercial
vessel unless it is approved by the Coast Guard to service that make of
liferaft. Under proposed Sec. 160.151-55, Coast Guard servicing
facility approval may be withdrawn for any organization found to
service liferafts for which it is not approved. The regulation may
serve to discourage unqualified servicing by denying U.S. Coast Guard
approval to unauthorized servicing facilities. However, the proposed
provisions for remote site servicing are flexible enough to allow for
servicing of any liferaft at any approved facility, as long as a
servicing technician qualified for that make of liferaft is brought in
to do the work and the necessary tools and repair parts are available.
Remote Site Servicing
The present regulations were written for vessels that move cargo or
passengers from one port to another and call at U.S. ports where
servicing facilities are readily available. They assume that while the
vessel is involved in cargo operations or otherwise detained in port,
the liferaft(s) can be removed from the vessel, taken to an approved
facility to be serviced, and then returned to the vessel before it
leaves port.
Currently, vessels may operate away from the United States for
extended periods, sometimes in areas where Coast Guard-approved
liferaft servicing is not readily available. This is particularly true
for mobile offshore drilling units (MODU's) and the vessels that attend
them. The present regulations require that a liferaft be serviced at an
approved servicing facility. Since these vessels may not enter ports
where such facilities are available, the inflatable liferafts must be
shipped back and forth from the vessel to a distant facility. Since the
vessel may remain in operation, it may be necessary to obtain a
substitute liferaft to have available while the vessel's liferaft is
being serviced. Since these vessels typically have a number of
liferafts that have to be shipped away for servicing, this can be an
expensive and time-consuming procedure. Delays in foreign ports have
also been experienced since the rafts contain pressurized cylinders,
pyrotechnics, and other materials whose shipment is often limited or
controlled by local laws.
A similar problem may be experienced by some container ships, RO/RO
vessels, and fast turnaround tanker operations, where the ship may not
remain in a port long enough to conveniently send the liferafts away to
be serviced.
To address these problems, proposed Sec. 160.151-49 would provide
for servicing liferafts at remote sites, provided that the facility has
made the appropriate arrangements to ensure that each remote servicing
site meets the applicable requirements for a servicing facility. All of
the requirements for notification of the OCMI and the OCMI's decision
on whether to inspect the facility during servicing of the liferaft,
would apply to a remote site. The servicing facility would have to
assemble a portable assortment of test equipment, spare parts, and
replacement survival equipment to accompany the individual doing the
servicing. The technician doing the servicing would have to make sure
that the space provided and the equipment available meet the regulatory
requirements for servicing. A participant at one of the public meetings
stressed that remote site servicing should be an additional endorsement
in the approval of a servicing facility, since it would be necessary to
have special portable equipment. The Coast Guard agrees, and this is
included in the procedure proposed.
Servicing With Computer-Aided Devices
The ANPRM discussed the concept of a computer-aided servicing
system. The system discussed in the ANPRM includes the functions of a
servicing manual and much of the test equipment. The system's software
could effectively include all of the requirements for a servicing
manual and lead the person servicing the liferaft through the servicing
procedure. Transducers could be connected to the computer to read
weight, temperature, and barometric pressure measurements. The system
may be particularly well-suited for remote-site servicing arrangements.
The regulations proposed in this notice do not specifically include
such a system, but would not prohibit the use of such a system as a
tool by a servicing facility. If the system offers significant
operational efficiencies for servicing facilities, it will be
voluntarily adopted by them. It is the position of the Coast Guard that
the system does not eliminate the need for inspections, since the
system does not monitor all parts of the overall servicing procedure.
Detection of Aging Structural Connections
The current fifth-year CO2 inflation test of a raft checks the
gas tightness of the seams of a raft's buoyancy tubes, but does not
focus on structural connections, which, while holding the major
components of the raft together, do not not come in contact with the
inflation gas. It is possible that the cold-cure cements now commonly
used in the fabrication of rafts have produced seams that suffer
deterioration at a faster rate than the raft fabric. The rafts
recovered from the loss of the drill rig ``Ocean Ranger'' in February
1982 showed extensive deterioration in their hinge tapes and floor
supports.
Under proposed Sec. 160.151-37(a)(2), the servicing manual would be
required to contain instructions on checking the raft for deteriorated
seams and joints. In addition, proposed Sec. 160.151-57(l) adds a test
of the integrity of the seam connecting the floor to the buoyancy tube.
This is identical to the Floor Seam Test specified in the new IMO
liferaft servicing recommendation.
Necessary Additional Pressure (NAP) Test
The new IMO recommendation on liferaft servicing addresses the
problem of detecting unsatisfactory older rafts by the addition of a
``Necessary Additional Pressure'' (NAP) Test, incorporated into this
notice as proposed Sec. 160.151-57(k). This test would require
inflating the liferaft to the lesser of twice the working pressure or
the pressure necessary to produce a tensile load in the inflatable tube
fabric of 20% of its required minimum tensile strength, then checking
for qualitative signs of seam or material failure. The test would be
required to be performed at each servicing for rafts over ten years
old, except in those years when the raft is subjected to the gas
inflation test.
Liferaft Painter Length
At present, SOLAS Regulation III/38.3.2 specifies a painter length
of the greater of 15 meters or twice the stowage height. As part of the
amendment of SOLAS Chapter III currently in development, the IMO
Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee has tentatively approved a
change to this regulation to reduce the required painter length to the
greater of 15 meters or the stowage height plus 10 meters. If this
change is approved by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee as expected, it
would be incorporated into the final rule.
Stowage Height and Equipment Pack Markings on Containers
The 1983 SOLAS Amendments changed the requirements related to the
height above the waterline at which a liferaft can be stowed. The
maximum stowage height is the lesser of one-half of the length of the
painter, or the height at which the raft was drop-tested by the
manufacturer. Since different liferafts will have different maximum
stowage heights, this information should be marked on the liferaft
container. Also required to be marked on the container is a description
of the type of emergency equipment pack.
Proposed Sec. 160.151-37(a)(12) would require the servicing manual
to contain information on the proper marking of the maximum permitted
stowage height above the waterline, and the ``SOLAS A'' and ``SOLAS B''
equipment pack provided. Since manufacturers may choose to qualify
rafts for different stowage heights, the marking on the container is
the best way to prevent a raft from being installed in an inappropriate
location. Servicing facilities must be responsible for this marking,
since containers may be interchanged or replaced in servicing, and
since the servicing facility could effectively alter the stowage height
by changing the painter length in accordance with the servicing manual.
Inspection and Replacement of Survival Equipment
The possibility of using equipment other than Coast Guard-approved
equipment was one of the subjects specifically covered at the public
meetings.
The Coast Guard has not adopted the suggestions to allow the use of
equipment approved to the SOLAS 74/83 requirements by other countries.
SOLAS 74/83 does not contain complete performance, design, or quality
control requirements for all such equipment. In fact, for many items of
survival equipment, SOLAS 74/83 does not contain any design or
performance requirements, so that inferior equipment not complying with
U.S. requirements can be accurately claimed to meet applicable SOLAS
74/83 requirements. On the other hand, there are many items approved by
other maritime administrations which are of high quality, and may even
exceed the requirements for Coast Guard-approved equipment. These
proposed rules would allow those items to be substituted in some
limited instances as discussed below. In the future, maritime
regulatory reform efforts may lead to a greater degree of acceptance of
foreign approval of lifesaving equipment on a reciprocal basis.
The rules proposed in this notice address the issue of survival
equipment in two ways. First, under proposed Sec. 160.151-45(o), a
servicing facility must have a complete stock of survival equipment,
except for items which may be procured quickly. Second, under proposed
Sec. 160.151-53(d), the servicing facility may request that the OCMI
authorize deviation from the established servicing procedure when
necessary. This deviation could include authorization to substitute
equipment when the required Coast Guard-approved equipment is
unavailable. Any deviation approved by the OCMI on this basis would be
noted on the OCMI's servicing documentation for reference at subsequent
servicings. The OCMI's decision on the deviation would be based, in
part, on what is known about the equipment that the servicing facility
proposes in substitution.
A participant in one of the public meetings suggested that the
OCMI's would need some guidance on what survival equipment could be
accepted in these situations. Since there is no international
registration of approved equipment, such guidance would be difficult to
provide in general form. Each instance would have to be considered on a
case-by-case basis, but would generally be based on the OCMI's
determination of whether a particular piece of equipment would be
equivalent to applicable Coast Guard requirements.
The rules proposed in this notice do not envision the substitution
of liferafts approved by other countries for liferafts approved by the
Coast Guard. Each SOLAS 74/83 signatory country is responsible for the
quality and performance of lifesaving equipment on its vessels. There
are no ``SOLAS'' or ``IMO'' approvals. However, one result of the 1983
SOLAS Amendments has been an ``internationalization'' of liferaft
design. Some manufacturers produce the same liferaft for the approval
of many different countries, including the United States, so that
finding Coast Guard-approved liferafts in foreign ports should become
easier. These issues may be addressed as part of the Maritime
Regulatory Reform initiative.
Date of Servicing and Servicing Expiration Date
Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3) would require that a sticker be
affixed to each liferaft container. Information on the sticker would
include the expiration date. This would replace the system of stamping
the servicing date on a metal plate on the container. A sticker bearing
an expiration date should be easier to use and more informative for
vessel operators and inspectors. This is especially true when the
required date for servicing is extended because the raft has been
stored under controlled conditions, as provided for in proposed
Sec. 160.151-57(n). Section 160.151-57(n) would allow a raft stored for
up to 6 months from date of manufacture to be placed in service without
further servicing. The first servicing would be due no later than one
year from the date of installation on board a vessel. Section 160.151-
57(n) adopts the policy currently provided for in Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circular (NVIC) 12-61. Section 160.151-57(n) also proposes
to allow new liferafts to go for two years before their first
servicing. The two year servicing extension would not apply to
liferafts used on vessels with SOLAS 74/83 certificates, since
Regulation III/19.8.1 of SOLAS 74/83 requires annual liferaft
servicing.
