Inflatable Liferafts

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 159, 160, and 199

[CGD 85-205]

RIN 2115-AC51

Inflatable Liferafts

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its regulations for the approval

and servicing of inflatable liferafts, and adding provisions for the

approval of inflatable buoyant apparatuses. This final rule implements

the 1983 Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of

Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS), adds provisions for approval of a new

``Coastal Service'' liferaft for use on certain uninspected fishing

vessels, introduces requirements for the stability of liferafts, and

reduces direct Coast Guard involvement in inspections of liferaft

production and servicing. This final rule will bring liferafts approved

by the Coast Guard into compliance with SOLAS, improve the

seaworthiness of approved liferafts, and increase manufacturers'

flexibility in scheduling liferaft inspections while reducing the

associated burden on the Coast Guard.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 9, 1997. The incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on June 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for

inspection or copying at the office of the Executive Secretary, Marine

Safety Council (G-LRA/3406), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second

Street SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 20593-0001, between 9:30 a.m. and

2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone

number is 202-267-1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kurt J. Heinz, Lifesaving and Fire

Safety Standards Division (G-MSE-4), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, telephone 202-267-

1444, fax 202-267-1069, E-mail ``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

On October 18, 1994, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed

rulemaking entitled Inflatable Liferafts in the Federal Register (59 FR

52590). The Coast Guard received 51 letters commenting on the proposed

rulemaking. These comprised 12 letters from commercial fishermen and a

commercial fishermen's association, 17 form letters also apparently

from commercial fishermen, 9 letters from liferaft servicing

facilities, 4 letters from marine inspection and District offices of

the Coast Guard, 2 letters from marine suppliers, a letter from the

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), letters from an

association representing U.S. liferaft manufacturers and servicing

facilities and an association representing European lifesaving

appliance manufacturers, a letter from a liferaft manufacturer, a

letter from a vessel classification society, and a letter from the

Icelandic maritime

[[Page 25526]]

administration. One letter, from the vessel classification society,

suggested a public meeting on whether third parties involved in

liferaft inspections should have the qualifications and quality control

required for membership in IACS (International Association of

Classification Societies). The Coast Guard does not believe that such a

public meeting would aid this rulemaking, and accordingly will not

conduct one.

Background and Purpose

On June 17, 1983, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)

Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) approved the 1983 Amendments to the

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS).

The amended SOLAS, commonly referred to as ``SOLAS 74/83,'' included a

new Chapter III, ``Life-saving Appliances and Arrangements.''

Since no contracting governments objected, SOLAS 74/83 was deemed

to be accepted on January 1, 1986, and subsequently came into force for

the United States and all other contracting governments on July 1,

1986. Ships whose keels were laid or which were at a similar stage of

construction on or after that date must comply with SOLAS 74/83 in

order to qualify for a SOLAS Safety or Safety Equipment Certificate.

Coast Guard-approved inflatable liferafts on these ships are also

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 (hereinafter referred to simply as

SOLAS for clarity) has been the subject of a series of Coast Guard

rulemaking documents and public meetings, culminating in an NPRM

published on October 18, 1994. This NPRM reflected most of the comments

submitted in response to the previous rulemaking documents and those

discussed at public meetings.

The Coast Guard announced the first series of meetings in the July

30, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 30339) (CGD 84-051). These meetings

were held in conjunction with the U.S. Lifesaving Manufacturers

Association (now the United States Marine Safety Association) to

discuss the impending implementation of SOLAS, including the

implications of the new Chapter III requirements for Coast Guard-

approved lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and their launching

equipment. Guidelines were also developed for lifesaving equipment

manufacturers regarding the additions and deviations from current Coast

Guard regulations necessary to meet the new Chapter III requirements.

On December 31, 1984, the Coast Guard published an Advance Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (49 FR 50745) describing major changes

under consideration for implementation of SOLAS. The ANPRM proposed a

revision of the regulations involving inflatable liferafts, but did not

describe the revisions in detail.

On September 27, 1984, the Coast Guard published an 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 NPRM

published on October 18, 1994, incorporated the written comments

submitted in response to CGD 83-030 and the comments made at the public

hearing, and consequently, included approval and production testing

procedures which replaced proposals made for inflatable liferafts under

CGD 83-030. Separate rulemaking documents, to be published at a later

date, will propose revisions to regulations involving inspection of

lifeboats, davits, and winches.

Possible changes in liferaft servicing procedures were initially

raised in an ANPRM published 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

requirements related to servicing. The proposals related to liferaft

servicing which were contained in the October 18, 1994, NPRM addressed

the issues discussed in the 1986 ANPRM. The comments at the public

meetings were also considered in the development of these proposals.

Proposals concerning improved liferaft stability first appeared in

an ANPRM in the Federal Register published on June 29, 1981 (46 FR

33341) (CGD 80-113). That ANPRM presented a summary of research

efforts, sea trials, and yachting casualties from the U.S. and Europe,

and invited comments from the public. A public hearing was held on

September 1, 1981. An NPRM published on January 11, 1985 (50 FR 1558)

summarized the comments received on this ANPRM, and also proposed

specific design and testing requirements to improve stability of

inflatable liferafts. The proposals contained in the January 11, 1985,

NPRM, as well as the comments to such proposals were refined and used

as a basis for those contained in the October 18, 1994, NPRM. The Coast

Guard notes that all subsequent references to an NPRM relate to the

October 18, 1994, NPRM.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

General Approval Procedures

Confidentiality of Information

Proposed Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4) required that a manufacturer

submitting commercial information that could cause substantial

commercial harm if released to the public, include a statement to that

effect with the information. One comment suggested that a system should

be developed within the Coast Guard to ensure that such information

remains confidential. It is unclear what sort of a system the comment

envisions; however, the Coast Guard does not and will not release

proprietary commercial information to any party other than the original

submitting party, except as may be required under the Freedom of

Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552]. Exemption b(4) of the Freedom of

Information Act, which is specifically referred to in Sec. 159.005-

5(a)(4), clearly exempts the release of material that could cause

substantial competitive harm to the party submitting it. Consequently,

in this final rule, new Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4) is retained as proposed in

the NPRM.

Approval of Equivalents

One comment questioned whether, in view of the lengthy and

comprehensive process by which regulations are drafted, the Coast Guard

needed provisions allowing for approval of equipment and material not

meeting the letter of the regulations but having ``equivalent

performance characteristics.'' It further recommended that, in

instances where the Coast Guard does approve materials or equipment on

the basis of equivalency to the regulatory requirements, the Coast

Guard notify members of the industry holding similar approvals to allow

them the opportunity to exercise the same equivalency determination in

their products if they desire.

The current situation in the liferaft industry is a good example of

the need

[[Page 25527]]

to approve equivalents. The existing specifications for structural

fabrics of liferafts are a combination of design and performance

requirements. A majority of liferaft manufacturers currently use

fabrics in their approved products that do not meet all of the design

requirements specified in the regulations but provide equivalent

performance. Those manufacturers have chosen to use these recently

developed fabrics to reduce weight and manufacturing cost and to

improve the performance of their products. The Coast Guard fully

expects that future research may lead to the development of new fabrics

and other materials and designs that, although they do not specifically

comply with the design requirements in the regulations, have at least

equivalent performance characteristics. By allowing the approval of

equivalents, the Coast Guard can accommodate technological improvements

without the need for cumbersome and lengthy regulatory changes.

However, at the same time, the Coast Guard is working with the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and other

consensus standards organizations to develop suitable performance

standards to replace existing design (and combined design-and-

performance) standards to the extent possible, with the expectation of

making approval of equivalents obsolete.

The Coast Guard already had the authority to approve equivalents to

inflatable liferafts and liferaft components in existing regulations

(46 CFR 160.051-2). The new Sec. 159.005-7 merely streamlines the

regulations by allowing a provision applicable to many items of

approved equipment to be stated in a single location.

Concerning the suggestion that equivalency determinations be

disseminated to the industry to allow a ``level playing field,'' the

Coast Guard agrees, and will develop a system internally to disseminate

them. In view of the importance of dissemination as a means to ensure

uniform application of the regulations by the Coast Guard,

manufacturers should be aware that designs and materials submitted as

``equivalents'' cannot be considered confidential in terms of new

Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4).

Inflatable Buoyant Apparatuses

Design and Performance Requirements

The NPRM specified design and performance requirements for

inflatable buoyant apparatuses in terms of the differences between it

and the Coastal Service inflatable liferaft, the requirements for which

were, in turn, defined in terms of the differences between it and the

SOLAS liferaft. This convention of defining inflatable buoyant

apparatuses in terms of exceptions to exceptions was confusing, and so

in this final rule, the design and performance requirements for

inflatable buoyant apparatuses in Sec. 160.010-3(a) are specified as

direct exceptions to the corresponding SOLAS liferaft requirements in

subpart 160.151. There are some editorial and paragraph numbering

changes as a result of this change, but the substance of the affected

paragraphs is unchanged.

Floor Drains

Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(3) required that every inflatable

buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons be equipped

with self-bailing floor drains. Citing the requirement for functionally

similar inflatable liferafts to be equipped with bailers but not with

floor drains, and the added cost of providing floor drains, one comment

suggested that the Coast Guard permit inflatable buoyant apparatuses to

be equipped with either bailers or floor drains.

The Coast Guard contends that it is not valid to compare a large

inflatable liferaft, which is almost completely sheltered by a canopy,

with an open inflatable buoyant apparatus, which has no protection

against waves. It is very easy for an inflatable buoyant apparatus to

be swamped by a single wave, after which a large apparatus (for

example, one of 25 persons or more capacity) can have a substantial

depth of water (well in excess of 1 meter) in its center. Bailers are

of little use in removing such a quantity of water, particularly as

more water is likely to be coming in during the process. However, floor

drains, which are generally in the form of simple fabric tubes secured

through the floor, are capable of quickly removing such a quantity of

water on a continuous basis. In calm seas, where such heavy water-

removing capability is not needed, the floor drains can be secured to

prevent small quantities of water from entering the buoyant apparatus

through them. Because floor drains are not capable of removing all

water from the buoyant apparatus, bailers are needed as well.

The proposed requirement for floor drains is less stringent than

the only corresponding international requirement, which is that for

``open reversible liferafts'' contained in the IMO International Code

Of Safety For High-Speed Craft (HSC Code). The HSC Code requires an

apparatus with a capacity of up to 30 persons to be equipped with one

floor drain, and an apparatus with a capacity of greater than 30

persons to be equipped with two floor drains. Since there is no

evidence that water depth in an inflatable buoyant apparatus when

swamped is a significant problem for an apparatus with a capacity of

less than 25 persons, Sec. 160.010-3(a)(7) in the final rule retains

the floor drain requirements as proposed in the October 18, 1994, NPRM.

Boarding Ladders

One comment suggested that boarding ladders on inflatable buoyant

apparatuses should meet construction standards similar to those

required for SOLAS inflatable liferafts. They already do, since

Sec. 160.010-3(a) in the NPRM (the substance of which remains unchanged

in the final rule) requires an inflatable buoyant apparatus to

generally meet the design and performance requirements for SOLAS

inflatable liferafts in subpart 160.151.

Position-Indicating Lamps

Several comments suggested that the wording of Sec. 160.010-

3(a)(8)(ii) was unclear as to whether one or two lamps are required on

each side of a reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus. The Coast Guard

agrees that the wording is ambiguous, and Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) in the

final rule clarifies that one lamp is required on each of the two

reversible sides of the apparatus.

Sea Anchors

Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(10), which prescribed required equipment

for an inflatable buoyant apparatus, did not include a sea anchor.

However, all manufacturers of currently approved inflatable buoyant

apparatuses include sea anchors with those apparatuses, although the

Coast Guard has not specifically required them. In addition, a sea

anchor is required for ``open reversible liferafts'' under the IMO HSC

Code. Therefore, in keeping with longstanding industry practice, and

the comments on the NPRM supporting consistency with international

requirements, Sec. 160.010-3(a)(12) in the final rule includes a

requirement that inflatable buoyant apparatuses be fitted with a sea

anchor.

``Overloading'' of Inflatable Buoyant Apparatuses

Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) required that the IMO Swamp Test be

conducted on an inflatable buoyant apparatus with the apparatus loaded

to 50% in excess of its rated capacity, rather than just to its rated

capacity (as specified in the test procedure). This requirement was

[[Page 25528]]

proposed in anticipation of rulemaking projects (since completed)

establishing, for some protected routes, carriage requirements based on

the possibility of such overloading contained in 46 CFR subchapters K,

T, and W.

Citing National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations

in the wake of the grounding of the PILGRIM BELLE in 1985 and the

sinking of the COUGAR in 1988, one comment opposed this concept on the

grounds that it would ``make the out-of-water flotation device an in-

water flotation device.'' The comment cautioned that overloading of

survival equipment should not be acceptable in any waters, no matter

how protected.

The Coast Guard disagrees with the premise of the comment

concerning the effect of 50 percent overloading on an inflatable

buoyant apparatus. The cases cited in the comment involved rigid

buoyant apparatuses, not the inflatable type. Like an inflatable

liferaft, an inflatable buoyant apparatus is designed with at least 100

percent excess buoyancy. Consequently, it remains an out-of-water

flotation device even in conditions of overload far more extreme than

anticipated in the proposed rule. Multiple swamp tests of inflatable

buoyant apparatuses which have been conducted under the conditions

specified in the proposed rule have verified that the devices remain

effective under such conditions.

However, subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, the IMO MSC

approved a change to Resolution A.689(17) which would effectively

render the proposed overload test meaningless. Specifically, in order

to address the potential personnel hazard and logistical problems

associated with swamp testing of a large survival craft loaded with

people, the Committee revised the Swamp Test procedure to require that

the device be completely swamped, but without people inside, during the

test. In view of the buoyancy of people wearing lifejackets, this test

is considered to be at least as strenuous a test of the device in the

swamped condition as the previous test. However, since the revised

procedure calls for the device to be completely swamped, it is not

possible to ``overload'' it as specified in the NPRM. Consequently, in

view of the extensive successful test experience already obtained for a

variety of inflatable buoyant apparatuses under overload conditions,

and in the interest of remaining consistent with internationally

accepted testing procedures, proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) has not

been included in this final rule. This will have the effect of

requiring an inflatable buoyant apparatus to be subjected to the same

Swamp Test as an inflatable liferaft.