The Coast Guard has provided for limited servicing date extensions
in this proposal. In general, however, the Coast Guard position is that
annual inspections are required. Raft containers can become laden with
moisture in a marine environment, accelerating the deterioration of the
raft and its equipment, even though some of the equipment has a nominal
storage life of three to five years. Raft containers can be damaged
during vessel operations or cargo handling and permit water intrusion,
thereby accelerating deterioration. Temperature and humidity cycles can
lead to deterioration and corrosion of inflation system components,
leading to failure of the inflation system. Some manufacturers have
suggested that vacuum packing of the liferaft in a plastic package
inside the container can extend servicing time. If proposed by a
manufacturer, the Coast Guard will consider the data provided and
decide if the procedure warrants an extension of the servicing
expiration date.
Currently, under NVIC 12-61, rafts stored under controlled
conditions from 6 months to 1 year from the date of manufacture are
opened by an approved servicing facility in the presence of a marine
inspector to visually check the condition of the raft, check and weigh
the CO2 cylinder(s), and replace the flashlight batteries. This
procedure effectively waives the 2-hour inflation test which would
otherwise be required during servicing. After checking, the raft is
repacked by the approved servicing facility and marked as having been
serviced on the date of this inspection, with regular annual servicing
due one year from date of the stamp. Rafts in storage longer than one
year have to undergo the full servicing procedure.
This policy on storage has been in effect for almost 25 years
without any evidence that liferafts stored and serviced under this
procedure have been any less satisfactory than those serviced annually.
Instead of limiting the procedure to newly produced liferafts held in
controlled conditions between manufacture and installation on ship,
these proposed rules would extend it to all liferafts that have been
fully serviced and then stored under controlled conditions
(Sec. 160.151-57(n)(3)).
There have been cases reported where a liferaft that was sent for
servicing was suspected of not having been inspected and serviced at
all. Since the liferaft is stored in its container, out of sight of the
owner, an unscrupulous organization might be tempted to simply mark the
raft container with the indication that it had been serviced without
removing the raft from the container. In this way the full servicing
fee could be collected without the servicing organization having to do
any work. In order to place the date and identification of the
servicing facility on the raft itself, the raft would have to be
unpacked and repacked, guaranteeing that at least that much had been
done. Any doubt about whether or not a facility had even opened the
raft could be resolved by examining the raft. Proposed Sec. 160.151-
57(m)(1) would require that the canopy or buoyancy tubes be marked with
information regarding servicing including the servicing date and
identification and location of the servicing facility.
Servicing Stickers and Servicing Certificates
As discussed above, proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3) would require
the liferaft container or valise to have a servicing sticker affixed to
it. The use of a standard servicing sticker is intended to discourage
liferaft servicing by unapproved facilities, and to ease enforcement of
safety regulations by Coast Guard enforcement personnel. One comment
stated that such a system, if adopted, would have to be consistent
between all servicing facilities and manufacturers. The Coast Guard has
already accepted a standard servicing sticker design prepared by
industry, for optional use at present. These stickers would meet the
proposed requirements of this NPRM. The sticker would be required to be
approximately 4 by 6 inches, with the last digit of the year of
expiration superimposed over a background color that changes for each
inspection year. The required color for each inspection year would
correspond to the colors specified for recreational boat number
validation stickers in 33 CFR 174.15(c). The sticker would be required
to be marked with the Coast Guard identifying insignia described in 33
CFR 23.12(a), which should make it easier to prosecute unapproved
servicing facilities using the sticker (or copies of it) in violation
of the terms of its acceptance by the Coast Guard. Any person desiring
to reproduce the Coast Guard identifying insignia must obtain approval
from the Commandant in accordance with 33 CFR 23.12(c). Under these
proposed rules, the sticker would replace the current system of
stamping the servicing date on a metal plate on the container.
As discussed earlier, NVIC 12-61 currently allows rafts stored up
to 6 months from date of manufacture to be placed in service without
further servicing, with the first servicing due no later than one year
from the date of installation on board the vessel. In order to help
identify a raft in this category, the raft manufacturer furnishes the
master of the vessel with a copy of the bill of sale showing the
manufacturer's name and address, the serial number of the raft, the
date of manufacture, and the sale date. In addition, an affidavit is to
be provided showing the date the raft was installed on the vessel. Both
the affidavit and bill of sale are to be retained on board the vessel.
All of this paperwork is unnecessary with the sticker system. Any
servicing certificate the servicing facility issues could be endorsed
to indicate that this special inspection procedure was used, and the
sticker would indicate the expiration of the servicing period.
If liferaft manufacturers develop other ways to extend servicing
expiration dates, the servicing sticker will accommodate those
extensions more easily than if the date of servicing is stamped on the
metal plate. The servicing facilities would be responsible for
obtaining the stickers. A servicing facility or a group of servicing
facilities might print their own, manufacturers may offer stickers to
facilities that service their rafts, or an industry organization might
arrange for their printing.
These rules would not require the sticker to be placed over the
joint in the liferaft container. The ANPRM discussed this possibility,
so that the sticker would be broken whenever the raft is opened. This
would be an immediate indication of unauthorized tampering, should such
tampering occur. There are several problems with placing the sticker
over the joint, including difficulty in adhering to the joint gasket
material, exposed location possibly resulting in inadvertent damage,
and movement between container parts while the raft is being moved,
which might break the sticker even though the container has not been
opened.
The ANPRM discussed the possibility that the sticker could replace
the servicing certificate. In that case, servicing facilities could
continue to issue servicing certificates even if Coast Guard
regulations did not include such a requirement. The rules proposed in
this notice would still require the servicing certificate, but comments
are requested on whether or not the certificate requirement should be
removed if the servicing sticker is retained in the final rules.
Issuance of Unique Code to Each Approved Servicing Facility
In 1981, IMCO (the predecessor of the IMO) issued ``MSC Circular
300'' which recommended the issuance of an identification number to
each approved servicing facility. In 1992, the Coast Guard assigned
such numbers to all existing liferaft manufacturers and servicing
facilities, for optional use on servicing stickers. The purpose of the
code is to enable quick and positive identification of a servicing
facility as one that has been approved by the Coast Guard. Proposed
Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3)(iv) would require that the servicing facility
mark its approval code on the servicing sticker.
Raft Markings as an Aid to Search and Rescue (SAR)
Another reason for marking the raft with the identification of the
servicing facility and date is its potential use in search and rescue.
When a liferaft is found at sea with no one aboard, SAR forces want
to know what vessel the raft came from as soon as possible. For this
reason, the 22nd session of the IMO Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-
Committee in February 1991 prepared a draft Assembly resolution
(subsequently approved by the 18th IMO Assembly in October 1993 as
Assembly resolution A.759(18)) recommending that liferafts be fitted
with a means of identifying the vessel on which a raft is installed.
Specifically, in recognition of the fact that liferafts are sometimes
moved from one ship to another outside of the normal servicing cycle,
the recommendation calls for a means of identification which can be
easily changed without the necessity of unpacking the raft. An example
would be a water resistant card inside a waterproof canister with a
threaded lid, attached to the raft by a cord or webbing and secured to
the outside of the raft container. This recommendation is incorporated
in these proposed rules in Sec. 160.151-17(c) as an equipment
requirement for new rafts, and in Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) as a servicing
requirement for existing rafts. If the name of a vessel is not known
when the raft is serviced, the information could be added when the
serviced raft is installed on a vessel.
Fifth-Year Inflation Test
The current special fifth-year inspection requirements for liferaft
servicing require the liferaft to be inflated with its own inflation
system. This test is performed by removing the folded raft from its
container and then operating the fitted gas inflation system. A recent
problem suggests that this test should be done with the raft still in
its container with all retaining bands in place.
The problem concerned a hose coupling that broke when a raft was
inflated in its container during the sample lot inflation test required
for new liferafts. The manufacturer also discovered that the hose
failure did not occur when the raft was inflated in its folded
condition, but outside of its container. This occurrence indicates that
the forces on parts of the liferaft can be significantly different when
the inflating raft breaks out of its storage container.
This particular occurrence was discussed in the ANPRM. A
requirement to include the hoses in the annual inflation test has been
proposed in Sec. 160.151-57(b)(2). However, other parts of the raft may
also be stressed more severely when the raft breaks out of its
container, as compared to inflating in the folded condition. For this
reason, proposed Sec. 160.151-57(g) would require the fifth year
inflation test to be initiated with the raft inside its storage
container, with any retaining bands in place.
After CO2 inflation, these proposed rules would allow the raft
to be deflated and refilled with air to check the integrity of the
inflated buoyancy tubes. Air is used to check new liferafts, and raft
fabrics are somewhat more permeable to CO2 than they are to air.
Testing with CO2 may therefore result in a false indication of
raft fabric porosity, if pressure loss slightly exceeds the permissible
percentage. Such rafts would probably pass an air inflation test, and
would be perfectly serviceable. This procedure is not specifically
addressed in the existing regulation.
IMO Recommendations on Servicing of Inflatable Liferafts
Several revisions to the servicing requirements are proposed in
order to be consistent with International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Resolution A.761(18) ``Conditions For The Approval Of Servicing
Stations For Inflatable Liferafts'' dated July 20, 1993, and IMO
Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) Circular 300 ``Recommendation On
Servicing Of Inflatable Liferafts'' dated February 2, 1981. Resolution
A.761(18) updates, combines, and supersedes the previous IMO
Recommendations in resolutions A.273(VIII), A.333(IX), and A.693(17).
Eight comments favored alignment with IMO Recommendations, with one
adding that it would increase the availability of liferaft servicing
facilities for U.S. vessels worldwide. One comment stated that
alignment with IMO Recommendations would not be practical, but did not
explain why it would not be practical. The Coast Guard's position is
that most currently approved servicing facilities would meet these
standards, which include the following:
1. Servicing would be required to take place in fully enclosed
spaces (indoors). The space would be required to be ventilated, but
free of drafts, and smoking would not be permitted (Secs. 160.151-
43(a)(2), (9) and (10)).