``Open Reversible Liferafts'' Under the IMO HSC Code

On January 1, 1996, the IMO HSC Code entered into force. Annex 10

to the HSC Code contains requirements for an ``open reversible

liferaft'' which are similar, but not identical to the requirements for

inflatable buoyant apparatuses as specified in this final rule.

Although the timing of the publication of the HSC Code did not allow

for discussion of it in the NPRM, a new Sec. 160.010-3(e) has been

added to this final rule to provide guidance to those who wish to

obtain approval for inflatable buoyant apparatuses which also comply

with the requirements for open reversible liferafts under the HSC Code.

This new section merely provides an alternative path to approval which

manufacturers may utilize as they see fit.

Inflatable Liferafts

Incorporation by Reference

Proposed Sec. 160.151-1 incorporated a number of technical

documents by reference. One comment suggested that all material

incorporated by reference should be published as an appendix with the

final rules.

The Coast Guard contends that the purpose of incorporating lengthy

technical documents by reference is to reduce repetition and, in

keeping with ongoing government reinvention initiatives, to reduce the

bulk of the Code of Federal Regulations. It would completely defeat the

purpose of incorporating materials by reference to publish them as

annexes to the final rule. Consequently, proposed Sec. 160.151-1 is

retained unchanged as Sec. 160.151-5 (due to editorially interchanging

Sec. 160.151-1 and Sec. 160.151-5) in the final rule.

Definitions

Proposed Sec. 160.151-3 contained a definition of ``SOLAS'' which

incorporated all amendments through the 1983 amendments. In the final

rule, this definition has been revised to incorporate amendments

through the 1988 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)

amendments. This will simplify SOLAS references for the user, since the

most common published version of SOLAS is a 1992 Consolidated Edition

which includes the 1988 amendments. The only substantive effect is

that, as was discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, the GMDSS

amendments removed the requirement for liferafts to be fitted with

portable lifeboat radio siting and securing arrangements as of August

1, 1993. The paragraph numbering in SOLAS regulation III/38.3 was

slightly altered as a result.

Liferaft Capacity

One comment questioned why capacity requirements for liferafts were

not included in the standards for design, performance, and construction

contained in proposed Secs. 160.151-7 and 160.151-15. The comment also

questioned whether Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 1-

92 would remain valid for capacity conversion of unapproved liferafts

``grandfathered'' for use on commercial fishing vessels.

Like many of the requirements in the NPRM, the capacity

requirements for liferafts are included by reference to the

corresponding SOLAS regulation--in this case, by reference to

regulation III/39 in proposed Sec. 160.151-7(c), which remains

unchanged for this final rule. The standards for design, performance,

and construction in the final rule apply only to new construction of

approved liferafts, so all issues pertaining to the ``grandfathering''

of unapproved liferafts on commercial fishing vessels will continue to

be covered by NVIC 1-92.

Liferafts of Less Than 6 Persons Capacity

Proposed Sec. 160.151-7 prescribed construction requirements for

SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts. By reference to SOLAS

regulation III/38 (specifically regulation III/38.2.1), this section

restricted inflatable liferafts to a minimum capacity of 6 persons,

except as otherwise specified in the subpart (for example, for coastal

service liferafts).

One comment noted that the Coast Guard has long approved, and that

there continues to be a need for, 4-person liferafts as capable as

SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts. These liferafts have particular

application on some commercial fishing vessels, which are technically

required to carry SOLAS A or SOLAS B liferafts but which have been

permitted to carry approved 4-person liferafts if they carry 4 or fewer

persons on board. In the past, the Coast Guard has allowed 4-person

liferafts with the equivalent of SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs to

be marked as having ``A'' or ``B'' packs, avoiding the use of the term

``SOLAS''. These rafts were issued approval numbers in the 160.051/XXX

series, as opposed to liferafts complying with SOLAS, which have been

issued approval numbers in the 160.151/XXX series. The Coast Guard

agrees that there continues to be

[[Page 25529]]

a need for approved 4-person liferafts comparable to SOLAS A and SOLAS

B liferafts. Consequently, to maintain the longstanding approval-

numbering convention, the final rule does not completely remove 46 CFR

subpart 160.051 as was proposed in the NPRM. Instead, in the final rule

existing subpart 160.051 is replaced by a new subpart 160.051, which

covers standards for design, construction, performance, and equipment

for liferafts not complying with SOLAS but which are approved for use

in some domestic services. These include ``A'' and ``B'' inflatable

liferafts of less than 6 persons capacity, and coastal service

inflatable liferafts, which were addressed in Secs. 160.151-19,

160.151-23, and portions of 160.151-27 in the NPRM. This is merely an

editorial change; it does not affect the substance of the moved

sections.

Oversight of Approval Testing

Proposed Sec. 160.151-13 (c)-(f) required that approval testing of

prototype liferafts be carried out under the oversight of a Coast Guard

marine inspector. One comment suggested that this oversight be provided

by qualified third parties such as classification societies that are

members of the IACS, and noted that such third parties were competent

to perform this function.

As discussed in the NPRM, the proposed rules struck a careful

balance between delegation of suitable functions to third parties under

Coast Guard oversight and direct Coast Guard participation in certain

critical areas in order to fulfill our responsibility for the approval

of equipment used on U.S. ships and for maintaining the knowledge and

experience necessary to provide adequate oversight. The proposed rules

allow for third-party involvement in inspection of prototype

construction and in production inspection after approval. However, in

light of the other proposed changes to the approval procedures, it is

essential that the Coast Guard maintain its direct involvement in the

required prototype testing to validate the basic design submitted for

approval. Consequently, Secs. 160.151-13 (c) through (f) are retained

in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM.

Liferaft Design and Performance

Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(c) required that a protective liner or

baffling arrangement be provided inside each inflatable compartment at

the inflation gas inlet in order to protect the compartment fabric from

the damaging effects of cold inflation gas. One comment suggested that

advances in the technology of thermoplastic-coated fabrics may result

in the development of fabrics not as susceptible to damage from cold

exposure as the fabrics currently used. Consequently, a liner or

baffling arrangement would not necessarily be needed on rafts

constructed of such fabrics. The comment suggested that the Coast Guard

adopt a performance criterion to allow approval of such designs, but

did not propose a specific test.

The Coast Guard agrees that the requirement as proposed is

unnecessarily design-restrictive, and has revised the wording of

Sec. 160.151-15(c) in the final rule to allow means other than a liner

or baffling arrangement to achieve the performance objective of

protecting the compartment fabric from damaging effects of cold

inflation gas. However, the Coast Guard does not have sufficient data

to specify in this final rule a particular test to evaluate the

adequacy of designs not incorporating a liner or baffling arrangement.

The Coast Guard will evaluate such designs on a case-by-case basis to

ensure that they provide performance equivalent to that of conventional

designs using liners or baffling arrangements. It will be the

responsibility of the manufacturer, in consultation with the Coast

Guard, to develop a suitable test protocol to demonstrate such

equivalence. The Coast Guard will notify all manufacturers of any

designs approved under this system, and of the testing performed to

validate them.

Color

Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(e) required that the exterior of the

liferaft canopy be of a highly visible color, such as vivid reddish

orange. However, in a departure from existing Sec. 160.051-4(e), which

requires that the underside of the floor be of a dark color, the NPRM

did not address the color of the outside of the raft other than the

canopy. One comment, citing SOLAS regulation III/30.2.6, which requires

that life-saving appliances be of a highly visible color ``on all parts

where this will assist detection,'' commented that both sides of the

raft, and not just the canopy, should be of a color contrasting with

the marine environment. The comment mentioned instances where a rescue

unit was not able to detect a liferaft, because it had overturned.

The Coast Guard agrees that application of a highly visible color

to the bottom of a liferaft can assist in detection if the liferaft is

overturned. This concept recently gained the support of the

international community as well. In the wake of the sinking of the

Baltic ferry ESTONIA in September 1994, where a number of casualties

occurred due to difficulty in locating overturned liferafts, the 26th

session of the IMO Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee in March

1995, adopted a proposal to require that water pockets affixed to the

bottom of liferafts be of a highly visible color. This new requirement

will take effect in July 1998, as part of the latest set of amendments

to SOLAS Chapter III, and has been incorporated in Sec. 160.151-

17(a)(2)(vii) of this final rule. The effective date of the requirement

in this final rule has been deferred to coincide with the effective

date of the corresponding provision of SOLAS Chapter III.

Towing Connections

Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(g), like existing Sec. 160.051-7(b)(12),

required towing connections at opposite ends of the inflatable

liferaft. SOLAS regulation III/38.1.4 does not specify a number of

towing connections, but rather requires only that the raft be so

constructed as to enable it to be towed under specified conditions.

Several comments suggested that there is no need for more than one

towing connection on a liferaft since liferafts are maneuverable and

can be repositioned for towing if necessary. One of these comments also

noted that a requirement for two towing locations would add unnecessary

costs and require further testing of the product.

The Coast Guard contends that one towing connection is not

sufficient. Under SOLAS regulation III/20.3, the lifesaving

arrangements for passenger ships include the ``marshalling'' of

liferafts, i.e., using a rescue boat to gather liferafts together for

the purpose of connecting them in order to facilitate their detection

and long-term survival. In some cases, a single rescue boat can be

assigned to marshall up to nine liferafts. However, it can be unwieldy

to connect a liferaft with only one towing connection to many other

liferafts. A second towing connection would considerably facilitate

marshalling.

The Coast Guard also contends that the provision of a second towing

connection would not necessitate any further testing of the product, or

add any significant additional cost. Where multiple towing connections

are provided, they are generally identical in design, and testing of

one (which is required in any case) can stand for testing of both, or

all. The only cost associated with a second towing connection is the

cost of the materials involved and their assembly and installation.

This cost would not represent any increase over present requirements,

since existing 46 CFR 160.051-7(b)(12) already requires a

[[Page 25530]]

towing connection at each end of a liferaft.

Despite the above discussion, the Coast Guard has amended

Sec. 160.151-15(g) in the final rule to remove the requirement for

towing connections at both ends of a liferaft in keeping with its

policy of not imposing unilateral requirements in excess of SOLAS.

However, the Coast Guard does intend to approach IMO with the concerns

discussed above in order to generate discussion whether a future

amendment to the relevant IMO requirement may be warranted.

Weight

Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(h) would limit the weight of liferafts not

served by launching appliances to 185 kilograms (kg) (407.8 pounds

(lb)), a very slight increase from the 400-lb limit in existing 46 CFR

160.051-3(b). One comment noted the problems associated with manually

launching a heavy liferaft, citing an NTSB recommendation pursuant to

the fire and explosion on the tankship PUERTO RICAN in 1984, that

liferafts be installed so that manual launching does not require any

unnecessary lifting, such as over a railing. The Coast Guard is aware

of the difficulties associated with launching liferafts near the weight

limit when they are not served by launching appliances. However, the

proposed increase in the allowable weight is trivial, essentially

resulting from a metric conversion. Consequently, in the final rule

Sec. 160.151-15(h) is not changed from the NPRM. The issue of

installing liferafts to avoid the necessity of lifting was addressed in

the Subchapter W rulemaking project (CGD 84-069), and is now covered in

46 CFR 199.130(a)(7).

Strength of Lifeline Attachments

Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(i) required that lifeline attachment

patches have a minimum breaking strength of 1.5 kN (350 lb) pull

exerted in a direction perpendicular to their bases. One comment

contended that this breaking strength is excessive, since liferafts

should be lifted out of the water by the towline rather than the

lifelines, and since the buoyancy of human bodies reduces a liferaft's

weight in the water.

The Coast Guard disagrees. This is not a new requirement, stemming

as it does from paragraph 3.6.19 of military specification MIL-L-19496,

which is referred to (for design guidance) in existing Sec. 160.051-

1(a)(1). In addition, the comment does not take into account that

buoyancy effects are minimal when a person in the water pulls himself

into a liferaft using the internal lifelines, that external lifelines

may be used to carry an inflated liferaft, and that the weight of a

liferaft can make it difficult to handle (for example, while placing it

in the water) by a towline attached at a single point. Although SOLAS

does not specifically discuss using lifelines to carry a liferaft, the

ability to do so is required by other responsible maritime safety

administrations, such as in the European Free Trade Association's

(EFTA) Scheme for the Reciprocal Recognition of Tests and Inspections

Carried Out on Ships' Equipment. That document requires that, beyond

being suitable for use as a lifeline, the grablines ``be suitably

arranged for carrying the inflated raft.'' For all of these reasons,

Sec. 160.151-15(i) is retained in the final rule as proposed in the

NPRM.

Painter Length

The preamble to the NPRM discussed a pending change to SOLAS

Chapter III which would reduce the painter length required by SOLAS to

the greater of 15 meters or the liferaft's stowage height plus 10

meters. The NPRM indicated that if the change received final approval

by the IMO MSC, it would be incorporated into the final rule. The

change was approved as part of the most recent set of SOLAS amendments,

to take effect July 1, 1998, and has been incorporated into the final

rule as Sec. 160.151-15(j). The effective date of the requirement is

July 1, 1998, which conforms to the SOLAS effective date. However,

manufacturers are encouraged to comply at the earliest possible date so

as to reduce the operational problems associated with excessive painter

lengths.

Boarding Ladders

Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(l) required that the steps of a boarding

ladder ``be of rigid or semi-rigid tubing and secured against rotation

to provide a suitable foothold.'' One comment suggested that this

requirement is unnecessarily design restrictive, and that boarding

ladders should be evaluated by their performance rather than on certain

design properties. The comment noted that more critical than the design

of the footholds themselves is that they be placed to prevent the

user's legs from going underneath the hull, thereby preventing a

vertical climb into the liferaft. The comment also noted that, although

boarding ladders are required, they are a secondary boarding aid to the

required boarding ramp.

The Coast Guard agrees with the general approach proposed in the

comment. In the final rule, proposed Sec. 160.151-15(l) has been

replaced by a general performance requirement in Sec. 160.151-15(m)

that the steps of the boarding ladder ``must provide a suitable

foothold.'' As suggested in the comment, a new Sec. 160.151-27(c)(4)

has been added to the final rule to require that the IMO Boarding Test

be performed using the boarding ladder (if installed) as well as the

boarding ramp. The IMO Boarding Test is considerably more stringent

than that in current Sec. 160.051-5(e)(7) and so will ensure, through

demonstrated performance, that boarding arrangements are adequate for

those liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses for which the

boarding ladder is the primary means of boarding.

Liferaft Stability

Proposed Sec. 160.151-17(a), and the associated requirements on

prototype testing in proposed Sec. 160.151-29(a) and (b), prescribed

stability standards for SOLAS inflatable liferafts based upon the

performance of currently approved designs of ``heavily ballasted''

liferafts. A number of comments disagreed with the proposed stability

standards in their entirety. The comments questioned whether the

benefits of improved liferaft stability would outweigh the costs, cited

the adverse effect the proposed stability standards would have upon the

cost-competitiveness of U.S.-manufactured liferafts in the

international market, and questioned whether the available casualty

history indicates that the stability of existing liferaft designs is

inadequate. One of the comments noted that adoption of the standards

would increase the weight of liferafts substantially. In many cases,

the weight could increase to the extent that some shipowners would need

to install launching appliances or expensive rack-mounting arrangements

when they replace their current rafts, for which such appliances are

not needed.

One comment agreed with the Coast Guard's position that

international standards for liferafts are appropriate, and suggested

that, if there is a stability problem with liferafts, it should be

identified by the Coast Guard at the appropriate international forum

and a solution reached based on input from the international community.

Several related comments suggested adoption of the ``European Liferaft

Stability System'' detailed in the EFTA Scheme for the Reciprocal

Recognition of Tests and Inspections Carried Out on Ships' Equipment.

Finally, one comment proposed that, if the Coast Guard were to

unilaterally adopt a stability standard, it should be based on the

volume (a minimum of 25 percent of buoyancy-tube volume) currently

required for Coastal Service liferafts.

[[Page 25531]]

The Coast Guard agrees with the view that any regulatory

requirements for liferaft stability should be based upon standards

developed and accepted internationally. This is consistent with the

Coast Guard's general position that U.S. requirements should not exceed

the requirements of SOLAS. Until recently, however, SOLAS has been

vague on the issue of liferaft stability, requiring only that liferafts

be ``stable in a seaway.''

In that regard, the proposals made in the NPRM have been overtaken

by international events. At its 26th session in March 1995, the IMO

Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee approved standards for

liferaft stability to include in the latest set of SOLAS amendments,

which will become effective in 1998. These requirements are based upon

a proposal by the United Kingdom (UK), and are generally consistent

with those in the EFTA Scheme, which have been in effect in many

countries (including most of Northern Europe) since the 1980-81 UK/

Icelandic stability testing discussed in the NPRM. By U.S.

intervention, the most design-restrictive portions of the original UK

proposal were eliminated. The resulting SOLAS regulation requires

stability appendages with an aggregate volume one fourth of that

proposed in the NPRM, or 20 liters (.02 cubic meters) per person of

capacity, for liferafts with a capacity of greater than 10 persons.

This is around 20 percent of the required buoyancy-tube volume--

slightly less than was proposed in the comments. For smaller liferafts,

the regulation requires a minimum aggregate capacity of 220 liters (.22

cubic meters).

In this final rule, in place of the stability requirements proposed

in the NPRM in proposed Secs. 160.151-17(a) and 160.151-29(a)-(b), the

Coast Guard has decided to incorporate the new SOLAS stability

requirements, in their entirety, into Sec. 160.151-17(a). In doing so,

the Coast Guard adopts the comments received supporting conformance

with international standards. The SOLAS requirements also substantially

conform to the specific proposals in the comments concerning stability

appendage volume. The effective date of the domestic requirements is

July 1, 1998, to conform with the SOLAS effective date.

In addition to opposing the proposed stability requirements in the

NPRM, several comments also opposed the Lift-Out Force Test and At-Sea

Test, both of which were proposed to evaluate compliance with those

requirements. Since the SOLAS requirements upon which the stability

requirements in this final rule are based do not cover either test,

neither test is retained in this final rule. Instead, there is a test

in Sec. 160.151-29(a) to evaluate the filling time of the stability

appendages against the standard in Sec. 160.151-17(a)(2)(vi). The Coast

Guard intends to continue research into test methods to evaluate

liferaft stability, perhaps including some variation of the Lift-Out

Force and At-Sea Tests, so it can evaluate, for equivalence to the

regulatory requirements, the performance of novel stability designs

that may be developed in the future.

One comment supported self-righting capability for liferafts ``as

required by SOLAS, the righting test specified in IMO Resolution

A.689(17), and proposed 46 CFR 160.151-27(a).'' However, none of those

three documents requires self-righting capability, only the capability

for the inverted liferaft to be righted by a single person in the

water. Consistent with them, the final rule does not require that

liferafts be self-righting. The same comment suggested that there

should be a requirement that rafts always inflate right side up when

deployed in water. This requirement already existed in proposed

Sec. 160.151-27(a), by reference to the Drop Test in IMO Resolution

A.689(17), para. 1/5.1, which requires that the tested rafts inflate

upright. This requirement is retained in the final rule. It should be

recognized, however, that even a raft that inflates upright during

approval testing may not always inflate upright if it has subsequently

been packed incorrectly, for example, during servicing.

A number of identical comments suggested that the Coast Guard make

a videotape of the various rafts in heavy seas available so that

mariners can see how they react and select one they ``feel comfortable

with.'' This suggestion has not been adopted in the final rule. Such a

comparative demonstration would entail essentially the same costs and

logistical difficulties as the heavy weather sea trial strongly opposed

by the liferaft industry, and further, would focus on only one aspect

of a liferaft's performance when there are others which are also very

important. The Coast Guard's position is that liferaft manufacturers

are in the best position to market and establish brand differentiation

for their products based on all of their features, and in fact actively

do so.

Boarding Arrangements for Coastal Service Liferafts

Proposed Sec. 160.151-19(f) indicated that boarding ramps are not

required on Coastal Service liferafts if the combined diameter of the

buoyancy chambers is 500 millimeters (mm) or less. One comment

suggested that, although boarding ramps may not be necessary under

these circumstances, some sort of boarding aid, such as strategically

placed hand holds, may be.

The Coast Guard acknowledges the importance of adequate boarding

arrangements for liferafts, particularly in light of the NTSB's

investigation of the sinking of the bulk carrier MARINE ELECTRIC in

1983. As suggested by the NTSB, the NPRM proposed, and the final rule

requires, by reference to SOLAS regulation III/39 (specifically

regulation III/39.4.3 thereunder) in Sec. 160.151-7, that ``there shall

be means inside the liferaft to assist persons to pull themselves into

the liferaft from the ladder.'' In addition, the IMO Boarding Test

required by reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/5.8, in

Sec. 160.151-27(a) is considerably more stringent than the existing

test in Sec. 160.051-5(e)(7), and is rigorous enough to ensure that

boarding arrangements are adequate.

Fabric Valise Containers

Proposed Sec. 160.151-19(i) allowed the use of fabric valise-type

containers with Coastal Service inflatable liferafts, and by extension,

with inflatable buoyant apparatuses. This provision has been deleted

from the final rule, since it was substantially similar to

Sec. 160.151-15(n)(7) in the NPRM (retained as Sec. 160.151-15(o)(7) in

the final rule).

Liferaft Equipment

In an editorial change throughout Sec. 160.151-21, for internal

consistency and consistency with the terminology in Subchapter W, all

references to specific subparts under which particular items of

equipment are approved have been replaced with references to the

``approval series'' under which the item is approved.

One comment suggested that proposed Sec. 160.151-21 may lead to

confusion because it lists all of the equipment required for SOLAS A

liferafts and implies that the same equipment is needed for SOLAS B

liferafts. The comment suggested a clarification of the difference

between SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs, much as SOLAS regulation

III/38.5.3 identifies those items in a SOLAS A Pack not required for a

SOLAS B Pack.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 was not intended to set forth a list of

the required contents of equipment packs. The required contents of the

SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs are specified in proposed

Sec. 160.151-7(b), by reference to SOLAS regulation III/38.

[[Page 25532]]

Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 is intended only to facilitate compliance by

liferaft manufacturers and servicing facilities by supplementing the

minimal descriptions of the various individual items of equipment in

the SOLAS regulation. Consequently, it is retained generally intact in

the final rule, subject to revisions to various individual subsections

as discussed below.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(b) contains requirements for jackknives

carried in equipment packs. One comment questioned whether folding

knives complied with the SOLAS requirements, since SOLAS regulation

III/38.5.1.2 specifically requires a non-folding knife.

By reference in Sec. 160.151-7, the proposed rules incorporated all

of regulation III/38, including regulation III/38.5.1.2, which requires

a buoyant non-folding knife. However, regulation III/38.5.1.2 also

requires that liferafts of 13 persons or more capacity be equipped with

a second knife, which may be of the folding variety. The requirement in

Sec. 160.151-21(b), which is retained unchanged in the final rule,

applies only to situations where these allowable folding knives are

permitted.

Proposed Secs. 160.051-21(f) and 160.151-23(f) required that two

paddles of the type used to pass the IMO Maneuverability Test be

included in the equipment packs. A number of identical comments

objected to the inclusion of paddles, since they provide no

maneuverability on ocean waters and will only increase the pack size

and increase the purchase price.

The Coast Guard disagrees. Paddles are essential to move away from

burning wreckage, to avoid the turbulence associated with a sinking

ship, and to assemble with other liferafts to facilitate survival. The

fact that the required paddles are of the size and type used to pass

the Maneuverability Test clearly demonstrates that they do provide for

a degree of maneuverability. Since paddles have always had to be

provided with inflatable liferafts, their inclusion in the equipment

required by the NPRM does not represent any increase in the cost or the

size of the equipment pack over those of existing liferafts.

Consequently, Secs. 160.051-9(f) (which was Sec. 160.151-23(f) in the

NPRM) and 160.151-21(f) are retained in the final rule as proposed in

the NPRM.

Regulation III/38.5.1.7 of SOLAS, which was incorporated by

reference into the NPRM, with a minor modification, in proposed

Sec. 160.151-21(g), requires the equipment pack of a SOLAS A liferaft

to include three tin openers. One comment, while supporting the

modification in proposed Sec. 160.151-21(g) requiring sharp parts of

tin openers to be fitted with guards, commented that tin openers should

not be required unless a manufacturer specifies the carriage of canned

water in its liferaft.

The Coast Guard disagrees. SOLAS does not provide for such an

exemption; and in discussions on this issue at IMO it was agreed that,

even if canned water is not packed in a liferaft, it is reasonable to

assume that persons abandoning ship into liferafts will attempt to

bring along as much canned food as possible, whereupon a tin opener

will be indispensable. Consequently, the requirements for tin openers,

and the associated modification, are retained in this final rule as

originally proposed.

Pursuant to IMO MSC Circular (Circ.) 447, proposed Sec. 160.151-

21(n) waived the SOLAS requirement for liferafts to be equipped with an

``efficient radar reflector.'' The reason for the effective waiver in

the 1983 IMO document was that no radar reflector suitable for packing

in inflatable liferafts was known to be available at that time. One

comment suggested that MSC/Circ. 447 is an ``antiquated ruling that has

been overcome by time and technology,'' and that a radar reflector

should be a fundamental piece of required equipment for all liferafts.

The Coast Guard disagrees. There have not been any significant

advances in radar reflector technology since 1983. The Coast Guard is

still not aware of any ``efficient'' radar reflectors suitable for

extended storage in the tight confines of packed inflatable liferafts,

and several proposals to cancel MSC/Circ. 447 have been rejected by the

IMO Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee for that reason. It

should be noted as well that, since 1983, the implementation of the

GMDSS, incorporating portable satellite Emergency Position Indicating

Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and Search and Rescue Transponders (SARTs) on

many ships, has largely overshadowed radar reflectors as locating aids.

A number of identical comments suggested requiring a ``tape'' on

liferaft canopies that would make them more visible to radar. This

suggestion has not been adopted in the final rule, since the principles

of radar propagation and reflection would render such a product

ineffective as a radar reflector.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(u) required that the anti-seasickness

medicine required by SOLAS regulation III/38.5.1.21 be one of two

specified medicines carried onboard. Several comments noted that,

because the two specified medicines are available only by prescription,

this provision would require a servicing facility to obtain DEA

registration to distribute controlled substances. The comments also

noted that the specified medicines can have serious side effects making

their use dangerous without medical supervision.

The Coast Guard agrees that it would be impracticable to require

liferaft-servicing facilities to handle controlled substances, and has

amended Sec. 160.151-21(u) in the final rule to remove the requirement

for specific medicines. Any readily available over-the-counter medicine

for motion sickness such as dimenhydrinate (generic formulation of

Dramamine) will be suitable.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 (v) and (w) required instructions for

survival and immediate action to be provided in English. One comment

noted that in many areas the crews do not read or speak English, and

suggested that the required instructions be in a language the crew

understands.

The Coast Guard is very aware of the linguistic diversity of ships'

crews, particularly in the fishing industry. However, it would not be

practical to require liferaft manufacturers to make the required

instructions available in whatever language a particular customer (or

his crew) may be able to read, particularly in view of the fact that

the manufacturer generally does not know who the customer (let alone

his crew) is until long after the liferaft is packed. We encourage

liferaft manufacturers to make practical efforts to satisfy the

linguistic needs of their customers, and have revised Sec. 160.151-21

(v) and (w) in the final rule to make it clear that providing

instructions in other languages along with English is acceptable.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(x) required SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable

liferafts to be equipped with thermal protective aids approved under

approval series 160.174. One comment noted that these aids provide

critical survival capability not currently available in Ocean Service

or Limited Service equipment packs. The same comment further

recommended either that those packs be replaced by the SOLAS A and

SOLAS B packs, respectively, or that they have to be upgraded by the

addition of thermal protective aids.