2. Sufficient space would have to be available for the number of
liferafts expected to be serviced at any one time. The ceiling would
have to be high enough to hold a fully inflated liferaft of the largest
size to be serviced (Secs. 160.151-43(a)(3) and (4)). The ANPRM
discussed a requirement consistent with the previous IMO
Recommendation, which would have required a ceiling high enough to
allow overturning of the largest liferaft to be serviced with the
liferaft inflated. Two comments stated that this was unnecessary. The
new Recommendation in resolution A.761(18) does not require that the
ceiling be high enough to overturn the raft, but does require that an
equally efficient means of facilitating the inspection of bottom seams
be furnished. This requirement has been incorporated in the NPRM
(Sec. 160.151-43(a)(4)). For example, the liferaft could be partially
deflated and overturned to gain access to the bottom of the liferaft.
Although a lower ceiling height may be an inconvenience for the
servicing facility, it would not prevent approval of a facility.
3. The floor would have to be covered or coated with a surface that
can be cleaned (Sec. 160.151-43(a)(5)). However, carpets would not be
prohibited as was proposed in the ANPRM. The prohibition on carpets in
the old IMO Recommendation was intended to protect natural rubber
coated liferafts from copper oxidation, a destructive process which can
arise from contact with brass debris from inflation hardware caught in
the carpet fibers. Such debris can be very difficult to remove
completely. Two comments pointed out that many servicing facilities do
not service natural rubber coated liferafts, and therefore, can or
should use a carpeted service area. The Coast Guard agrees and has not
included a prohibition on carpet in these proposed rules.
4. The temperature, and where necessary, the relative humidity in
the servicing space would have to be sufficiently controlled to ensure
that servicing can be carried out (Sec. 160.151-43(a)(7)). One comment
suggested that the rules include a requirement for temperature and
humidity controlled servicing environments. One comment suggested that
the temperature be controlled to within 5 deg.F during the test
period. The proposed regulation would require the ability to maintain
an even temperature during servicing. The specific suggestion to
require environmental control to within 5 deg.F was not adopted, since
it would incorrectly imply that the inspector must verify the operation
of the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system. The working
pressure leakage test procedure does specify that (mathematical)
compensation must be made for temperature variations during each test,
but does not limit the range in which the temperature may vary during
the test. Comments are invited on whether or not a temperature range
limit should be specified during the working pressure leakage test.
5. Separate areas would have to be provided for various functions
to ensure that servicing can be carried out efficiently (Sec. 160.151-
43(b)). The Coast Guard has not included a definition of ``separate
area'' as suggested by one comment. The separate areas can be separate
rooms or just designated parts of the same room. As long as servicing
can be carried out in the space in an orderly manner, the separate
areas would not have to meet specific standards. Another comment
suggested that storage of pyrotechnics in accordance with local safety
codes would be satisfactory as long as they are stored away from the
servicing area. No special requirement is included for pyrotechnic
storage, such as a ``safe and secure magazine, in accordance with local
safety codes'' as discussed in the ANPRM. Such a requirement would be
related to the safety of the facility and its employees, rather than to
the quality of liferaft servicing. Servicing facilities will be located
in many different jurisdictions, all with their own local requirements
for storage of materials of this type.
6. The liferaft storage area would have to provide for rafts to be
stored no more than two high, and not subjected to excessive loads
(Sec. 160.151-43(a)(8)). The wording of the proposed paragraph is
intended, as two comments suggested, to make it clear that the two high
stacking limit refers to stacking rafts on top of each other, and does
not limit the height of any rack or shelf system.
7. A source of pressure to inflate the rafts and a vacuum source to
deflate them would be required (Sec. 160.151-45(g) and (h)).
8. Facilities that service davit-launched liferafts would be
required to be equipped with appropriate means for conducting the load
test (Sec. 160.151-45(p)).
9. Small raft servicing tools would be required to be stored on a
tool board that clearly indicates where each tool is to be stowed, or
an equivalent means to make sure that no tools are left in the liferaft
when it is repacked (Sec. 160.151-45(r)).
10. IMO resolution A.761(18) states that ``statistical records
should be prepared on all liferafts serviced, indicating, in
particular, defects found, repairs carried out and units condemned and
withdrawn from service. Such statistics should be available to the
Administration.'' This information would be used by the Administration
(the Coast Guard in this case) to determine if any particular type(s)
or make(s) of liferafts show an unusual or dangerous pattern of
defects. Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(r) would implement this
recommendation, requiring that the specified records be forwarded to
the local OCMI annually. This information would be used to correct the
problems identified either by requiring the manufacturers to modify
their equipment or to correct their servicing procedures. Similar
information on defects is now collected by Coast Guard inspectors as
they observe the servicing of individual liferafts. The OCMI files an
``Equipment Failure Report'' with the Commandant when significant
problems are found.
Since Coast Guard inspectors would not attend the servicing of
every liferaft under the procedures proposed in this notice, the report
on defects by the servicing facility is necessary. Reports on defects
do not have to be in any particular form to be useful, so the Coast
Guard does not presently intend to develop a special defect reporting
form. However, a standard form might be helpful in identifying critical
areas and repetitive failures, and could reduce the time spent in
reporting defects to the Coast Guard. Comments concerning the
desirability of a standard form for reporting defects are solicited. As
an alternative, manufacturers might wish to include a suggested defect
report format in their servicing manuals.
One comment suggested that servicing facilities send a report
listing discrepancies noted to the servicing facility that previously
serviced the liferaft. Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(r) requires the
servicing facility to notify the OCMI immediately of any critical
defects it finds which may affect other liferafts. The OCMI can then
take steps to notify the previous servicing facility if this is
appropriate. The Coast Guard has no objection to servicing facilities
voluntarily notifying each other of discrepancies. This could be an
excellent way for the industry to police itself.
A related requirement is located in proposed Sec. 160.151-57(q).
The servicing facility would be required to keep a record of each Coast
Guard-approved inflatable liferaft it services for at least five years.
This time period is specified in the IMO recommendation on liferaft
servicing, and would ensure that the special fifth year servicing
record would be available for every liferaft, if it is needed.
Requirements for Improved Inflatable Liferaft Stability
The Coast Guard published an ANPRM on inflatable liferaft stability
in the Federal Register on June 29, 1981 (46 FR 33341) (1981 ANPRM).
The 1981 ANPRM presented a summary of research efforts, sea trials, and
yachting casualties from this country and Europe, and invited comments
on suggested areas of consideration that the Coast Guard saw as
relevant to regulatory action. A public hearing on the 1981 ANPRM was
held on September 1, 1981 at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters in
Washington, DC.
The Coast Guard published an NPRM on inflatable liferaft stability
in the Federal Register on January 11, 1985 (50 FR 1558) (1985 NPRM).
That 1985 NPRM presented, for the first time, several specific design
and testing requirements for improving stability that the Coast Guard
proposed for inclusion in revised approval requirements for inflatable
liferafts.
Partly as a result of the comments on the 1985 NPRM, as well as the
results of further model testing at the Coast Guard Research and
Development Center in 1989, this NPRM proposes modifications to the
stability requirements different from the ones proposed in the 1985
NPRM.
The Coast Guard received comments on the proposed stability
regulations from 14 different parties, representing inflatable liferaft
manufacturers, vessel operators, designers and inventors, another
Federal agency, and a foreign maritime safety administration. Most of
the comments agreed that some stability improvement was needed,
although some had objections to the specifics of the proposal, or made
alternative proposals. Two comments opposed the proposals on the basis
that heavily ballasted liferafts were untried and unproven, or that a
heavy ballast system could result in damage to an inflatable liferaft.
For the reasons discussed in both the 1981 ANPRM and the 1985 NPRM,
the Coast Guard's position is that liferaft stability improvement is
necessary. Heavily ballasted liferafts have been in service for 15
years or more, and have been successfully used in a number of
casualties. Tests sponsored by the governments of the United Kingdom
and Iceland, which were also discussed in the previous rulemakings,
make it clear that increased water ballast will improve heavy weather
liferaft stability. The experiences of survivors in heavily ballasted
liferafts, which were recounted with some of the comments and at the
public hearing, make it clear that heavily ballasted liferafts can be
designed so that they are effective and yet can withstand the most
severe conditions without damage. The Coast Guard has, therefore,
concluded that stability improvement through the use of heavy ballast
systems is needed and is practical. The remaining issues which the
Coast Guard must address are what kind of stability improvements should
be required, and what kind of design, performance, and test
requirements should be imposed. The purpose of the heavy ballast
stability proposals in this notice is to refine the proposals made in
the 1985 NPRM.
There are several heavy ballast designs competing to be recognized
as the most appropriate and effective. The three most common are the
hemispherical, toroidal, and UK/Icelandic ballast systems. These
varying designs were illustrated and discussed at some length in both
the 1981 ANPRM and 1985 NPRM, and will not be repeated here in detail.
The inventor and manufacturer of the hemispherical ballast system
and another comment supported the hemispherical system as the most
effective. One comment was critical of the hemispherical system.
Another doubted that the hemispherical system could pass the 3 m drop
test required of inflated davit-launched inflatable liferafts. Three
comments urged the Coast Guard to adopt the same standards as the
United Kingdom and Iceland (referred to hereinafter as the UK/Icelandic
system). This system relies not only on large evenly-distributed water
pockets, but on an improved sea anchor as well.
The only conclusive way to determine the best stability system is
through comparative testing. The best full-scale testing of this type
was conducted by the United Kingdom and Iceland in 1980 and 1981. This
test series was discussed fully in the 1981 ANPRM and the 1985 NPRM.
This testing clearly showed how increased water ballast could improve
liferaft stability, and formed the basis for the UK/Icelandic stability
requirements. Unfortunately, as one comment pointed out, the test
series did not include liferafts with either the hemispherical or
toroidal stability systems. The UK/Icelandic system uses less water
ballast than either the hemispherical or toroidal systems, and in
addition it depends upon an improved sea anchor as an essential part of
the stability system.
Several comments addressed the use of sea anchors. Two comments
suggested that sea anchors were important and that the Coast Guard did
not place sufficient importance on the contribution of sea anchors to
liferaft stability.