While the Coast Guard agrees that thermal protective aids can

significantly enhance survival prospects in certain situations, the

upgrading of existing approved liferafts is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking. Consequently, the final rule does not include any

requirement to upgrade such liferafts. At present, a liferaft owner

desiring to add thermal

[[Page 25533]]

protective aids to its equipment pack may, so long as the addition is

addressed in the manufacturer's servicing manual. Even notwithstanding

such optional carriage, the Coast Guard anticipates that the proportion

of liferafts equipped with thermal protective aids will slowly increase

as existing Ocean and Limited Service liferafts are taken out of

service and replaced by SOLAS A or SOLAS B liferafts equipped with

these aids. It should be noted, however, that these aids are not a

panacea for exposure, since a SOLAS liferaft need carry them for only

ten percent of its rated capacity.

One comment questioned who would decide how many thermal protective

aids would be provided in each liferaft, and how the addition of these

protective aids would affect the re-packing of the liferaft. As

discussed briefly above, the number of these aids in a SOLAS liferaft

is specified by SOLAS regulation III/38.5.24 as the greater of ten

percent of its rated capacity or two. This information would be

included in the manufacturer's service manual, along with instructions

for packing the aids in the equipment pack. The manufacturer would have

performed all approval testing of a SOLAS liferaft with the required

aids packed in the equipment pack.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(y) required a repair kit called for by

SOLAS regulation III/39.10.1.1 to include six or more sealing clamps or

serrated conical plastic plugs, along with patches, cement, and a

roughing tool for making more permanent repairs. The NPRM specifically

requested comments concerning appropriate contents for repair kits,

since SOLAS does not specify its contents.

One comment suggested that a combination of serrated plugs and

sealing clamps should be accepted. The comment added that the serrated

plugs should not have to be of plastic material, and that the Coast

Guard should consider the possibility of using a quick-repair material

such as a suitable self-adhesive tape in lieu of tube patches and

cement. Two comments contended that tube patches and cement are

virtually useless for making repairs on the water. One comment

suggested that conical plugs should not be approved as substitutes for

sealing clamps until they have been proven as effective as the clamps.

Another comment suggested that sealing clamps are superior to serrated

repair plugs, and should be used.

The Coast Guard does not agree that sealing clamps are superior to

plugs in all instances. The thickness and textures of fabrics of tubes

of inflatable liferafts vary widely. In light of the disparate

effectiveness of sealing clamps and plugs with different fabrics for

inflatable tubes, the Coast Guard contends that liferaft manufacturers

are best able to determine a suitable combination for use with their

liferafts through testing and operational experience. It expects that

manufacturers will take effectiveness as well as economics into account

when determining suitable contents for a repair kit. It agrees that

wooden plugs should be accepted as well as plastic ones (and may be

desirable in some cases), and that a suitable quick-repair material

such as self-adhesive tape would be an acceptable and perhaps

preferable substitute for patches, cement, and a roughing tool.

Consequently, the wording of Sec. 160.151-21(y) has been revised in the

final rule to require six or more sealing clamps or serrated conical

plugs, or a combination of the two; five or more tube patches at least

50 mm (2 inches (in.)) in diameter, compatible with the liferaft

fabric; a roughing tool, if necessary to apply the patches; and, unless

the patches are self-adhesive, cement as specified in the NPRM. The

Coast Guard would like to be kept informed of the progress of

manufacturers in developing or identifying suitable self-adhesive

patches.

Float-Free Arrangements

One comment noted that there is no specific reference to float-free

arrangements in the proposed rules other than by reference to SOLAS

regulation III/38 (specifically regulation 38.6 thereunder) in proposed

Sec. 160.151-7, and that there is no mention of wire weak links for

inflatable buoyant apparatuses. The comment also questioned whether

hydrostatic release units used in float-free arrangements would have to

be approved by the Coast Guard (as is the equipment in Sec. 160.151-

21).

As is the case in the bulk of the proposed rules, the requirements

for float-free arrangements are not explicitly stated, but rather are

incorporated by reference to the corresponding SOLAS requirements. Weak

links for inflatable buoyant apparatuses are covered in Sec. 160.010-

3(a) in the NPRM (retained substantially unchanged in the final rule),

which requires an inflatable buoyant apparatus to generally meet the

standards of design and performance for SOLAS inflatable liferafts

contained in subpart 160.151. Since they are of similar function and

packed buoyancy to inflatable liferafts, the NPRM and the final rule

require that buoyant apparatuses be fitted with the same weak links

used with inflatable liferafts, rather than the weaker weak links used

with life floats and rigid buoyant apparatuses.

The requirement that hydrostatic releases used in float-free

arrangements be approved is a vessel requirement which is beyond the

scope of this equipment subpart and this rulemaking, but appears in the

recently updated vessel regulations at Secs. 28.125(c), 117.130 (b),

180.130(b), and 199.130(c)(7) of this part.

Carriage of Additional Equipment

Proposed Sec. 160.151-25 provided guidelines for the carriage of

additional equipment, beyond that required by the regulations, in

liferaft equipment packs. The proposed rule required that such

equipment be covered in the liferaft manufacturer's approved drawings

and servicing manual, and that specified items meet the applicable

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations in 47 CFR part 80.

Two comments questioned the inclusion of the Class S EPIRB and the

omission of the Class B EPIRB in the items specified in the proposed

rule, since the class S EPIRB is not commonly used in liferafts. One

comment questioned why only certain items were specified in the

proposed rule, and two comments suggested substituting a generic

statement that any additional equipment must meet any applicable Coast

Guard or FCC requirements. The Coast Guard agrees that wording to that

effect confers a more flexible approach. Accordingly, it has revised

Sec. 160.151-25 to require that any additional equipment for which

performance or approval standards are prescribed in 46 CFR part 160 or

47 CFR part 80 must comply with those standards.

Although the proposed regulations permitted optional carriage of an

EPIRB, ten identical comments suggested that EPIRB's should be required

to be included in liferaft equipment packs. These comments noted that

adding an EPIRB would result in quicker location of the liferaft, so

that stability would not be as significant a factor. Several comments

suggested adding a waterproof VHF radio.

The Coast Guard does not agree that EPIRBs and VHF radios should

have to be included in liferaft equipment packs. As discussed above,

the proposed rules allowed for adding equipment to that specifically

required in the equipment pack. Anyone who wants to include an EPIRB, a

VHF radio, or both in a liferaft may do so, provided that their packing

is addressed in the liferaft manufacturer's service manual. However,

portable versions of these

[[Page 25534]]

items generally already have to be carried on a ship outside of the

liferaft, and a trained crew should know to retrieve them in the event

of an emergency so as to be ready to carry them into the liferaft.

Consequently, the final rule does not mandate the inclusion of EPIRBs

or VHF radios in liferaft equipment packs.

Approval Inspections and Tests

By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-

27(a) required that all liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatus be

subjected to the same Cold Inflation Test, at a test temperature of

-30 deg.C. The preamble to the NPRM solicited comments as to whether

the Coast Guard should approve Coastal Service liferafts and inflatable

buoyant apparatus tested at a higher temperature, such as -18 deg.C,

since other countries approve them. One comment supported this

suggestion, while another supported an increase in the testing

temperature to -12 deg.C in order to reduce costs by reducing the sizes

of inflation cylinders and the dimensions of raft containers.

The Coast Guard agrees that an increase in the testing temperature

for Coastal Service liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatus is

warranted, but finds the proposal to increase the testing temperature

to -12 deg.C excessive for the following reasons. These products are

often used in areas where the temperature falls below -12 deg.C. In

addition, the HSC Code specifies a range of operational temperatures

down to -18 deg.C for open reversible liferafts, which are functionally

similar to inflatable buoyant apparatus, and countries with climates

similar to ours have substantial and successful operational experience

with the test temperature of -18 deg.C. Therefore, Sec. 160.051-5(l) of

the final rule has been revised to require the Cold Inflation Test in

IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/5.17.3.3.2, to be conducted at a test

temperature of -18 deg.C for Coastal Service inflatable liferafts, and

Sec. 160.010-3(a)(16) allows the same for inflatable buoyant apparatus.

The Cold Inflation Test in IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/

5.17.3.3.2, requires that the liferaft be exposed to the test

temperature for at least 24 hours before the test. The Hot Inflation

Test in para. 1/5.17.3.3.3 requires that the liferaft be exposed to the

test temperature for at least 7 hours before the test. The existing

procedures for these tests in 46 CFR 160.051-5(e)(11) require that the

liferaft be fitted with thermocouples and exposed to the appropriate

test temperature until the interior of the liferaft reaches that test

temperature, which often takes considerably in excess of 24 hours. One

comment suggested that this ``weakening'' of the test procedure is

unjustified and may not be an accurate determinant of the raft's

ability to inflate hot or cold.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The tests in the IMO recommendation have

been used worldwide for approval of liferafts for many years, and there

has been no indication that the liferafts approved according to those

or similar tests are deficient in hot or cold performance. In fact, it

is misleading to evaluate these tests in terms only of the changes in

the required temperature exposures. The IMO Cold Inflation Test, for

example, is a more stringent test than the test in existing regulation,

since it requires the raft to reach design pressure (as opposed to

design shape) in the specified time. Most rafts approved to existing

U.S. requirements will fail this test without upgrading of the gas

charge. Similarly, the IMO Hot Inflation Test requires that the

pressure-relief valves be sufficient to prevent the liferaft from

reaching twice working pressure. There was no corresponding requirement

in existing regulations. For these reasons, the Hot and Cold Inflation

Tests are retained in the final rule as proposed by Sec. 160.151-27(a),

with reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), paragraph 5.17.

Also with reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed

Sec. 160.151-27(a) would require a Towing Test at a speed of 3 knots,

rather than 5 knots as at present. One comment questioned the validity

of revising the requirement since no justification was provided for

lowering the speed.

The Coast Guard does not agree that the lower speed of the Towing

Test as proposed represents a drop of standards. The existing test in

46 CFR 160.051-5(e)(8) requires towing at 5 knots, but does not include

any minimum distance. The IMO test, while at a lower specified speed,

also includes a stringent minimum distance. Especially since it is

extremely unlikely that a loaded liferaft would ever be towed at speeds

in excess of 3 knots, the IMO test is a more realistic and more

repeatable test. The test is retained in the final rule as proposed.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-27(c)(5) would require that, when the Canopy

Closure Test is performed, the accumulated water in the liferaft must

not exceed 4 liters. One comment suggested that this requirement is

extreme and unnecessary, since this quantity of water is so

insignificant that it cannot even be bailed from the liferaft. The

comment proposed that the wording in the IMO testing recommendation,

that there be no ``significant accumulation'' of water within the

liferaft, be retained by reference without any elaboration.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The term ``significant accumulation'' is

subjective and so is essentially meaningless. The Coast Guard considers

that SOLAS regulation III/38.1.5.3, which requires that the canopy

``exclude seawater,'' dictates that the canopy closure be watertight.

The Coast Guard realizes, however, that complete watertightness is

practically impossible for a product constructed of fabric, and that

the nature of the test procedure dictates that a small amount of water

will likely enter the raft if only as the canopy is opened to check the

raft at the conclusion of the test. The specified 4-liter maximum is

intended to be a generous allowance for this inevitable minor leakage,

not to define the limit of a dangerous amount. The suggestion in the

comment that this would not even be enough water to bail indirectly

supports the choice of this figure, since the presence of enough water

to require bailing would, based on experience with numerous tests

performed in conjunction with other maritime safety administrations,

certainly constitute a failure of the test. For these reasons, proposed

Sec. 160.151-27(c)(5) is retained unchanged in the final rule.

Production Tests and Inspections

By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-

31(d) would require each production liferaft to undergo an overpressure

test at 1.5 times working pressure. The preamble to the NPRM noted that

a change to this test, to make it consistent with the ``Necessary

Additional Pressure (NAP) Test'' done during servicing, had been

tentatively approved by the Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee

of IMO, and would be incorporated in the final rule if it obtained

final approval. That approval was given by the 66th session of the IMO

MSC in Resolution MSC.54(66) of 30 May 1996.

One comment supported the reference to the existing overpressure

test in Resolution A.689(17), and commented that the Coast Guard should

ensure that the NAP Test is at least equivalent to that test before

adopting it. Since the overpressure test currently in the IMO

recommendation is at 1.5 times working pressure, and the NAP Test is at

a minimum of twice working pressure, the Coast Guard is confident that

the NAP Test is at least equivalent, and has incorporated it in this

final rule by updating the incorporation by reference of Resolution

A.689(17) to include amendments through and including Resolution

MSC.54(66). Consequently,

[[Page 25535]]

the reference to Resolution A.689(17), part 2, paragraph 5.1.4 in

Sec. 160.151-31(d) now covers the updated test.

By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-31

(d) and (e) would require inflatable compartments of liferafts to

undergo a 1-hour air-holding test with an allowable pressure drop of 5

percent, rather than the 6-hour, 10 percent test in existing 46 CFR

160.051-5(c)(3). One comment suggested that the existing test should be

retained unless the Coast Guard can show that the revised test will

provide the same assurance of the liferaft's airtightness.

The Coast Guard has several years of experience with the IMO test,

because it has been allowed for liferafts approved to the SOLAS

requirements since its adoption by the IMO. The Coast Guard knows of no

problems associated with the reduction of the testing period, and

believes that the 1-hour test is an adequate measure of the

airtightness of a liferaft, especially combined with the required NAP

test. Consequently, the test is retained in the final rule in

Secs. 160.151-31 (d) and (e) as proposed in the NPRM.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-31(a) would require that liferaft production

inspections be performed under the oversight of an accepted independent

laboratory. One comment strongly supported the use of third parties for

this purpose, and suggested that such parties should be required to

have the qualifications and quality control required for IACS

membership.

Section 160.151-31(a) has been retained in this final rule as

proposed. The Coast Guard does not intend to restrict acceptance as

third parties for production inspections to classification societies or

IACS members. The Coast Guard considers that the existing independent

laboratory acceptance standards in Sec. 159.010, which have been used

successfully for years to accept numerous third parties to inspect a

variety of approved products, are sufficient to evaluate and accept

third parties for liferaft production inspections.