The proposed stability requirements in this NPRM do not rely solely
on sea anchors for stability because, although a sea anchor streams
upwind of the liferaft, waves may come from different directions in a
storm. The sea anchor becomes increasingly less effective as the angle
between wind direction and wave direction increases. At angles of
90 deg. or more, a sea anchor is virtually ineffective.
Recent comparative testing in the United States has focused on
model testing. In 1979, the Coast Guard sponsored rigid model tests in
a wind tunnel. These tests were discussed in the 1981 ANPRM. In 1989,
the Coast Guard Research and Development Center (R&D Center) completed
a series of model tests using a rigid liferaft body with flexible
stability appendages in a wave tank. The liferafts modeled included a
conventional liferaft with very small water pockets, a toroidal
stability system, and a hemispherical stability system. The waves
generated consistently capsized the conventional liferaft model, but
rafts with both the hemispherical and toroidal stability system did not
capsize. Both models appeared to pass through the waves in a similar
manner. A copy of the R&D Center test report has been placed in the
docket for inspection and copying, and is available for sale through
the National Technical Information Service (see ADDRESSES section of
this NPRM).
The Coast Guard has decided to base its stability proposals at this
time on the hemispherical and toroidal stability systems, although
neither design will be mandated. In spite of the claims and theories
advanced so far on the merits of the particular systems, there are no
test results to date that conclusively indicate the superiority of one
system over the other. The 1985 NPRM proposed several requirements and
tests to determine liferaft stability. These included a minimum water
volume for stability appendages, requirements for distribution and
arrangement of the stability appendages, a lift-out force test, a
maneuverability test, a helicopter rescue compatibility test, and an
at-sea test. In this NPRM the Coast Guard proposes all of these
requirements in a modified form, with the exception of the helicopter
rescue compatibility test.
Minimum Water Volume for Stability Appendages
The 1985 NPRM proposed a minimum volume of water-filled appendages
equal to the volume of the principal buoyancy compartments of the raft
(0.096 m3 (3.4 ft3) for each person the liferaft is approved
to accommodate). Section 160.151-17(a)(2)(i) of this NPRM proposes a
minimum volume of 0.08 m3 (2.85 ft3) times the number of
persons which the liferaft is approved to accommodate. Although this
appears to be a reduction in the minimum volume originally proposed,
the previous NPRM did not take into account the reduction in the
effective volume created by openings designed to admit water into the
appendages. The volume is to be calculated using the bottom of the
lowest opening in the appendage as the height of the appendage, and by
deducting the volume of any objects inside the appendage. As in the
1985 NPRM, the minimum volume proposed by this NPRM is intended to be
consistent with the volume of both the hemispherical and toroidal
stability systems that are now part of some Coast Guard-approved
liferafts.
The UK/Icelandic system uses a minimum stability appendage volume
of about 0.02 m3 times the number of persons which the liferaft is
approved to accommodate, although a six-person liferaft must have as
much as 0.042 m3 per person. This proposal would, therefore,
require two to four times the volume of water ballast required of the
UK/Icelandic system.
The Coast Guard would prefer to use performance requirements
wherever possible, but since the scientific investigation of liferaft
stability is not complete, it is not possible to completely define
liferaft stability systems in terms of performance requirements. The
requirements for the UK/Icelandic system, specifying the shape, size,
and number of stability appendages, are even more design restrictive
than those proposed here.
The volume selected is intended to incorporate the two heavily
ballasted designs now approved by the Coast Guard. The hemispherical
system has a long and admirable record of saving lives, primarily in
fishing vessel casualties. The toroidal system similarly has a long
record of effectiveness, and has been used by the Coast Guard for over
ten years on its search and rescue liferafts. As indicated by some of
the comments, it is not known if the proposed minimum volume
requirement represents the optimum in liferaft stability, but further
revisions to the stability requirements may be proposed as scientific
investigations into liferaft stability continue. It is known that heavy
water ballast systems of this size are effective in improving
stability, and can be made so that they will not damage the liferaft in
heavy seas.
Requirements for Distribution and Arrangement of the Stability
Appendages
Section 160.151-17(a) proposes several requirements for the design
of the liferaft and the stability appendages. These requirements
include the following:
--Each liferaft larger than 8-person capacity must have a waterplane of
circular or elliptical outline; or, alternatively, a hexagonal,
octagonal, or similar outline approximating a circular or elliptical
shape.
--The appendages must be securely attached and evenly distributed
around the periphery of the exterior bottom of the liferaft.
--A stability system must consist of at least two separate parts so
that damage to one part will permit at least half of the required total
volume to remain intact.
--The system must provide openings in or between the stability
appendages to limit the formation of air pockets under the liferaft.
Larger liferafts with long straight sides are more susceptible to
wind and wave effects than those rafts which more closely approximate a
circular shape. This proposal was not part of the previous NPRM, but
one comment addressed the effects of wind on stability. The Coast Guard
agrees that wind effects are less significant on round liferafts. This
proposed requirement is also consistent with generally accepted
industry practice. Comments are requested on this proposed requirement,
specifically, whether an alternative requirement would be more
appropriate, such as requiring a minimum of six or eight sides on a
polygonal liferaft, and a limitation on the length/width ratio.
The UK/Icelandic system requires 5 pockets in 4-8 person liferafts,
7 pockets in 9-16 person liferafts, and 11 pockets in 17-25 person
liferafts. As discussed above, the proposed requirements in this notice
are based on the performance of hemispherical and toroidal systems.
While the toroidal system does use multiple sections, the hemispherical
system operates successfully with one large chamber and a small
toroidal section. Consequently these proposed rules do not propose to
require a specific number of stability appendages.
This NPRM does not propose to require a continuous skirt around the
liferaft to deflect wind and waves. To comply with the stability
performance requirements proposed by this rule, a skirt might be needed
only if the stability system allowed the liferaft to lift out of the
water and expose the underside of the liferaft to wind and waves. The
hemispherical stability system is currently the only one which is
intended to allow the liferaft to lift out of the water, and the skirt
is an inherent part of this design.
Lift-Out Force Test
Proposed Sec. 160.151-29(a) contains a lift-out force test. It
makes several significant changes to the test proposed in the January
1985 NPRM. Several months after the close of the comment period on the
1985 NPRM, the Coast Guard contracted for an experimental lift-out
force test with a variety of inflatable liferafts. The report of the
test was not published as a formal document, but copies were
distributed to liferaft manufacturers. A copy of the report has been
placed in the docket for examination, and the Coast Guard Survival
Systems Branch will provide one copy to each person requesting one (see
ADDRESSES section of this NPRM).
The procedure published in the 1985 NPRM required the lift-out
force to be at least equal to the theoretical vertical component of the
capsizing moment created by hurricane force winds (63 knots). The
results of the test were that all of the liferafts met the proposed
criterion, including those with small conventional stability pockets.
This was a result predicted by two comments. The Coast Guard concluded
that the proposed lift-out force criterion was not adequate to
discriminate between conventional and heavy ballast systems. The test
results indicated that even lightly ballasted rafts could withstand a
minimum hurricane force condition. This result is consistent with
reports of heavily ballasted liferafts surviving storm conditions which
significantly exceeded minimum hurricane force conditions. It was
clear, however, that liferafts with heavy ballast systems had
significantly higher lift-out forces than other liferafts.
The test results showed that the heavily ballasted liferafts
meeting the volume criterion proposed in this NPRM had a lift-out force
which increased with the size of the liferaft, but which was not
linearly proportional to the number of persons the liferaft was
approved to accommodate. For instance, a heavily ballasted 6-person
liferaft had a lift-out force of just over 200 N (45 lb) per person,
while a 20-person liferaft of essentially the same design had a lift-
out force of just over 154 N (35 lb) per person. These test values were
reduced by 10% to account for the variability inherent in the test
procedure, and the resulting values used to develop the proposed
minimum lift-out force criterion in proposed Sec. 160.151-29(a)(7). The
proposed criterion is 255+140 P-0.7 P2, where P is the number of
persons for which the inflatable liferaft is to be approved, and the
force is measured in Newtons (58+32 P-0.16 P2 if the force is
measured in pounds). This equation is a curve which results in a lift-
out force which increases at a decreasing rate up to liferaft sizes of
100 persons. A 100-person liferaft is well above the size of any
inflatable liferaft now contemplated. This criterion approximates the
results of the testing, but further refinement is possible in the
future.
As the Coast Guard gains more experience with the lift-out force
test and becomes more confident in its results, this may become the
only test needed to confirm stability characteristics. As a performance
criterion, it could replace the design-restrictive volume criterion,
and might make the at-sea test unnecessary. It also tests the
structural integrity of the liferaft and its ballast system. Because of
the limited experience with this test at the present time, the Coast
Guard can not yet conclude that the test is an adequate substitute for
any of the other tests or requirements. Comments are specifically
solicited on this point.
After the Coast Guard's lift-out force test was completed, one
manufacturer observed that the rafts with the toroidal ballast systems
offered so much resistance when being pulled out of the water, that
they buckled in such a way that only the end of the liferaft being
lifted emerged from the water, with the rest of the raft remaining on
the water surface. This behavior was compared with that of the
hemispherically ballasted liferafts, which remained fairly rigid as
they were lifted from the water. The comment suggested that this
buckling should be cause for rejection. According to the comment, the
hemispherical system allows one edge of the liferaft to lift and ride
over the crests of the waves. A raft with the toroidal system would not
do this, and would be crushed or buckled as it passed through a wave
crest, resulting in loss of inflation gas through the pressure relief
valves. The Coast Guard has not been able to verify this scenario. The
possibility of loss of gas through the pressure relief valves is
considered to be small since one of the first actions taken when
entering a raft is to plug the pressure relief valves. In order to make
sure that no adverse effects result from any buckling which does occur,
proposed Sec. 160.151-29(a)(7) includes a requirement that when the
liferaft has been dropped back to the surface of the water after the
lift-out force test, it must assume its design shape, and must show no
evidence of damage or leakage.
A comment on the 1985 NPRM suggested that only the hemispherical
system would prevent capsizing, and that other liferafts, even with
heavy ballast, would be capsized by wind as their flatter bottom
surfaces were exposed to the wind. It is unlikely that wind or waves
would cause any liferaft with a heavy ballast system to rise out of the
water and expose a bottom surface to the wind. This behavior appears to
have been confirmed during the Coast Guard's recent model tests which
showed that all of the heavy ballasted raft models rode similarly
through the crests of the waves, rather than having an edge lifted
above the water at the top of a crest. In addition, the Coast Guard has
used toroidal system liferafts in several rescue situations, and no
adverse performance of this type has been reported.
Maneuverability Test
The 1985 NPRM contained a paddled maneuvering test requiring the
liferaft to be paddled 25 m in 2.5 minutes using the paddles provided
in the emergency equipment pack. These proposed rules would require the
liferaft to pass the maneuverability test in IMO Resolution A.689(17),
paragraph 1/5.10, which also requires the liferaft to be paddled a
distance of 25 m. However, in order to be consistent with the
international requirement, the test proposed in this notice has no time
limit for the 25 m test, and is intended only to demonstrate the
maneuverability of the raft.
Helicopter Rescue Compatibility Test
The 1985 NPRM proposed a helicopter rescue compatibility test to
determine whether a liferaft would be likely to be capsized by the
surface winds generated by a helicopter in a rescue scenario. The Coast
Guard HH-3 helicopter was proposed as the standard, but it would have
been the responsibility of the manufacturer or test laboratory to find
and pay for the helicopter. Although one comment acknowledged the
importance of stability in wind conditions, four opposed the test for
various reasons, including high cost, and lack of data indicating that
winds generated by helicopters represent a credible capsizing risk for
liferafts.
Tests conducted at the Coast Guard's Elizabeth City Air Station in
1977, in addition to similar independent tests reported by the
governments of the United Kingdom and Japan, indicate that virtually
any of the larger ballast system designs will prevent capsizing of
liferafts in winds generated by helicopters. For this reason, the Coast
Guard has decided that the helicopter rescue compatibility test
represents an unnecessary expense for any liferaft with a ballast
system which meets the volume criterion and lift-out force test
proposed in this notice. Consequently, since all rafts approved under
these proposed rules would meet the proposed volume criterion and would
have successfully completed the lift-out force test, no such test is
proposed in this NPRM.
At-Sea Test
Proposed Sec. 160.151-29(b) contains a six-hour at-sea test,
similar to the one proposed in the 1985 NPRM, but with several
revisions and clarifications. The test would have to be completed by
one of the manufacturer's largest capacity inflatable liferafts for
which approval is sought, for each different stability appendage design
for which the manufacturer seeks approval. Until the test is completed,
SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts incorporating the stability appendage
design would be approved only up to and including 10-person capacity,
if all of the other required tests have been successfully completed.
The purposes of the at-sea test are to determine if the stability
appendage design is adequate to prevent capsizing in the weather and
sea conditions prescribed, and if the raft structure will withstand the
forces of these conditions without damage. Since larger rafts have
larger stability systems, these rafts would be expected to be subjected
to greater stresses at sea.
Some comments were concerned with the requirement for and
measurement of a ``sea state 6'' on the Douglas Scale of State of Sea,
as proposed in the preceding NPRM. An alternative proposed in one
comment was ``Beaufort 9.'' Two other comments stated that measuring
the sea state was too subjective, and that careful data collection was
required. Determination of sea state is based on a visual observation
of the sea. Sea state 6 is described as a ``high sea'', with wave
heights of 12 to 20 feet. The Beaufort Scale is a wind scale. Beaufort
9 corresponds to a wind speed of 41 to 47 knots. In a ``fully arisen''
sea, Beaufort 9 roughly corresponds to sea state 6.
The criticisms of the sea state 6 criterion are valid, in that it
relies on the subjective judgment of the observer. Wave heights of 12
to 20 feet can represent significantly different conditions. Therefore,
in this NPRM, the Coast Guard is prescribing the minimum wave heights
and wind speed directly, rather than rely on a sea state or wind scale.
The proposed procedure in this NPRM would require minimum wave heights
of at least 4.5 m (15 ft.) throughout the six-hour test period, and
winds averaging at least 40 knots. Observations would be required to be
made at least every 30 minutes during the test in order for the test
conditions to be deemed suitable. If the required wind or wave height
conditions cannot be observed or do not meet the minimum requirements
during any 30-minute period, the test period may be extended until the
accumulated time under the required conditions reaches six hours.
During the six hours afloat, the liferaft could not capsize and could
not sustain structural damage or show evidence of leakage. It would be
required to retain or return to its design shape after any bending in
waves and at the completion of the test.
Other Stability System Issues
One of the functions of the ballast system should be to prevent the
liferaft from being blown away when it is first launched and inflates.
The lift-out force test procedure proposed in this notice is intended
to make sure stability appendages will deploy properly. The test does
not permit the stability appendages to be pulled into place manually,
but it does allow the raft to be agitated if necessary to cause the
stability appendages to fill. This should adequately simulate wave
action. If the stability appendages will not deploy on their own, the
manufacturer would have to incorporate weights, or materials that have
the effect of springs to make them deploy.
The Coast Guard has not proposed a specific time for the appendages
to deploy because of the somewhat arbitrary nature of a filling time
requirement, as well as the difficulty in determining when the
appendage is full. The UK/Icelandic system, for example, requires that
the pockets fill to approximately 60% of the capacity within 15-25
seconds of deployment. While understandable as a design objective, it
is very difficult to actually determine in a test, and the UK/Icelandic
system does not specify a test procedure.
The SOLAS 74/83 test requirements in resolution A.689(17) include a
towing test at 3 knots. The test, which is virtually identical to the
one proposed in the 1985 NPRM for heavily ballasted rafts, is included
in this NPRM.
The Coast Guard has not proposed any self-righting requirement in
this NPRM. The liferaft is required by SOLAS 74/83 to be capable of
being righted by one person if it inflates in the inverted position.
This becomes increasingly difficult for one person to accomplish as
liferafts get larger. Larger liferafts may have to incorporate a canopy
design which is self-righting or partially self-righting in order to
meet the requirement. The Coast Guard is not requiring self-righting
canopies because of the additional weight and increased sail area of a
larger canopy. A requirement for self-righting after capsizing is not
proposed in this NPRM since a liferaft which meets the proposed
stability system requirements would be unlikely to capsize. The lift-
out force test demonstrates that extremely high forces are required to
lift the liferaft out of the water, which is a necessary requirement
for capsizing. The buoyancy of a fully-inflated liferaft should ensure
that it is not dragged under water and tumbled inside an ocean wave. An
exception to this might occur in a large curl wave, such as may occur
under some conditions at a beach. However, such waves generally do not
occur in the open ocean. Further comments on self-righting are invited.
The 1985 NPRM contained a discussion on the merits of requiring
canopy entrances to be either open or closed. Open entrances allow
rapid boarding by survivors, but closed entrances can help limit the
entrance of water into the canopy if the raft inflates in an inverted
position. This may make righting easier, and rapid boarding may still
be possible if the canopy is arranged so that it can be rapidly opened
by someone trying to get aboard. One comment supported open entrances
and another supported closed entrances. Neither SOLAS 74/83 nor this
NPRM contain a requirement for rafts to be packed with entrances either
open or closed. Therefore, this is left up to the manufacturer of the
liferaft. However, the righting approval test specified in section 1/
5.17.2 of resolution A.689(17) (proposed Sec. 160.151-27(a)) would
require entrances to be open to make sure that the test is conducted
under the most stringent conditions. The requirement to perform the
righting test with the canopy full of water is included in resolution
A.689(17), which is proposed to be incorporated by reference in this
NPRM (Sec. 160.151-27(a)).
Coastal Service Inflatable Liferaft and Inflatable Buoyant
Apparatus
This NPRM proposes requirements for two new inflatable liferafts
which are intended for less severe conditions than the SOLAS 74/83
liferafts. The first is the ``Coastal Service'' inflatable liferaft. It
is intended primarily for use on fishing vessels operating in warm
waters or relatively near shore. The specific conditions for which the
Coastal Service liferaft is suitable are defined in the Commercial
Fishing Industry Vessel regulations at 46 CFR 28.120. The second new
category of raft is the ``Inflatable Buoyant Apparatus.'' Unlike the
other approved liferafts, it has no canopy, so it is suitable for use
only in waters close to shore, or where large numbers of persons would
have to board quickly. Specific conditions for use of the Inflatable
Buoyant Apparatus are defined in the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel
regulations at 46 CFR 28.120, and their use on certain passenger
vessels was proposed in NPRM's published on January 30, 1989 (54 FR
4412) and April 21, 1989 (54 FR 16198), and an SNPRM published on
January 13, 1994 (59 FR 1994).
Coastal Service Inflatable Liferaft
The Coastal Service inflatable liferaft is intended to be simpler,
lighter, and less expensive than the SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts. The
purpose is to provide for an approved basic survival platform,
primarily for commercial fishing vessels which do not venture far
offshore or operate in cold waters. These liferafts would be
constructed by the same methods and with the same materials as other
approved inflatable liferafts, so that a good quality product is
expected. However, it does not contain equipment for long term
survival, distress signals, and design features for heavy seas or cold
weather. Therefore, its use should be limited to those vessels which
will not operate in severe weather, or far from shore.
The requirements for the Coastal Service inflatable liferaft are
derived from those for SOLAS 74/83 liferafts, and are described in
proposed subpart 160.151 of this NPRM as exceptions to the basic SOLAS
74/83 inflatable liferaft requirements. The proposed requirements are
intended to be consistent with the ``coastal'' liferaft designs already
offered by several manufacturers as unapproved liferafts for optional
use on fishing vessels and by offshore sailors.
The special design features of the Coastal Service inflatable
liferaft are described in proposed Sec. 160.151-19 of this NPRM, and
include:
1. A canopy which may be of a type which is furled when the
inflatable liferaft inflates, and which may be of an uninsulated,
single ply design.