The Coast Guard recognizes that manufacturers will likely not be

able to comply immediately with the requirement in proposed

Sec. 160.151-31(g) to arrange for periodic inspections by an accepted

independent laboratory. Consequently, Sec. 160.151-31(g) in the final

rule has been revised to give manufacturers up to one year to comply

with this requirement. A new Sec. 160.151-31(h) has been added to the

final rule to address procedures for the transitional period while

manufacturers arrange for independent laboratory inspection. This

paragraph is similar to existing Sec. 160.051-5(a), except that it

allows the OCMI the option of attending or not when notified of final

production inspections.

Liferaft Servicing

Servicing Intervals

Proposed Sec. 160.151-35(a) would require that inflatable liferafts

(and by extension, inflatable buoyant apparatus) be serviced

``periodically'' at a servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard.

One comment suggested that the servicing interval should be

definitively stated, perhaps by reference to SOLAS regulation III/19,

which requires servicing annually.

A more definitive statement of servicing intervals appears in

proposed Sec. 160.151-57(n). Under Sec. 160.151-57(n) in the NPRM and

in this final rule, annual servicing is no longer applicable in all

cases, since the first servicing of a new liferaft on a non-SOLAS ship

can be delayed until the raft is two years old provided that dated

survival equipment in the liferaft will not expire before the next

servicing due date.

Multiple comments suggested that that annual servicing is

unnecessary and costly. In support of this view, several of these

comments cited the fact that most of the equipment in a liferaft's

equipment pack remains serviceable for far longer than a year. One

comment suggested that servicing intervals could be extended

considerably by the placement of the liferaft equipment in a waterproof

container. Nine of the comments proposed alternative servicing

intervals, ranging from biennially to once every 5 years; however, none

of these comments provided any justification for the proposed intervals

or any evidence that they would not adversely affect the performance of

the liferaft. One letter cited the difficulty of removing the liferaft

from the vessel for servicing, and the potential for damage when doing

so. Several comments noted that the choice of servicing facilities is

limited, and the prices they charge exorbitant.

The Coast Guard does not agree that annual servicing is

unnecessary. Servicing intervals do not derive exclusively from the

need to examine and replace dated equipment, although some equipment,

such as flashlight batteries and cement in repair kits, does typically

require annual replacement. During servicing, in addition to having its

emergency equipment examined, the liferaft itself is unfolded, inflated

with air and tested for airtightness, and repaired if needed. The

cylinder is weighed, and the liferaft fabric and structure examined for

damage and deterioration. The liferaft is then refolded and repacked,

which serves to extend the life of the liferaft fabric by relocating

the creases. This procedure has been the requirement in the U.S. for

some decades, and is also the norm internationally, required by SOLAS

regulation III/19.8.1. Although some manufacturers have done some

developmental work on methods of extending service intervals, the Coast

Guard is not currently aware of any methods shown to provide the same

level of assurance of a raft's operational readiness as the currently

required annual servicing. The Coast Guard is also not aware of any

other maritime safety administrations currently allowing extension of

servicing intervals. Consequently, the final rule does not extend

intervals for liferaft servicing beyond those contained in existing

regulation and in SOLAS, except for new liferafts on ships not

certificated under SOLAS. This minimal extension was first permitted by

46 CFR 28.140(b) for new liferafts on commercial fishing vessels, as a

way of mitigating the expense of compliance with the new regulations

for safety of vessels in the commercial fishing industry. The Coast

Guard considers this extension to be low-risk in view of the stringent

production testing to which new liferafts are subjected, and so these

final rules extend its application to new liferafts on all vessels not

SOLAS-certificated. The Coast Guard may reexamine this position in the

future with further experience and research by the industry.

One comment opposed allowing the first servicing of new liferafts

to be extended to two years, citing dated items in the liferaft.

Section 160.151-57(n) in the NPRM and in this final rule addresses this

comment by permitting such extensions only if dated survival equipment

in the liferaft will not expire before the next due date for servicing.

Servicing Costs

A number of comments discussed the limited choice of servicing

facilities and the prices charged for servicing. The Coast Guard notes

these comments, however the Coast Guard does not have any authority to

regulate the economics of the liferaft-servicing industry. It would

advise consumers to investigate the availability and suitability of

servicing facilities before purchasing a liferaft. Although liferaft

manufacturers are required as a condition of approval to demonstrate

some reasonable geographic coverage of servicing facilities, the Coast

Guard cannot require or guarantee that a servicing

[[Page 25536]]

facility will be conveniently located for every liferaft owner.

One comment suggested that liferaft servicing should be performed

by the manufacturer, with servicing costs and schedules provided at the

time of liferaft purchase. The final rule does not shift the burden of

service onto the manufacturer. Most liferaft manufacturers are equipped

primarily to manufacture liferafts, not to service them, and the costs

and time associated with transporting the liferafts to the manufacturer

for servicing would be enormous. The existing system better serves the

owner of the liferaft by providing for reasonably local access to

liferaft servicing. Advance notice of recurring servicing costs would

be impossible to provide with any degree of certainty, since these

costs vary from liferaft to liferaft depending on how and where the

liferaft is stored and numerous other factors that cannot be determined

in advance with any certainty.

Manufacturers' Responsibilities

Proposed Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) would require a manufacturer to make

the servicing manual, servicing manual revisions, service bulletins,

liferaft plans, and any unique parts and tools that may be necessary to

service the manufacturer's liferafts available to each technician who

has successfully completed the manufacturer's initial or refresher

training course within the periods specified in Sec. 160.151-41(e).

Several comments opposed this requirement, since it implies that the

specified items are the property of the technician rather than the

servicing facility (which likely paid for the training). Several of the

comments further noted that individual technicians may have no vested

interest in the liferaft-servicing business, since not all facility

owners are qualified technicians, and that the manufacturer has no

relationship with or recourse against an individual technician. One

comment suggested that it would be unduly burdensome for manufacturers

to have to provide each technician, rather than each approved servicing

facility, with updates. Two comments proposed that the wording of

Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) be changed to require that the manufacturer make

the specified items available to approved service facilities staffed by

technicians who have been trained within the specified periods, rather

than to the technicians themselves.

The Coast Guard agrees in concept with the suggested change to

proposed Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3), since it will accomplish substantially

the same end as the proposal in the NPRM. The change has been

incorporated in Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule with one minor

revision; since Sec. 160.151-41(e) already requires an approved

servicing facility to employ at least one currently trained technician,

it is not necessary to include that as a condition in this regulation.

Consequently, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule requires that the

items specified in the NPRM be made available to ``each approved

servicing facility'' servicing the manufacturer's liferafts.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-39(b) would require that the manufacturer

``conduct a refresher training program for recertification of

previously trained servicing technicians.'' Several comments disagreed

with this requirement, since they do not believe a technician should

have a right in perpetuity to be trained. One of the comments proposed

wording that would indicate that the manufacturer will conduct a

refresher training program ``by invitation.'' Another comment suggested

that manufacturers should have to open up their training courses to any

technician from a facility approved by the Coast Guard, to ensure that

the approval of servicing facilities is based upon the qualifications

of the facility and its technicians, not upon business considerations.

One comment suggested that a servicing technician's certification

should be linked to a particular approved facility.

As indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, the proposed rule did not

intend to mandate who must receive training, or that a manufacturer

must provide training on demand. It intended to require only that a

manufacturer have an established refresher-training program so that it

is possible to maintain an approved servicing network in compliance

with the training requirements in Sec. 160.151-41(e). The Coast Guard

does not intend to get involved in whom a manufacturer invites to

attend the program. It has slightly refined the wording of

Sec. 160.151-39(b) in the final rule to clarify its intent.

The suggestion that a technician's certification be linked to a

particular approved facility has not been adopted in the final rule.

Subject to relevant legal considerations, a manufacturer can include

such a linkage in its certifications, but the Coast Guard does not

agree that there is any compelling reason why certification to service

a particular make of liferaft should not be portable.

Approval Process for Servicing Facilities

Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(b) would revise the process by which

servicing facilities obtain Coast Guard approval. Rather than the

manufacturer's designating a selected facility as at present under 46

CFR 160.051-6(d), a servicing facility would apply directly to the OCMI

for approval. There would no longer be an explicit requirement for

advance authorization by a manufacturer of a servicing facility.

A number of comments opposed this change. The reasons cited in the

comments were that the proposed change does not allow for a

manufacturer's ``approval'' of a servicing facility as is effectively

the case at present, and does not require ``manufacturer support as

outlined in IMO Resolution A.761(18), Annex 2.'' One of the comments

noted that it appeared the proposed rules would mandate a reduction in

the manufacturer's control over the servicing of its product. One

comment noted that any manufacturer must retain the right to determine

who will distribute its products. One comment suggested that

technicians must have manufacturer training, and suggested that the

manufacturer should periodically visit a servicing facility to train

and observe the servicing technicians.

The Coast Guard generally disagrees with all of the comments cited

above. First, the IMO Resolution referred to does not require, as the

comments wish, that servicing facilities be ``accredited'' by the

manufacturer. The wording of the resolution was crafted carefully to

avoid such a result. It does require that the manufacturer establish a

servicing network by accrediting a sufficient number of servicing

stations, that each of those stations be staffed with qualified

personnel, and that the manufacturer provide the Administration with a

list of them. However, it does not require that every facility approved

by the Administration be so accredited.

The proposed rules have no effect on a manufacturer's selection of

distributors for its products. They address only servicing facilities,

which may or may not also be distributors. Distribution and servicing

are distinct activities.

As it indicated in the NPRM, the Coast Guard desires to focus on

the technical qualifications of the servicing facility, and not on the

facility's business arrangements with the manufacturer. The IMO

resolution upon which the proposed rules were based

[[Page 25537]]

clearly spells out the technical requirements for approval of a

servicing facility: a suitable space, parts, tools, manuals, and

appropriately trained personnel. If those requirements are met, there

is no significant value added by an explicit business relationship with

the manufacturer. Since such a relationship is not essential to the

adequate functioning of a servicing facility, the Coast Guard sees no

need to allow the liferaft manufacturing industry to control which

members of the servicing industry have access to the program of Coast

Guard approval.

Manufacturers' support of approved servicing facilities is required

by the IMO recommendation on servicing and by Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of

the NPRM and the final rule. This rule actually represents a

strengthening of the requirements for such support, not, as several

comments implied, an abandonment of them.

One comment noted that ``to remove the manufacturer approval would

remove the manufacturer's quality control abilities.'' However, neither

existing regulations nor the proposed rules give the manufacturer any

explicit responsibility for control of quality of facilities servicing

their liferafts. In fact, to do so, or to require, as suggested in one

comment from a facility, that manufacturers visit all of their

servicing facilities periodically to train and observe servicing

technicians, could be burdensome to manufacturers. Under such

requirements, manufacturers would have to give the same degree of

attention to remote and overseas facilities that they give to local

ones. Quality control is the responsibility of the facility itself, and

the Coast Guard intends to continue adequate oversight over the

facilities to ensure that quality control is adequate. Note that

nothing in this final rule prevents a manufacturer from entering into

or maintaining a relationship with an approved facility, which

relationship may include quality-control arrangements.

Several comments suggested that if all servicing facilities had to

compete with each other, a black market for manuals and parts would

appear, and facilities would cut corners to maintain profits.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard has no authority or

desire to restrict competition among liferaft-servicing facilities, and

believes that the oversight required by these final rules will serve to

inhibit those facilities from cutting corners for financial reasons.

Concerning the creation of a black market for servicing manuals and

parts, Sec. 160.151-37(c) in the NPRM and in the final rule requires

each manual to bear the original signature of a manufacturer's

representative attesting its consistency with the manual approved by

the Commandant. Consequently, ``bootleg'' copies of manuals of

questionable accuracy, as may be in circulation at present, should no

longer exist. Provided that replacement parts used are genuine parts as

specified in the manual, the Coast Guard is not concerned with where a

facility obtains them. However, this should not be a problem in any

case since, as discussed above, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule

requires that the manufacturer make unique parts or tools required for

servicing available to each facility approved by the Coast Guard to

service the manufacturer's liferafts.

One comment noted that it appeared the proposed changes to the

approval process for facilities may be driven in part by Coast Guard

concern that current regulations may foster a monopoly in the servicing

industry, and explained in detail how this is not the case at all at

present. However, the premise of the comment is incorrect, since the

Coast Guard is not concerned with nor has any authority over the

regulation of business practices in the servicing industry.

One comment suggested that the proposed rules appeared to indicate

that the Coast Guard would hold a facility qualified to service one

manufacturer's rafts qualified to service all manufacturer's rafts, and

supported retaining the manufacturer in the approval process to ensure

that proper repair techniques are used. The same comment pointed out

the importance of manufacturers' knowing the identity of the facilities

that service their rafts.

Under the proposed rules, servicing facilities would continue to be

approved separately for each individual make of liferaft. For each make

for which approval is sought, a facility would still need to have

appropriately manufacturer-certified personnel, servicing manuals, and

all parts and tools required by the manufacturer, and to demonstrate

the proficiency of its technicians. The requirements for training would

be strengthened from those at present by requiring that the training be

current. Overall, the proposed rules strengthen the technical

requirements for approval of a facility, so the Coast Guard is

confident that the ability of facilities to properly service and repair

liferafts will not be adversely affected by the removal of the

requirement for a formal manufacturer's authorization. To keep

manufacturers apprised of the facilities servicing their liferafts, the

Coast Guard would continue the present practice of sending a copy of

each facility-approval letter to the manufacturer whose rafts it is

approving a facility to service.

One comment suggested that facilities should submit a servicing

report describing the servicing of liferafts performed outside of the

United States to the Coast Guard. It offered no reason.

The Coast Guard approves servicing facilities outside the United

States, and their servicing activities are subject to supervision by

OCMIs just the same as servicing at any other approved facility. The

Coast Guard does not believe that reporting requirements for liferaft

servicing should vary with the geographic location of a servicing

facility. The paperwork burden of reporting servicing performed outside

the United States would not serve any useful purpose.