2. No requirement for a rain water collection device.
3. A minimum carrying capacity of four persons.
4. A floor which may be of an uninsulated design.
5. No requirement for boarding ramps if the combined cross-section
diameter of the buoyancy chambers is 500 mm (19.5 in) or less.
6. Smaller stability pockets than the SOLAS 74/83 liferafts (and no
requirement for stability-related tests).
7. No lamp required inside of the liferaft.
The limited Coastal Service equipment pack is described in proposed
Sec. 160.151-23 of this NPRM, and includes:
1. A quoit and heaving line.
2. A knife of a type designed to minimize the chance of damage to
the inflatable liferaft, secured with a lanyard.
3. A bailer.
4. A sponge.
5. A sea anchor.
6. Two paddles, which would not have to be as large as those
provided in a SOLAS liferaft.
7. A whistle.
8. A flashlight with spare batteries.
9. A signalling mirror.
10. Survival and immediate action instructions.
11. A set of sealing clamps or plugs.
12. A pump or bellows.
The approval testing for the Coastal Service liferaft would be
similar to that required for SOLAS 74/83 liferafts, except that
proposed Sec. 160.151-27(c)(1) would permit a drop test from a lesser
height, if that height is the maximum stowage height marked on the
liferaft container. Under proposed Sec. 160.151-27(c)(4), the loaded
freeboard would be required to be only 200 mm (8 in.). Under proposed
Sec. 160.151-27(c)(5), a canopy closure test would not be required for
Coastal Service Liferafts.
This NPRM proposes that a Coastal Service liferaft be subjected to
the same cold inflation test at -30 deg.C as required for SOLAS
liferafts in resolution A.689(17), section 1/5.17.5. Some other
countries approve liferafts for equivalent service on the basis of a
similar test at only -18 deg.C (0 deg.F), and some manufacturers have
suggested that the Coast Guard should do the same. Comments are
specifically requested on whether the Coast Guard should adopt the less
stringent test for Coastal Service liferafts.
Inflatable Buoyant Apparatus
The Inflatable Buoyant Apparatus (IBA) is essentially a coastal
service liferaft without a canopy. It also is not required to be fitted
with stability pockets, and may be reversible. Like the Coastal Service
liferaft, it does not contain equipment for long term survival,
distress signals, or design features for heavy seas or cold weather.
Also, as was done with the Coastal Service liferaft, the IBA is
described in terms of modified SOLAS liferaft requirements. In this
case, these requirements would be in a new Sec. 160.010-3 in the
subpart which also contains the approval requirements for rigid buoyant
apparatuses. This was done because inflatable buoyant apparatuses are
now being approved as substitutes for rigid buoyant apparatuses and
life floats. They represent an improvement over rigid buoyant
apparatuses and life floats because they keep survivors out of the
water.
The special design features of the inflatable buoyant apparatuses
would include:
1. No canopy.
2. Reversibility, except that buoyant apparatuses with a capacity
for 12 or fewer persons could be one-sided if they can be readily
righted.
3. A yellow color would be accepted in addition to orange, either
as the basic color of the device, or on colored panels visible from
above. Yellow is considered somewhat less desirable than orange for
visual sighting of lifesaving equipment, but it is better than most
other colors and would be satisfactory for these devices.
4. No requirement for boarding ramps if the combined cross-section
diameter of the buoyancy chambers is 500 mm (19.5 in) or less.
5. Position indicating lights would be required on the uppermost
surface of the inflatable buoyant apparatus, or each uppermost surface
for a reversible apparatus.
6. Stability pockets would not be required, but could be provided
at the manufacturer's option. They might also be needed to pass the
boarding or stability tests in IMO Resolution A.689(17).
7. Since the open reversible design of inflatable buoyant apparatus
can cause the larger sizes to take on a large amount of water when they
first inflate, self-bailing floor drains would be required on
inflatable buoyant apparatus of 25 persons capacity or larger.
8. Equipment would be limited to heaving lines and rescue quoits,
safety knives, bailers (unless self-bailing drains are provided),
sponges, paddles, a flashlight with spare batteries, sealing clamps or
plugs, and a pump or bellows.
The swamp test would differ from that used for inflatable liferafts
by requiring the inflatable buoyant apparatus to be loaded with persons
equal to 150% of its rated capacity. The Coast Guard anticipates that
these devices may be accepted for ``overloads'' of up to 50% over the
rated capacity when they are used on certain protected waters. This
might require some people to sit on the laps of others, but in a short-
term survival situation, this could be acceptable and perhaps even have
some hypothermia benefits. Tests conducted in Canada have shown that
inflatable buoyant apparatus can be safely overloaded to this extent
under moderate wave conditions. Comments are welcome concerning the
feasibility and desirability of testing and using inflatable buoyant
apparatus in an overloaded condition.
Other Revisions
Title 46 CFR, part 159, subpart 159.005 contains the general
approval procedures for Coast Guard-approved equipment. Section
159.005-7(a)(1) indicates that approval tests and inspections may be
performed for equipment and materials which are equivalent to those
specified in the various subparts of 46 CFR subchapter Q. No further
discussion of equivalents appears in part 159, subpart 159.005. This
notice proposes revisions to Sec. 159.005-7 and Sec. 159.005-13 to
include specific provisions for approval of equivalent equipment and
materials.
Incorporation by Reference
The following material would be incorporated by reference in
Sec. 160.151-1:
American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM F1014, Standard Specification for Flashlights on Vessels, 1986
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Resolution A.689(17), ``Testing of Life-saving Appliances''
Resolution A.657(16), ``Instructions for Action in Survival Craft''
Resolution A.658(16), ``Use and Fitting of Retro-Reflective
Materials on Life-saving Appliances''
National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly National
Bureau of Standards)
NBS Special Publication 440 (Order No. PB265225),
``Color: Universal Language and Dictionary of Names''
Naval Forms and Publications Center
MIL-C-17415E (Ships)--Cloth, Coated, and Webbing, InflatableBoat
and Miscellaneous Use
Copies of the material are available for inspection where indicated
under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are also available at the
addresses in Sec. 160.151-1.
Before publishing a final rule, the Coast Guard will submit this
material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the
incorporation by reference.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the DOT regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). A draft Regulatory
Evaluation is available in the docket for inspection or copying where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
The draft evaluation estimates a total one-time cost of $710,000 to
liferaft manufacturers to comply with the proposed rules. This includes
about $560,000 for all of the manufacturers to complete separate at-sea
tests for stability. Manufacturers may find several ways to
significantly reduce this cost. Assuming that the one-time costs would
be passed through to liferaft purchasers and amortized over a five-year
period, the cost of an average liferaft, now about $4000, would be
increased by about $284 on the basis of one-time costs alone.
A net recurring annual cost of about $156,000 would result from the
changes proposed in this notice. An annual reduction of almost $500,000
in servicing costs is possible as a result of the revisions to the
servicing procedures proposed in this notice. Some of the savings are
offset, however, by an increase of $218,000 in the annual cost of new
SOLAS 74/83 equipment which will have to be replaced during annual
servicings. New liferafts will be affected by an annual increase of
$214,000 needed to comply with the new SOLAS 74/83 requirements,
$200,000 for stability appendages, and $22,000 in fees for independent
laboratory inspection services. All of these increases, totalling
$436,000 or about $872 per new SOLAS 74/83 liferaft, would be borne by
manufacturers and presumably passed through to purchasers. Taking both
one-time and recurring costs into account, the acquisition cost of a
new SOLAS 74/83 liferaft would be increased by about $1156. The average
cost of annual servicing would be reduced by about $62 per year per
liferaft.
The draft evaluation uses a discounting method to determine future
costs. On the basis of this analysis, the evaluation estimates that the
regulations would cost approximately $1,460,114 over a ten-year period.
Economic research indicates that $2.5 million per statistical life
saved is a reasonable estimate of people's willingness to pay for
safety. Therefore, it is estimated that the rule would be cost
effective even if only one life was saved as a result. Casualty
investigations such as for the MARINE ELECTRIC in 1983, where several
lives were lost due to difficulty in boarding the liferaft, strongly
suggest that liferaft improvements such as the boarding ramps mandated
by SOLAS 74/83 will result in the saving of lives in marine casualties.
The draft evaluation also discusses other benefits in addition to
the saving of lives. First, Coast Guard-approved liferafts would meet
the requirements of SOLAS 74/83. This would ensure that U.S. registered
vessels are not being penalized or delayed in foreign ports because of
non-compliance. Additionally, as a signatory to the SOLAS Convention,
the United States is obligated to make sure its vessels comply.
These regulations would also improve the lifesaving potential and
operational efficiency of inflatable liferafts by making them easier to
board from the water, by improving their stability in heavy seas, and
by various other improvements required by the 1983 SOLAS amendments.
Comments are invited on the draft evaluation. In particular,
comments are invited on the assumptions made in the evaluation. Changes
could significantly affect the cost-benefit analysis. The proposals in
this notice are intended to meet the objectives of improving inflatable
liferafts in the most cost-effective way. Comments are specifically
invited on ways to further reduce the cost of these regulations.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
All of the U.S. manufacturers of inflatable liferafts and all U.S.
inflatable liferaft servicing facilities qualify as small entities.
Foreign manufacturers and servicing facilities are not considered small
entities for the purposes of this analysis. These regulations would
affect all manufacturers and servicing facilities to approximately the
same degree. U.S. firms (the small entities) may have a small cost
advantage over their foreign counterparts in that the Coast Guard does
not require reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses to
conduct inspections at their facilities. It is anticipated that any
additional costs incurred as a result of these proposed rules would be
passed through to the consumer, resulting in a negligible economic
impact to manufacturers and servicing facilities.
It is assumed that most consumers of liferafts will be small
entities as well. As discussed above, the acquisition cost of a new
SOLAS inflatable liferaft would be anticipated to increase by
approximately 25 per cent under the rules proposed in this NPRM. This
increase in the initial acquisition or replacement cost is not
anticipated to create a substantial hardship for most consumers. In
fact, liferaft manufacturers have been producing and selling liferafts
in compliance with SOLAS 74/83 since approximately 1987, and the Coast
Guard is unaware of any significant adverse effects of any price
increases associated with SOLAS compliance. In addition, as noted
above, liferaft servicing costs would be expected to be reduced by a
similar dollar amount over the life of the raft, resulting in a
negligible difference in lifetime cost. Therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if adopted, will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If, however, you think that your business qualifies as a
small entity and that this proposal will have a significant economic
impact on your business, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES)
explaining why you think your business qualifies and in what way and to
what degree this proposal will economically affect your business.
Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule which
contains a collection of information requirement to determine whether
the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by
its collection. Collection-of-information requirements include
reporting, recordkeeping, notification, and other similar requirements.
This proposed rulemaking contains collection-of-information
requirements. Some are minor revisions, with no impact on burden hours,
of existing requirements which have already been reviewed and approved
by OMB. The section numbers of those provisions are as follows:
a. Sec. 160.151-13(b)
b. Sec. 160.151-13(f)
c. Sec. 160.151-13(g)
d. Sec. 160.151-31(b)
e. Sec. 160.151-57(q)
Other information collection requirements are either new or have
not yet been approved by OMB. The section numbers of those sections are
as follows:
a. Sec. 160.151-21(n)
b. Sec. 160.151-21(u)
c. Sec. 160.151-21(y)(4)
d. Sec. 160.151-33
e. Sec. 160.151-39(c)
f. Sec. 160.151-41(b)
g. Sec. 160.151-45
h. Sec. 160.151-53
i. Sec. 160.151-57(m)
j. Sec. 160.151-57(p)
k. Sec. 160.151-57(r)
k. Sec. 160.151-59
These requirements are being submitted to OMB for approval in
accordance with 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. The following particulars apply:
DOT No.: 2115.
OMB Control No.: 0141.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Inflatable Liferafts.
Need for Information: These information collection requirements
consist of product markings to provide users of approved equipment with
essential use and maintenance information, and occasional reports which
are specifically required by international convention. Provision of the
information would be a condition of obtaining Coast Guard approval of a
liferaft or a liferaft servicing facility.
Proposed Use: The proposed markings would provide users of
inflatable liferafts and Coast Guard enforcement personnel with
important use instructions and information concerning the operational
condition of an approved liferaft. The proposed reporting requirements
would enable the Coast Guard to identify significant deficiencies in
approved liferafts, and in liferaft servicing performed at approved
facilities.
Frequency: On specified occasions, such as manufacture (one time),
servicing, and approval of liferafts. (See discussion below.)
Burden Estimate: 500 hours annually.
Respondents: Approximately 200 potential respondents, consisting of
liferaft manufacturers, liferaft servicing facilities, and
manufacturers of required liferaft equipment which would be required to
be marked with instructions and expiration dates.
Form(s): None.
Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: Estimated preparation time for
each report of deficiencies in approved liferafts and liferaft
servicing facilities is 30 minutes. The burden associated with each
marking requirement under proposed Secs. 160.151-21(u) and 160.151-33
is estimated at 5 minutes per liferaft manufactured or serviced. The
burden associated with the expiration date marking requirements for
liferaft equipment in proposed Secs. 160.151-21(u) and -21(y)(4) is
estimated at 5 minutes per occurrence, which would normally be once
every several years for each liferaft.
The marking requirements proposed here generally represent minor
changes or additions to markings already required by existing
regulations, and have been in general use for several years in
liferafts approved to the SOLAS 74/83 requirements.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The
authority to establish standards for the approval of lifesaving
equipment to be carried on board vessels has been committed to the
Coast Guard by Federal statutes. Further, liferafts are distributed in
a national marketplace and divergent requirements regarding their
manufacture would lead to confusion, added expense, and reduced safety.
Therefore, the Coast Guard intends to preempt state and local
regulations on the same subject matter that are inconsistent with this
rule.
Environment
The requirements proposed in this rulemaking would affect the
design and servicing of inflatable liferafts. These rules would have a
positive impact on safety, and would clearly have no environmental
impacts. Consequently, the Coast Guard has concluded that under section
2.B.2 of Commandant Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A
Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the docket for
inspection and copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 159
Business and industry, Laboratories, Marine safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
46 CFR Part 160
Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Incorporation by reference.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 159 and 160 as follows:
PART 159--APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
1. The authority citation for Part 159 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; 49 CFR 1.46; Section
159.001-9 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
2. In Sec. 159.005-5, add paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 159.005-5 Preapproval review: Contents of application.
(a) * * *
(4) If the material submitted under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section contains confidential commercial information that could cause
substantial competitive harm if released to the public, a statement to
the effect that the material is considered privileged and confidential
under exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
552), and that it should not be released to anyone other than the
original submitter.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 159.005-7, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 159.005-7 Preapproval review: Coast Guard action.
* * * * *
(c) An item of equipment or material that does not meet all of the
design or performance requirements of this subchapter may be approved
by the Commandant if it has equivalent performance characteristics. The
item has equivalent performance characteristics if the application and
any approval tests prescribed by the Commandant in place of or in
addition to the approval tests required by this subchapter, demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Commandant that the equipment or material is
at least as effective as that specified by the requirements of this
subchapter.
4. In Sec. 159.005-13, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 159.005-13 Equipment or material: Approval.
(a) If from analysis of the material and data required to be
submitted under this subpart, the Commandant determines that the
equipment or material meets the applicable subpart or has equivalent
performance characteristics in accordance with 159.005-7(c), the
Commandant--* * *
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 159.007-9, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 159.007-9 Production inspections and tests.
* * * * *
(d) The manufacturer shall admit a Coast Guard inspector to any
place where approved equipment is manufactured, for the purpose of
verifying that the equipment is being manufactured in accordance with
the approved plans and the requirements of this subchapter.
PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT
6. The authority citation for part 160 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, and 4302; E.O. 12234, 45
FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
7. In Sec. 160.010-2, remove the paragraph designations (a) through
(d) and add the following definition in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 160.010-2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Inflatable buoyant apparatus. An inflatable buoyant apparatus is
flotation equipment which depends on inflated compartments for
buoyancy, and is designed to support a specified number of persons
completely out of the water. An inflatable buoyant apparatus is similar
to a coastal service inflatable liferaft, except that it may be
reversible and is not required to have a canopy.
* * * * *
8. Sections 160.010-3 and 160.010-4 are redesignated, as
Secs. 160.010-4 and 160.010-5 respectively, and new Sec. 160.010-3 is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 160.010-3 Inflatable buoyant apparatus.
(a) Design, performance, and approval testing. An inflatable
buoyant apparatus must meet the design and performance requirements of
Sec. 160.151-19 for Coastal Service inflatable liferafts and be tested
for approval in accordance with the testing requirements for those
rafts in Sec. 160.151-27, with the following exceptions:
(1) A canopy is not required.
(2) An inflatable buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 13 or more
persons must be reversible, with the floor arranged between the
buoyancy chambers so that the inflatable buoyant apparatus can,
floating either side up, accommodate the number of persons for which it
is approved. An inflatable buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 12 or
fewer persons must either be reversible in the same manner, or designed
so that it can be readily righted by one person.
(3) An inflatable buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more
persons must be provided with self-bailing floor drains. If the floor
of a reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus includes one or more
drains, each drain must be arranged to completely drain the floor of
water when the device is fully loaded, and must prevent water from
flowing back onto the floor.
(4) Arrangements for righting a reversible inflatable buoyant
apparatus are not required.
(5) If the buoyancy tubes are not vivid reddish orange, yellow, or
a fluorescent color of a similar hue, panels of such color must be
secured to the buoyancy chambers so that a minimum of 1 m\2\ (11 ft\2\)
is visible from above the inflatable buoyant apparatus when it is
floating either side up.
(6) Boarding ramps meeting the requirements of Sec. 160.151-17(b)
are required if the combined cross-section diameter of the buoyancy
chambers is more than 500 mm (19.5 in). On an inflatable buoyant
apparatus required to have boarding ramps--
(i) With a capacity of less than 25 persons, at least one boarding
ramp must be provided;
(ii) With a capacity of 25 or more persons, at least two boarding
ramps must be provided; and
(iii) The boarding ramps required by this paragraph must allow
persons to board with either side of a reversible inflatable buoyant
apparatus floating up, or the required number of ramps must be
installed on each side.
(7) Boarding ladders must be provided on each inflatable buoyant
apparatus as follows:
(i) One boarding ladder must be provided on each inflatable buoyant
apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, except that for an
inflatable buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 13 or more persons
which is not equipped with a boarding ramp, two boarding ladders must
be provided.
(ii) Two boarding ladders must be provided on each inflatable
buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons.
(iii) The ladders required by this paragraph must allow persons to
board with either side of a reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus
floating up, or the required number of ladders must be installed on
each side.
(8) One or more exterior liferaft canopy lamps meeting the
requirements of Sec. 160.151-15(m) must be provided such that--
(i) On a non-reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus, one lamp is
mounted so that it is on the uppermost surface; and
(ii) On a reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus, two lamps are
mounted on opposite sides of the main buoyancy compartments. The lamps
must be arranged so that a lamp is on the uppermost surface of the
inflatable buoyant apparatus, whichever side is floating up.
(9) Stability pockets are not required.
(10) All equipment required by this paragraph must be either packed
in a container accessible to the occupants, or otherwise secured to the
apparatus. Duplicate equipment must be provided for each side of a
reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus if it is not accessible from
both sides. Each inflatable buoyant apparatus must be provided with--
(i) One buoyant heaving line and rescue quoit on each inflatable
buoyant apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons; or two on
each inflatable buoyant apparatus for a capacity of 25 or more persons.