For the reasons discussed above, proposed Sec. 160.151-41(b) is

retained unchanged in the final rule. The Coast Guard realizes that

manufacturers will retain a good deal of practical control over

facilities servicing their rafts under that rule, for example through

non-compete clauses and control of access to training. However, there

will no longer be any reason for the Coast Guard to get involved in

these sorts of business arrangements.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(c) would require that, for a servicing

facility to obtain Coast Guard approval, it would need to demonstrate

the complete servicing of a liferaft of the type for which it seeks

approval, in the presence of either the cognizant OCMI or a third-party

inspector accepted by the OCMI. Several comments suggested that such a

demonstration should not be necessary if a technician from the facility

has already demonstrated his abilities to a Coast Guard inspector

during initial or refresher training held at a different location (such

as the manufacturer's plant).

The Coast Guard agrees, and amends Sec. 160.151-41 in the final

rule to indicate that certification by a Coast Guard inspector, or by a

third-party inspector accepted by the OCMI, of completion of the

specified demonstration at the time of initial or refresher training is

acceptable in lieu of a demonstration at the facility seeking approval.

In addition, this section in final form allows the certification to be

made by the manufacturer's trainer, since the trainer would obviously

be well enough qualified to be accepted by the OCMI in any case.

However, the provision is not moved to Sec. 160.151-39 as proposed in

two comments, since, although Sec. 160.151-39(c) requires notification

of the cognizant OCMI before holding required training, that training

may not

[[Page 25538]]

always be attended by a Coast Guard inspector. One comment suggested

that a Coast Guard inspector should be present at every training course

to ensure the thoroughness of the training and to enable the Coast

Guard to better oversee liferaft servicing operations. However,

resources and priorities of the Coast Guard do not always allow such

attendance.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(c)(8) would require that, for the Coast

Guard to approve a servicing facility, the facility would need to

demonstrate that it can repair a leak in a liferaft's main buoyancy

chamber and then subject the repaired chamber to ``the inflation test

described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 2/5.1.5.'' One comment

suggested that the repaired chamber should be subjected to an

overpressure test rather than an inflation test.

This comment stems in part from some imprecise wording in the NPRM,

since para. 2/5.1.5 of Resolution A.689(17) is a test of leakage at

working pressure, not an inflation test. The Coast Guard agrees that an

inflation test is not necessary to ensure that a repair has been done

properly, and that an overpressure test is a more appropriate test of a

repair than either an inflation test or a test of leakage at working

pressure. Section 160.151-41(c)(8) in the final rule requires that the

repaired chamber be subjected to the Necessary Additional Pressure test

in Sec. 160.151-57(k).

Proposed Sec. 160.151-45(a) would require a servicing facility to

maintain ``a complete set of the manufacturer's plans for each

inflatable liferaft to be serviced.'' Two comments noted that complete

sets of plans are generally not held by facilities, and that it is

sufficient to have service manuals that give ``all relevant

information.''

The Coast Guard agrees that a requirement for a servicing facility

to hold a complete set of manufacturing plans would constitute an

unnecessary record-keeping burden. The intention is made clearer in

Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the NPRM and in the final rule. To eliminate

any ambiguity, Sec. 160.151-45(a) in the final rule has been revised to

refer to the description of the necessary plans in Sec. 160.151-

35(b)(3).

Proposed Sec. 160.151-47 contains requirements for the owner or

operator of an approved servicing facility. Two comments suggested that

the requirements should include an annual letter from the liferaft

manufacturer(s) for which the facility is approved demonstrating their

continued technical and consultative support.

The Coast Guard believes that such a letter would serve no useful

purpose, and would therefore represent an unnecessary paperwork burden.

As discussed above, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule requires

that a manufacturer make certain items available to facilities approved

by the Coast Guard. Demonstration by an approved facility that it has

those items is more substantive evidence of the required technical and

consultative support than a letter. Consequently, the suggested

requirement for an annual letter has not been incorporated into the

final rule.

Servicing at Remote Sites

Proposed Sec. 160.151-49 would allow for approval of servicing

facilities to perform servicing at remote sites, such as on board ships

or offshore facilities, rather than at the facilities themselves. One

comment suggested that a facility must be specifically authorized in

its letter of approval from the manufacturer to conduct servicing at

remote sites.

As discussed above, in a change from the current regulation, this

final rule does not require explicit manufacturer authorization as a

condition for approval of a servicing facility. Consequently, the

``letter of approval from the manufacturer'' on which the comment

proposes to require an authorizing endorsement for remote servicing

does not exist. Therefore, the suggested requirement for manufacturer

authorization to conduct servicing at remote sites has not been

incorporated in this final rule. However, Sec. 160.151-49 in the final

rule now requires that a facility conducting servicing at remote sites

be specifically authorized to do so in its letter of approval from the

Coast Guard.

One comment suggested that the provisions on remote-site servicing

should be deleted in their entirety, since the intended beneficiaries

of those provisions (such as MODUs and quick-turnaround vessels) would

in reality see little benefit under the proposed rules. The comment

noted that the same difficulties faced by the raft owner in shipping

the raft to an approved facility would be faced by the remote-site

technician, who would have to import his tools, manuals, parts, etc. at

great transportation cost. The comment also cited the difficulty of

obtaining work permits in some areas.

The Coast Guard agrees that remote-site servicing may not be

practicable or advantageous in many cases. However, the NPRM does not

require remote-site servicing; it merely permits it as an option. The

argument that it is inherently impracticable is belied by the fact that

the Coast Guard has allowed remote-site servicing at the special

request of owners of offshore facilities and servicing facilities under

existing regulations. Consequently, the suggestion to delete the

provisions on remote-site servicing has not been incorporated in the

final rule.

Referring to proposed Sec. 160.151-49, one comment suggested that

servicing facilities outside the United States should be specifically

approved by the manufacturer since they will not be by the Coast Guard.

This is incorrect, since the Coast Guard does and will continue to

approve facilities outside the United States. For servicing at remote

sites such as oil rigs, the facility performing the work will still

have to be approved by the Coast Guard, and the provisions in the

facility's letter of approval authorizing it to perform servicing at

remote sites will signify that the Coast Guard has evaluated the

facility's ability to perform proper servicing in the field.

Supervision of Liferaft Servicing

The NPRM proposed replacing the current system of universal Coast

Guard witnessing of liferaft servicing with a system of Coast Guard

supervision by means of periodic spot checks, with the frequency of the

spot checks at the discretion of the OCMI.

One comment suggested that, rather than change its current system

of inspection of servicing to use its resources more efficiently, the

Coast Guard should ask Congress for additional personnel.

The Coast Guard does not believe it is realistic or desirable to

maintain an existing inspection program that can be carried out just as

effectively with a more efficient use of fewer resources of the Coast

Guard. The proposed conversion from universal inspection of servicing

to spot checks would not take place in a vacuum. Although Coast Guard

presence at actual servicing would become less frequent under the rules

proposed in the NPRM, the technical requirements for facility approval

would be significantly strengthened, as would the training requirements

for servicing technicians. Overall, the Coast Guard expects that the

changes proposed in the NPRM, taken together, will ensure that liferaft

servicing continues to be done properly and under adequate supervision.

One comment completely supported the conversion to spot checks,

since servicing technicians at facilities are well trained and

qualified, and scheduling a Coast Guard inspector to witness every

liferaft servicing is not only burdensome on the Coast Guard's

personnel resources but also a financial burden to facilities and an

operational burden on ship operators awaiting

[[Page 25539]]

liferaft servicing. The comment also noted that the NPRM is consistent

with ongoing efforts toward Maritime Regulatory Reform and with the

shifting of appropriate activities to the private sector.

One comment suggested that there should be a stated minimum

frequency of spot checks, and that in no case should the number of spot

checks be less than two a year. Another comment suggested that Coast

Guard inspectors should observe the servicing or oversee the

performance of third-party inspectors in some reasonable percentage of

instances.

The Coast Guard agrees that spot checks by the OCMI must be at some

minimum frequency to provide adequate oversight. However, the Coast

Guard does not believe that it is appropriate to impose an inflexible

requirement upon itself through these regulations. It intends that,

when this final rule takes effect, the Commandant will provide

appropriate internal guidance to field units to implement the system of

supervision by spot checks. In this way, the Coast Guard can take into

account any unusual requirements or conditions of particular OCMI

zones, and can refine its administration of the program as it gains

experience with the new system.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(a) would require that a servicing facility

taking in a liferaft to be serviced under its Coast Guard approval

notify the OCMI of the make, size, and age of the liferaft, and whether

the liferaft is due for a 5-year inflation test. Acting on that

information, the OCMI would decide whether the servicing of the

liferaft must be witnessed by an inspector.

One comment suggested that providing the specified information

before servicing would be unnecessarily costly, since many vessels

operate on extremely tight schedules. The comment proposed that the

facility be required only to notify the OCMI of its intent to service a

liferaft, and to provide any information available at the time of

notice (but not any particular information). Two comments suggested

that proposed Sec. 160.151-53 adds uncertain costs to the servicing of

a liferaft, since a facility has no way of knowing in advance whether

an individual raft will be subject to inspection where a user fee or

third-party-inspection fee will be added. One of these comments

suggested that the Coast Guard perform random inspections of every

facility at no cost to that facility. Another comment suggested that,

to make costs involved with servicing inspections predictable, the

Coast Guard make periodic (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual) inspections,

with or without notice.

None of these comments have been incorporated in the final rule.

Because of constraints on the resources of the Coast Guard, the NPRM

proposed to replace the current system of universal Coast Guard

witnessing of liferaft servicing for inspected vessels with a system of

spot checks by the OCMI. Overall, that system should substantially

decrease, for all servicing facilities, the burden associated with

scheduling of Coast Guard inspectors for every liferaft servicing and,

for foreign facilities, the travel and subsistence expenses of Coast

Guard inspectors. However, for spot checks to provide effective

supervision of liferaft servicing, it is essential that the Coast Guard

focus its resources in the areas of greatest risk. In the case of

liferaft servicing, the greatest risk will likely be in the areas of

the oldest rafts, particularly those undergoing the five-year inflation

test, and perhaps on makes of liferafts that have demonstrated

reliability problems in the past. The required information should not

be difficult to obtain, since it is all marked on the outside of the

liferaft container. A facility called by a ship for the servicing of

one of its liferafts would merely need to request that the ship provide

the information marked on the outside of the container, whereupon the

facility would pass that information to the OCMI when giving the

required notice of servicing.

The suggestions for random periodic inspections have not been

adopted, because they do not allow for the Coast Guard's resources to

be focused on the areas of highest risk. In addition, such a system

would result in the lowest-volume facilities' being subjected to a

proportionally much greater degree of supervision than the higher-

volume facilities.

One comment questioned whether a servicing facility must notify the

OCMI when it plans to service a liferaft from a commercial fishing

vessel. The NPRM and the final rule require notice whenever a facility

is to service a liferaft for which it is approved by the Coast Guard,

regardless of the source of the liferaft.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(c)(2) would allow a servicing facility,

when a Coast Guard marine inspector is not available in a timely manner

to witness a servicing that needs to be witnessed, to engage a third-

party inspector accepted by the OCMI to witness the servicing on behalf

of the OCMI. Third-party inspection would be at the expense of the

facility.

Two comments suggested that the OCMIs should retain sole

responsibility for supervision of servicing of liferafts in their

respective zones to maintain the Coast Guard's level of expertise in

this area. Another comment stressed the importance of maintaining the

Coast Guard's expertise, and suggested that Coast Guard inspectors

should observe the servicing or oversee the performance of third-party

inspectors in some reasonable percentage of instances.

The Coast Guard agrees with the comments that it is essential that

the Coast Guard maintain its base of knowledge and experience in this

highly specialized area. It is anticipated that most spot checks would

in fact be conducted by Coast Guard marine inspectors. However, the

nature of the spot-check system, in targeting areas of greatest risk,

means there may be instances when the witnessing of a particular event

is necessary and yet when the Coast Guard does not have adequate

resources to attend in a timely manner. To minimize the scheduling

burden on servicing facilities and ship operators, the proposed rule

affords some flexibility in those instances. Therefore, the suggestion

that all spot checks be conducted by a Coast Guard inspector has not

been incorporated in the final rule.

One comment opposed third-party inspections, since unlike the Coast

Guard, third-party inspectors would have an economic interest in the

outcome of the inspection. A ship operator could influence a third-

party inspector's decision about whether the liferafts fail the

inspection because, if the liferafts fail the inspection, the operator

may not hire the inspector again.

This comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what was

proposed in the NPRM. A third-party inspector as described in the NPRM

would be hired not by a ship operator but rather by the servicing

facility; an operator might not even be aware that a third-party

inspector is involved. The third-party inspector's function would be to

oversee the performance of the facility, not to evaluate the condition

of the liferaft. The presence of an independent third-party inspector

during liferaft servicing would be expected to discourage a facility

from allowing economic considerations to influence its evaluation of a

liferaft, since the inspector would ensure adherence of the facility to

the objective and quantitative criteria in the relevant regulations and

in the manufacturer's servicing manual.

Four comments suggested that third-party inspection based on fee

for profit

[[Page 25540]]

would greatly increase the cost of liferaft servicing, and one further

commented that it would be an unfair system in terms of fees unless a

nationwide fee could be agreed upon.

These rules have no effect on the cost of Coast Guard inspections;

inspections at domestic servicing facilities continue to be provided at

no charge, and foreign facilities continue to be billed for the

inspector's travel and subsistence. The cost of any third-party

inspections as allowed by these rules will be borne by the facility in

all cases. However, these rules do not require such inspections; they

are merely an option available to facilities in cases where constraints

on resources of the Coast Guard may not allow response in time to meet

a facility's desired delivery schedule. The Coast Guard does not have

the authority to regulate fees for such services, and does not believe

a uniform fee would be reasonable given the wide variety of parties who

could be accepted as inspectors and the worldwide distribution of

approved facilities in sometimes-remote locations.

Three comments expressed concern that untrained personnel might be

assigned to oversee liferaft servicing, and asked what training or

qualifications a third-party inspector would have to have in order to

be able to perform this work.

As was discussed in the NPRM, third-party inspectors engaged to

oversee liferaft servicing would be subject to acceptance by the OCMI.