The heaving line(s) must be mounted adjacent to a boarding ramp (or
boarding ladder if no ramps are installed), and ready for immediate
use;
(ii) Two buoyant safety knives ready for use near the painter
attachment;
(iii) One bailer on each inflatable buoyant apparatus with a
capacity of less than 25 persons; or two bailers on each inflatable
buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons, except that
bailers are not required if both sides of the floor of a reversible
inflatable buoyant apparatus are equipped with drains;
(iv) One sponge on each inflatable buoyant apparatus with a
capacity of less than 25 persons, or two sponges on each inflatable
buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons;
(v) Two paddles on each inflatable buoyant apparatus with a
capacity of less than 25 persons, or four paddles on each inflatable
buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons capacity;
(vi) One flashlight with spare batteries;
(vii) One signalling mirror;
(viii) One set of sealing clamps or plugs as described in
Sec. 160.151-21(y)(1) of this part; and
(ix) One pump or bellows.
(11) The swamp test required under section 1/5.11 of IMO resolution
A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-27(a) must be conducted with the inflatable
buoyant apparatus loaded with persons equal to 150% of its rated
capacity.
(b) Production inspections and tests. Production inspections and
tests for inflatable buoyant apparatus must be performed in accordance
with the applicable portions of Sec. 160.151-31.
(c) Marking and labeling. Marking and labeling of inflatable
buoyant apparatus must be in accordance with Sec. 160.151-33, except
that the device must be identified as an ``INFLATABLE BUOYANT
APPARATUS'', and no ``SOLAS'' markings shall be placed on the
inflatable buoyant apparatus' container.
(d) Servicing. Inflatable buoyant apparatus must be serviced
periodically at approved servicing facilities in accordance with the
applicable requirements of Sec. 160.151-35 through Sec. 160.151-57.
(e) Instruction placard. An instruction placard meeting the
requirements of Sec. 160.151-59(c), giving simple procedures and
illustrations for inflating, launching, and boarding the inflatable
buoyant apparatus, must be made available to the operator or master of
each vessel on which the inflatable buoyant apparatus is to be carried.
Subpart 160.051 (Secs. 160.051-0--160.051-9)--[Removed]
9. Subpart 160.051 consisting of Secs. 160.051-D through 160.051-9,
is removed.
10. Subpart 160.151, consisting of Secs. 160.151-1 through 160.151-
59, is added to read as follows:
Subpart 160.151--Inflatable Liferafts
Sec.
160.151-1 Incorporation by reference.
160.151-3 Definitions.
160.151-5 Scope.
160.151-7 Construction of inflatable liferafts.
160.151-9 Independent laboratory.
160.151-11 Approval procedure.
160.151-13 Fabrication of prototype liferafts for approval.
160.151-15 Design and performance of inflatable liferafts.
160.151-17 Design and performance of SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable
liferafts.
160.151-19 Design and performance of coastal service inflatable
liferafts.
160.151-21 Equipment required for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable
liferafts.
160.151-23 Equipment required for coastal service inflatable
liferafts.
160.151-25 Additional equipment for inflatable liferafts.
160.151-27 Approval inspections and tests for all inflatable
liferafts.
160.151-29 Additional approval tests for SOLAS A and SOLAS B
inflatable liferafts.
160.151-31 Production inspections and tests for inflatable
liferafts.
160.151-33 Marking and labeling.
160.151-35 Servicing.
160.151-37 Servicing manual.
160.151-39 Training of servicing technicians.
160.151-41 Approval of servicing facilities.
160.151-43 Servicing facility conditions.
160.151-45 Required equipment for servicing facilities.
160.151-47 Servicing facility owner or operator requirements.
160.151-49 Approval of servicing facilities at remote locations.
160.151-51 Approval notification.
160.151-53 OCMI notification of servicing.
160.151-55 Withdrawal of approval.
160.151-57 Servicing procedure.
160.151-59 Training and maintenance instructions.
Subpart 160.151--Inflatable Liferafts
Sec. 160.151-1 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other
than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and make the
material available to the public. All approved material is on file at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite
700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, Merchant Vessel
Inspection and Documentation Division (G-MVI), 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, and is available from the sources indicated
in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this
subpart and the sections affected are as follows:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103
ASTM F1014, Standard Specification for Flashlights on Vessels,
1986--160.151-21
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England
Resolution A.689(17), ``Recommendation on Testing of Life-saving
Appliances'', 27 November 1991. 160.151-21; 160.151-27; 160.151-31;
160.151-57.
Resolution A.657(16), ``Instructions for Action in Survival
Craft'', October 1989--160.151-21
Resolution A.658(16), ``Use and Fitting of Retroreflective
Materials on Life-saving Appliances'', October 1989--160.151-15;
160.151-57.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly National
Bureau of Standards)
c/o National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
NBS Special Publication 440 (Order No. PB265225), Color: Universal
Language and Dictionary of Names, 1976--160.151-15
Naval Forms and Publications Center
Customer Service, Code 1052, 5801 Tabor Ave., Philadelphia, PA
19120
MIL-C-17415E (Ships)--Cloth, Coated, and Webbing, Inflatable Boat
and Miscellaneous Use--160.151-15
Sec. 160.151-3 Definitions.
The following terms are defined as used in this subpart:
Coastal service liferaft means a liferaft which does not meet the
requirements prescribed in this subpart for inflatable liferafts
complying with SOLAS 74/83, but which is suitable for use on certain
uninspected vessels under subchapter C of this chapter.
Commandant means the Commandant (G-MVI), United States Coast Guard,
2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20593-0001.
Servicing means periodic inspection, necessary repair, and
repacking by a Coast Guard-approved servicing facility. Requirements
for periodic inspection and repair of Coast Guard-approved inflatable
liferafts are described in Secs. 160.151-37 through 160.151-57.
SOLAS 74/83 means the International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea, 1974, as amended by the International Maritime
Organization through Resolution MSC.6(48), dated 17 June 1983 (SOLAS
74/83).
SOLAS A Liferaft means a liferaft which meets the requirements of
this subpart for an inflatable liferaft complying with SOLAS 74/83, and
equipped with a SOLAS A equipment pack.
SOLAS B Liferaft means a liferaft which meets the requirements of
this subpart for an inflatable liferaft complying with SOLAS 74/83, and
equipped with a SOLAS B equipment pack.
Sec. 160.151-5 Scope.
This subpart prescribes standards, tests, and procedures for
approval by the Coast Guard of inflatable liferafts, including SOLAS A,
SOLAS B, and coastal service liferafts, and for their periodic
inspection and repair at approved facilities (``servicing''). Certain
requirements of this subpart also apply to inflatable buoyant apparatus
as specified in Sec. 160.010-3.
Sec. 160.151-7 Construction of inflatable liferafts.
Except as specified in this subpart, each inflatable liferaft must
meet the requirements of Chapter III of SOLAS 74/83. In order to be
approved under this subpart, inflatable liferafts must be constructed
in accordance with the following SOLAS 74/83 provisions:
(a) Chapter III, Regulation 30, paragraph 2 (III/30.2), General
requirements for life-saving appliances.
(b) Chapter III, regulation 38 (III/38) General requirements for
liferafts.
(c) Chapter III, regulation 39 (III/39) Inflatable liferafts.
(d) Chapter III, regulation 51 (III/51) Training manual.
(e) Chapter III, regulation 52 (III/52) Instructions for on-board
maintenance.
Sec. 160.151-9 Independent laboratory.
Tests and inspections required by this subpart to be conducted by
an independent laboratory must be conducted by an independent
laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of part
159 of this chapter to perform such tests and inspections. A list of
accepted laboratories may be obtained by writing the Commandant.
Sec. 160.151-11 Approval Procedure.
(a) A manufacturer seeking approval of an inflatable liferaft must
comply with the procedures of subpart 159.005 of part 159 of this
chapter and this section.
(b) A manufacturer seeking approval of an inflatable liferaft must
submit an application meeting the requirements of Sec. 159.005-5 of
this chapter for preapproval review. To meet the requirements of
Sec. 159.005-5(a)(2) of this chapter, manufacturers shall submit--
(1) General arrangement drawing including principal dimensions;
(2) Seating arrangement plan;
(3) Plans for subassemblies;
(4) Plans for equipment carried and stowage details;
(5) Plans for the inflation system;
(6) Plans for the outer container;
(7) Plans for any lifting shackle or ring, including diameter in
cross-section, used for connecting the suspension tackle of a davit-
launched inflatable liferaft to the automatic disengaging device used
for its hoisting and lowering;
(8) Other drawing(s) necessary to show that the inflatable liferaft
complies with the requirements of this subpart;
(9) Description of methods of seam and joint construction;
(10) Samples and identification of each material used in the
buoyancy chambers, floor, and canopy; including the identity of their
manufacturers, and segments of each type of seam made from such
materials; and
(11) Complete data pertinent to the installation and use of the
proposed inflatable liferaft, including the maximum proposed height of
its installation above the water, and the maximum length of the sea
painter installed in the inflatable liferaft.
Sec. 160.151-13 Fabrication of prototype liferafts for approval.
If the manufacturer is notified that the information submitted in
accordance with Sec. 160.151-11 is satisfactory to the Commandant,
fabrication of a prototype liferaft must proceed in the following
sequence:
(a) The manufacturer shall arrange for an independent laboratory to
inspect the prototype inflatable liferaft during its fabrication and
prepare an inspection report meeting the requirements of Sec. 159.005-
11 of this chapter. The independent laboratory shall conduct at least
one inspection during layup of the buoyancy tubes of the prototype
inflatable liferaft, at least one inspection of the finished prototype
inflatable liferaft when fully inflated, and as many other inspections
as are necessary to determine that the prototype inflatable liferaft--
(1) Is constructed by the methods and with the materials specified
in the plans;
(2) Passes the applicable inspections and tests required by
Sec. 160.151-31; and
(3) Conforms with the manufacturer's plans.
(b) The manufacturer shall submit the independent laboratory's
inspection report to the Commandant for review.
(c) If, after review of the inspection report of the independent
laboratory, the Commandant notifies the manufacturer that the prototype
inflatable liferaft is in compliance with the requirements of this
subpart, the manufacturer may proceed with the approval tests required
under Secs. 160.151-27 and 160.151-29.
(d) The manufacturer shall notify the cognizant OCMI of where the
approval tests required under Secs. 160.151-27 and 160.151-29 will
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.