Like the proposed rule, this final rule does not require a third-party

inspector to necessarily represent an independent laboratory fully

compliant with 46 CFR subpart 159.010. Individuals such as experienced

marine surveyors with appropriate practical training or background

could be employed. And, like the proposed rule, this final rule gives

OCMIs the authority to accept third-party inspectors in their

respective zones (as opposed to central approval by the Commandant),

since OCMIs will be better able, taking into account their local

knowledge and conditions, to evaluate prospective local third-party

inspectors of less-than-national scope. To maintain some uniformity of

requirements, the Commandant will provide OCMIs with general guidelines

for use in evaluating and accepting third-party inspectors where they

are used.

One comment suggested that performance monitoring of accepted

third-party organizations would have to be done by the OCMI, and

questioned how this relationship would be any different from the

current situation between facilities and the OCMI. The difference is

that, under the current system, the OCMI is in the facility for every

servicing of a liferaft from an inspected vessel. Under the system

proposed in the NPRM, the Coast Guard would be in the facility only for

periodic spot checks, at which time it could audit records pertaining

to any third-party inspections that may have been performed.

The same comment noted that problems may arise between a facility

and third-party inspector, such as conflicts over personality,

scheduling, and payment. Obviously, the Coast Guard has neither any

intention nor any authority to regulate these areas. Since the facility

selects and hires a third-party inspector, it can ``fire'' the

inspector as well in the event of an irreconcilable conflict.

One comment suggested that the Coast Guard would need to establish

a ``complaint board'' to address instances of ``unfair actions taken by

third party inspectors.'' The Coast Guard does not agree that such a

dedicated body is needed in view of established appeal procedures in

current regulations. Allegations of actions taken by a third-party

inspector that are contrary to the terms of the OCMI's acceptance of

the inspector would be evaluated by the OCMI, and corrective action

(which could include termination of acceptance) taken as appropriate. A

party reporting such allegations who is not satisfied with the OCMI's

response can appeal the OCMI's decision to the District Commander and

then to the Commandant, if necessary.

One comment suggested that the Coast Guard should attend every

servicing of a ``grandfathered'' liferaft whose carriage on an

uninspected commercial-fishing-industry vessel is permitted under 46

CFR part 28, because these rafts were not manufactured under

supervision of the Coast Guard and thus their construction is suspect.

The comment also suggests that the Coast Guard should assume the

responsibility for monitoring the condition of these rafts, since it is

allowing them to continue in use until they are no longer serviceable.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The guidelines used by the Coast Guard

to allow grandfathering of these liferafts are very stringent,

including a gas inflation test and a Necessary Additional Pressure

Test, both at the first servicing. The Coast Guard considers these

tests sufficient to screen out any rafts of questionable construction.

In addition, although grandfathered rafts themselves are not formally

approved by the Coast Guard, they have to be serviced at servicing

facilities approved by the Coast Guard. Since proposed Sec. 160.151-

53(a) would require a servicing facility to notify the OCMI of every

liferaft taken in for servicing under its Coast Guard approval,

grandfathered liferafts would be just as subject to an OCMI's spot

check as any other liferaft.

The Coast Guard also disagrees that grandfathered rafts should be

subject to special supervision because it lets them be used until they

are no longer serviceable. This condition is not unique to

grandfathered liferafts, since any liferaft may continue to be used

until it is no longer serviceable.

Deviations From Procedures in the Servicing Manual

Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(d) would allow servicing facilities to

deviate from servicing manual procedures with the approval of the OCMI.

As discussed in the NPRM preamble, this provision would include

substitution of comparable equipment when survival equipment approved

by the Coast Guard is not available for some reason. One comment

suggested that equipment substitution should be permitted only if the

substituted equipment meets or exceeds the Coast Guard-approved

equipment, and also meets SOLAS approval requirements.

The Coast Guard agrees in principle with this comment. It is the

Coast Guard's intention that any substitute survival equipment be at

least comparable to Coast Guard-approved equipment. As was discussed in

the NPRM, however, the wide variety of equipment available and the

approval requirements for some types of equipment do not always allow

for a definitive determination in the field whether a particular piece

of equipment would meet all applicable requirements of the Coast Guard.

Although it is anticipated that equipment substitutions will be quite

rare in any case, there will no doubt be instances where the OCMI has

to use his judgment and experience in determining whether a particular

deviation is acceptable. Section 160.151-53(d) is retained in the final

rule as proposed, since it adequately describes the general procedure

for handling deviations subject to the OCMI's discretion.

Suspension and Withdrawal of Approval of Servicing Facilities

Proposed Sec. 160.151-55 specifies conditions under which the Coast

Guard can suspend or withdraw the approval of a servicing facility. Two

comments suggested that this section should be revised to give

manufacturers the right to withdraw approvals from facilities.

[[Page 25541]]

The Coast Guard does not agree. As discussed earlier, SOLAS

requires a servicing facility to be approved by the Administration

(i.e., the Coast Guard), not by the manufacturer. Under Sec. 160.151-

35(b)(3) of this final rule (which varies from the NPRM language

because of a comment by the same association commenting on this

provision), a manufacturer must provide technical support to each

service station approved by the Coast Guard to service that

manufacturer's liferafts. If a manufacturer is aware that a facility is

not properly servicing liferafts, the manufacturer can report that to

the Coast Guard; the Coast Guard will take appropriate action under

Sec. 160.151-55(a)(2). Alternatively, a manufacturer can discontinue

providing refresher training for the facility's technician(s). However,

this final rule does not allow a manufacturer to arbitrarily or

unilaterally cause the withdrawal of a servicing facility's approval by

the Coast Guard.

Servicing Procedures

Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(b)(3) would require that, during annual

servicing, an inflatable floor be inflated until firm, allowed to stand

for one hour, then still be firm after two hours. Three comments

suggested that this test is excessive, and proposed that the test

should last one hour. The Coast Guard agrees that there is no reason

why the floor test should last longer than the working pressure leakage

test to which the rest of the liferaft is subjected, and Sec. 160.151-

57(b)(3) has been revised in the final rule to require only a one-hour

test.

In place of the annual test currently required by 46 CFR 160.051-

6(e), proposed Sec. 160.151-57(f) would require a davit-launched

liferaft to be subjected to a launching-load test at every other

servicing. This is the same interval specified in IMO Resolution

A.761(18). One comment suggested that this interval would be sufficient

for newer liferafts, but suggested that the requirement should be

annual testing for rafts over ten years old due to the possibility of

deterioration of the materials.

The Coast Guard has not incorporated this comment in the final

rule. Its policy is not to impose requirements in excess of SOLAS on

U.S.-flag ships, and we are not aware of any data to suggest that the

biennial test in Sec. 160.151-57(f) is inadequate to identify, in a

timely manner, liferafts deteriorating due to age. Consequently,

Sec. 160.151-57(f) is retained in the final rule as proposed in the

NPRM.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(g) would require that the 5-year gas

inflation test be conducted with the liferaft still secured in its

container, rather than after being removed from its container as

required by current 46 CFR 160.051-6(f)(2). Several comments suggested

that, because of the increased bottle charges and higher nitrogen

content in the gas mixture necessary to comply with the requirements of

SOLAS, performing the test in this manner raises concerns about safety

as well as about unnecessary damage to the liferaft. Both comments

proposed that the final rule allow the raft to be removed from its

container for this test as is the current practice.

As was explained in the NPRM, the forces on a liferaft are

significantly different when it is inflated in its container with the

retaining bands in place from when it is removed from the container

first. The Coast Guard continues to believe that performing the gas

inflation test with the liferaft packed in its container is a useful

means of detecting marginal or unsatisfactory structural connections in

the liferaft in a realistic operating environment. However, the current

IMO recommendation on servicing requires that the liferaft be removed

from its container before performing the test. Because of concerns

about the increased risk of damage to a liferaft when inflating it on

the shop floor instead of in the water, there has been little support

at IMO for modifying the test as proposed in the NPRM. Consequently, to

remain consistent with the current internationally accepted

requirement, Sec. 160.151-57(g) in the final rule requires removing

the folded raft from its container before actuating the inflation

system, as was suggested in the comments.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(i) would require that, when a liferaft ten

or more years past its date of manufacture leaks extensively or shows

fabric damage after a gas inflation test, it must be condemned. One

comment suggested that ``fabric damage'' is a vague description, and

that it is not unusual for liferafts exhibiting some signs of porosity

to successfully pass all required testing.

The Coast Guard agrees that minor porosity, although it might

technically be considered to be ``fabric damage,'' should not

necessarily mandate the condemnation of a liferaft that otherwise

passes all of the required servicing tests. Particularly with the

addition of the annual Necessary Additional Pressure test for liferafts

over ten years old, the normal testing procedure between gas-inflation

tests should be adequate to identify fabric deficiencies serious enough

to adversely affect the operational performance of the liferaft. The

Coast Guard is concerned, though, about fabric damage other than minor

porosity, such as cold cracking. Such damage would tend to be more

aggressive and more progressive than simple porosity, and the fact that

a liferaft with cold cracking might pass all of the required servicing

tests would not necessarily guarantee that it would not fail

catastrophically at its next inflation by its gas inflation system.

In view of the above, the Coast Guard has decided to partially

adopt the suggestion in the comment. Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(i) in the

final rule requires that a liferaft more than ten years old that leaks

extensively or shows fabric damage ``other than minor porosity'' after

the gas-inflation test must be condemned.

Liferaft Markings as an Aid to Search and Rescue

Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) would require a servicing facility

to mark the liferaft canopy, or the device required by proposed

Sec. 160.151-17(c), with the name of the vessel on which the liferaft

will be installed or the name of the vessel owner (if the information

is known). One comment suggested that providing this marking can be a

problem, since companies sometimes trade liferafts among different

vessels. Another comment questioned how important it is to know what

ship a liferaft is from, since generally only one ship sinks at any

particular time. The same comment suggested that the ship

identification could not be attached to the painter, since the painter

is generally cut at the raft after deployment.

As discussed in the NPRM under heading entitled ``Raft Markings as

an Aid to Search and Rescue'', this requirement is pursuant to IMO

Resolution A.759(18). Its main intent is to address the too-frequent

situation of a liferaft being found adrift with no persons aboard and

no identifying markings, e.g., a liferaft which is inadvertently

released from a ship in heavy seas. Such a liferaft will obviously have

no one aboard to cut the painter, and so an identification device

attached to the painter will remain intact to serve its purpose.

Knowing which ship a liferaft found adrift came from lets SAR

forces check to ensure that the ship is safe. An unmarked and unmanned

liferaft found adrift naturally leads to speculation whether the ship

it is from experienced a sudden casualty with no opportunity

[[Page 25542]]

to signal distress, which can result in expensive and fruitless

searches.

Concerning the trading of liferafts by companies or cooperatives,

Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) requires a servicing facility to apply the

marking only if the information is known. However, manufacturers will

have to include in their servicing manuals instructions for facilities

to retrofit the device required by Sec. 160.151-17(c) on existing

liferafts so that vessel operators will have a means of specifying the

identity of the vessel on which a liferaft is fitted without the

necessity of anyone's opening the liferaft container. Such

identification could be easily changed as a liferaft is traded within a

company or cooperative.

In view of the above discussion, Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) is retained

in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM. The effective date for the

requirement is July 1, 1998, which is the date the requirement will

become mandatory under SOLAS.

Inspection Stickers and Certificates

Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3) would require a servicing facility

to affix an inspection sticker to each liferaft it services, indicating

the manufacturer of the liferaft, the identification of the facility,

and the expiration date of the servicing. This sticker would replace

the metal inspection plate currently required by 46 CFR 160.051-8(a).

One comment opposed the replacement of the metal inspection plate

by a sticker, since the sticker would not show what kind of equipment

is in the liferaft, would wear or fade easily, and would come off the

container easily. Two comments suggested that it was unsatisfactory

that the sticker would not show the inspection record. Another comment

cited the added cost to the customer and noted that, if the sticker

were to replace the servicing certificate, the customer would not know

the expiration dates of the equipment inside the liferaft.

The Coast Guard disagrees with the substance of these comments in

their entirety. First, the sticker would not replace, but would be in

addition to, the container markings otherwise required by SOLAS and by

proposed Sec. 160.151-33(b), which include specification of the type of

equipment pack in the liferaft. The inspection record will continue to

appear on the liferaft itself per proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(1). The

sticker would not replace the servicing certificate, which is required

by proposed Sec. 160.151-57(p); however, the certificate need not

indicate the expiration dates of the packed equipment in any case. Note

that, notwithstanding the information required on the sticker, a

manufacturer can require or allow the marking of any other relevant

information by including it in the servicing manual. The durability of

the sticker and its attachment to the liferaft container are

specifically addressed in proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3), which

requires the sticker to be of a type that will remain legible for two

years in a marine environment and that cannot be removed without being

destroyed. Such stickers are readily available, and their cost is

nominal.

One comment noted that, since the stickers do not require specific

identification by Coast Guard inspector, they could be affixed to

liferafts whose servicing was not witnessed by the Coast Guard.

Consequently, a facility could affix a sticker to a liferaft that it

had not even opened. The same comment also noted that not requiring a

Coast Guard inspector's identification on the service record marking

required by proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(1) would allow a facility to

repack a raft without even inflating it.

The Coast Guard believes that the vast majority of servicing

facilities are professional organizations dedicated to high-quality

liferaft servicing in accordance with all relevant laws, regulations,

and manufacturers' instructions, who perform high-quality work whether

the Coast Guard witnesses it or not. Nevertheless, there are documented

instances where unscrupulous facilities have engaged in acts such as

those described in the comment discussed above, even under existing

regulations. A facility wishing to avoid supervision by the Coast Guard

need only fail to notify the Coast Guard of a liferaft taken in for

servicing. A requirement for Coast Guard identification on stickers or

on servicing record markings has not deterred in the past, and would

not deter in the future, a facility intent on not performing the work

for which it is paid.

In view of the above discussion, Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3) is retained

in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM. The requirement has an

effective date 6 months from the date of publication in the Federal

Register, so as to allow those manufacturers who have not yet begun

using the stickers to obtain and distribute them.

Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(p) would require that a servicing facility

issue a certificate to the liferaft owner or owner's agent for each

liferaft it services. One comment proposed that this section be revised

to require also that the facility provide a copy of the servicing

certificate to the manufacturer.

The Coast Guard disagrees. While it is obvious that providing the

liferaft owner with a certificate facilitates demonstration to the

relevant authorities that a liferaft has been properly serviced, the

Coast Guard knows of no compelling reason (and the comment did not

offer any) why the certificate should be required by regulation to be

provided to the manufacturer as well. If the manufacturer wants a copy

of each servicing certificate, that can be arranged by agreement

between the manufacturer and the facilities servicing the

manufacturer's rafts, or by requiring it in the manufacturer's approved

servicing manual. Consequently, the proposal in the comment has not

been adopted in the final rule.

One comment suggested that servicing certificates should be

supplied, controlled, and serialized by manufacturers to inhibit

counterfeiting and to ensure that only approved and authorized

facilities conduct servicing. The Coast Guard disagrees that it is

necessary to regulate the form and substance of the certificates in

such detail. As discussed above, manufacturers desiring to do so can

accomplish the same end by agreement between themselves and the

facilities servicing their rafts, or by specifying particular

certificates in the approved servicing manuals. If a manufacturer

demands in the manual particular certificates as part of the servicing

procedure, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) will require that the manufacturer

make those certificates available to approved facilities.

Reporting Damage and Defects

Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(r) would require, in accordance with the

IMO recommendation on liferaft servicing, that servicing facilities

transmit to the OCMI, at least annually, information concerning damage

and defects found in liferafts during servicing and repair. This

information would be used by the OCMI and the Commandant to identify

recurring problems, and to correct them by requiring manufacturers to

make appropriate modifications to their equipment or their procedures.

One comment suggested that the specified information should be

provided to the affected manufacturer(s) as well. It also suggested

that the information should be provided quarterly rather than annually,

though it offered no reason for the increase in frequency.

The Coast Guard disagrees that it is necessary or even desirable

for servicing facilities to have to provide the same information to

several different parties.

[[Page 25543]]

The IMO recommendation requires only that the information be made

available to the ``Administration.'' As discussed above, a manufacturer

desiring to obtain complete servicing records from facilities servicing

its liferafts can accomplish that either by agreement with the affected

facilities or by simply requiring it in the approved servicing manual.

As was noted in another comment, the Coast Guard expects that OCMIs who

identify recurring problems in liferafts or their servicing on the

basis of the data submitted to them will inform the Commandant, who

will evaluate the information and bring it to the attention of the

affected manufacturer(s) for action as appropriate. Consequently, the

suggestions in the comment have not been adopted in the final rule.

Penalty for Improper Servicing

One comment noted that there is currently no civil penalty

regulation associated with liferaft servicing, and asked what penalty

is available for a facility performing improper servicing. When the

NPRM was published, there was indeed no established penalty. Since

then, section 310 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 amended

46 U.S.C. 3318(b) to make servicing or alteration of lifesaving

equipment so as to intentionally render that equipment unsafe or unfit

for its purpose a Class D felony.

Instructions for Training and Maintenance

Proposed Sec. 160.151-59 would require the manufacturer to prepare

``training and maintenance instructions'' to comply with SOLAS

regulations III/18.2, 19.3, 51, and 52. One comment suggested that all

references to ``training'' in this section should be modified to

``operating'' or ``operating and maintenance.'' The reason given was

that liferaft manufacturers are not in the business of training, and

should not be responsible for preparation of training materials.

The Coast Guard believes the suggestion in the comment has merit,

since the terminology used in the referenced SOLAS regulations may lead

to some confusion. What is required by SOLAS regulation III/51 is the

placement in a ship's training manual of not strictly training material

but rather ``instructions and information, in easily understood terms

illustrated wherever possible'': a simple set of operating instructions

for the education and ready reference of the ship's crew. To minimize

ambiguity, in the final rule proposed Sec. 160.151-59 is broken into

both a new Sec. 160.151-59 (Operating instructions and information for

the ship's training manual) and a new Sec. 160.151-61 (Maintenance

instructions), and all references in the final rule to ``training

material'' have been amended appropriately.

Consequential Revisions

Currently, in 46 CFR 199.190(g)(3) refers to subpart 160.051 for

servicing requirements for inflatable liferafts. This final rule

revises the reference to subpart 160.151, and expands its application

to include inflatable buoyant apparatuses.

Incorporation by Reference

The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in

Sec. 160.151-5 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1

CFR part 51. The material is available as indicated in that section.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rulemaking 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 regulatory

policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

A draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory

policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for

inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the

Evaluation follows.

The draft evaluation estimated a total one-time cost of $710,000

for liferaft manufacturers to comply with the proposed rule, including

about $560,000 for them to individually complete the proposed at-sea

test for stability. This final rule does not require the at-sea test

proposed in the NPRM, and consequently the cost of the test is not

included in this final regulatory evaluation. The total anticipated

one-time cost for compliance with this rule is therefore $150,000, or

approximately $60 per new SOLAS liferaft.

This final rule should result in a net recurring annual cost of

about $156,000. Annual saving of almost $500,000 in servicing costs are

possible as a result of the revisions to the servicing procedures in

this rule, but some of those savings are offset by an increase of

$218,000 in the annual cost of new SOLAS equipment that will have to be

replaced during annual servicings. New liferafts will incur an annual

increase of $214,000 needed to comply with the new SOLAS requirements,

and $22,000 in fees for inspections by independent laboratories. In

addition, the NPRM projected a cost of $200,000 for stability

appendages, which will be reduced to about $100,000 by the revisions to

the stability requirements in this rule. All of these increases,

totalling $336,000 or about $672 per new SOLAS liferaft, should fall on

manufacturers and presumably be passed through to purchasers. With both

one-time and recurring costs taken into account, the acquisition cost

of a new SOLAS liferaft would be increased by about $732, still one-

third less than the $1156 increase projected in the NPRM. The average

cost of annual servicing will drop by about $62 per year per liferaft,

as projected in the NPRM. The regulatory evaluation discounts costs at

7 percent to determine future costs. On the basis of this analysis, the

evaluation estimates that the cost of compliance with this rule will be

about $1,264,000 over 10 years. Economic research indicates that $2.7

million per statistical life saved is a reasonable estimate of people's

willingness to pay for safety. Therefore, this rule will be cost-

effective even if it saves only one life over a 10 year period. The

recent history of casualties involving liferafts, such as the MARINE

ELECTRIC in 1983 (with loss of life due to difficulty in boarding the

liferaft), and the 1992 NETTIE H. and 1993 TRUE LIFE casualties (both

with loss of life, where overturned liferafts could not be easily

located due to dark bottoms), strongly suggest that liferaft

improvements such as the boarding ramps, stability systems, and highly

visible coloring on the underside mandated by SOLAS and by this rule

will result in the saving of one or more lives.

The regulatory evaluation also discusses other benefits than the

saving of lives. First, liferafts approved by the Coast Guard will meet

the requirements of SOLAS. This will ensure that U.S.-registered

vessels are not being penalized or delayed in foreign ports because of

non-compliance. Second, as a signatory to the SOLAS Convention, the

United States is obligated to make sure its vessels comply. This final

rule will also enhance the lifesaving potential and operational

efficiency of inflatable liferafts by making them easier to board from

the water, by increasing their stability in heavy seas, and by various

other improvements required by the 1983 and subsequent SOLAS

amendments.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the

Coast Guard considered whether this rule will have

[[Page 25544]]

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. ``Small entities'' include small businesses and not-for-

profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are

not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with

populations less than 50,000. All seven U.S. manufacturers of

inflatable liferafts and all (approximately 105) U.S. facilities

servicing inflatable liferafts qualify as small entities. (Foreign

manufacturers and servicing facilities are not considered small

entities for the purposes of this analysis.) This final rule would

affect all manufacturers and servicing facilities to about the same

degree. U.S. firms (the small entities) may already hold 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. Any additional costs incurred

as a result of this rule are expected to be passed through to the

consumer, resulting in a negligible economic impact on manufacturers

and servicing facilities.

Most consumers of liferafts will probably be small entities as

well. As discussed above, the acquisition cost of a new SOLAS

inflatable liferaft should increase by less than 20 percent under this

rule. This increase should not create a substantial hardship for most

consumers. In fact, for the regulated market, liferaft production has

shifted predominantly toward liferafts complying with SOLAS since

approximately 1987, and the Coast Guard is unaware of any significant

adverse effects of any price increases associated with SOLAS

compliance. Further, as noted above, the average cost of annual

servicing will drop by $62 over the life of the raft, resulting in a

negligible difference in lifetime cost.

The Coast Guard has developed these rules to provide for compliance

with relevant international treaties and internationally accepted

standards at the lowest possible cost to the regulated public. In

response to the many comments received on the issue of cost, the most

costly provisions in the NPRM, concerning stability testing, were

practically eliminated in favor of compliance with relevant

international standards. There were no public comments concerning the

initial regulatory flexibility analysis in the NPRM, which concluded

that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. This final rule substantially

reduces the financial burden on small entities relative to the proposed

rules. The reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements

of this rule are substantially similar to those which have been in long

standing effect and industry practice, and require no particular

professional skills for compliance. Therefore, the Coast Guard

certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard

offers to assist small entities in understanding the rule so it can

evaluate its effects on them and allow them to participate in the

rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is affected

by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or

options for compliance, please contact Kurt Heinz, at either telephone

202-267-1444, fax 202-267-1069, or E-mail address

``[email protected]''.

Collection of Information

This final rule provides for a collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As required

by 5 U.S.C. 3507(d) the Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this rule

to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the

collection of information. The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the

Federal Register when they have been approved. There were no comments

on the information collection requirements proposed in the NPRM, and

this final rule does not impose any information collection requirements

other than those which were proposed in the NPRM. The section numbers

of information collection requirements which are either new or have not

yet been approved by OMB 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).

l. Sec. 160.151-59.

m. Sec. 160.151-61 (was part of Sec. 160.151-59 in the NPRM).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this final rule under the principles

and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that

this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism 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, because liferafts are distributed in a

national marketplace, 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 that are inconsistent with this rule.

There were no comments concerning the federalism implications of this

rule as proposed in the NPRM.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this final

rule and concluded that under section 2.B.2.e(34)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. The requirements in this final rule affect

the design and servicing of inflatable liferafts. This rule will have a

positive impact on safety, and clearly have no impact on the

environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in

the docket for inspection and copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

There were no comments concerning the environmental impacts of this

rule as proposed in the NPRM.

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.

46 CFR Part 199

Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration, Passenger

vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46

CFR parts 159, 160, and 199 as follows:

PART 159--APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS

1. The authority citation for part 159 continues to read as

follows:

[[Page 25545]]

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 49 CFR 1.45, 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

requirements of this subchapter for design or performance 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

item is at least as effective as one that meets the requirements of

this subchapter.

4. In Sec. 159.005-13, revise the introductory text of paragraph

(a) 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 Sec. 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 continues 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 paragraph designators (a) through (d)

and add the definition for inflatable buoyant apparatus at the end of

the section to read as follows:

Sec. 160.010-2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Inflatable buoyant apparatus. An inflatable buoyant apparatus is

flotation equipment that depends on inflated compartments for buoyancy

and is designed to support a specified number of persons completely out

of the water.

8. Sections 160.010-3 and 160.010-4 are redesignated, as

Secs. 160.010-4 and 160.010-5 respectively, and a new Sec. 160.010-3 is

added to read as follows:

Sec. 160.010-3 Inflatable buoyant apparatus.

(a) Design and performance. To obtain Coast Guard approval, an

inflatable buoyant apparatus must comply with subpart 160.151, with the

following exceptions:

(1) Canopy requirements (SOLAS Chapter III, regulation 38,

paragraph 1.5 (III/38.1.5)). It does not need a canopy.

(2) Capacity (Regulation III/38.2.1). The carrying capacity must be

not less than four persons.

(3) Floor insulation (Regulation III/39.2.2). The floor may be

uninsulated.

(4) Stability (Regulation III/39.5.1). It does not need stability

pockets.

(5) Righting (Regulation III/39.5.2). A reversible one does not

need arrangements for righting.

(6) One with a capacity of 13 or more persons must be reversible,

with the floor arranged between the buoyancy chambers so that the

apparatus can, floating either side up, accommodate the number of

persons for which it is approved. One with a capacity of 12 or fewer

persons must either be reversible in the same manner, or be designed so

that it can be readily righted by one person.

(7) One with a capacity of 25 or more persons must be provided with

self-bailing floor drains. If the floor of a reversible one 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.

(8) If the buoyancy tubes are not vivid reddish orange, vivid

yellow, or a fluorescent color of a similar hue, panels of such hue

must be secured to the buoyancy chambers so that a minimum of 1 m\2\

(11 ft\2\) is visible from above the apparatus when it is floating

either side up.

(9) Boarding ramp (Regulation III/39.4.1). Boarding ramps are not

required if the combined cross-section diameter of the buoyancy

chambers is 500 millimeters (mm) (19.5 in.) or less. An apparatus with

a combined cross-section diameter greater than 500 mm (19.5 in.)

requires boarding ramps as follows:

(i) For an apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, at

least one ramp must be provided;

(ii) For an apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons, at

least two ramps must be provided; and

(iii) The boarding ramps required by this paragraph must allow

persons to board with either side of a reversible apparatus floating

up, or the full number of ramps required must be installed on each

side.

(10) Boarding ladder (Regulation

III/39.4.2). Boarding ladders must be provided on each inflatable

buoyant apparatus as follows:

(i) One ladder must be provided on each apparatus with a capacity

of less than 25 persons, except that, for an apparatus with a capacity

of 13 or more persons that is not equipped with a boarding ramp, two

ladders must be provided.

(ii) Two ladders must be provided on each 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 apparatus floating up, or the

full number of ladders required must be installed on each side.

(11) One or more exterior canopy lamps meeting the requirements of

Sec. 160.151-15(n) of this subchapter 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 of the floating

apparatus; and

(ii) On a reversible apparatus, two lamps are mounted so that one

lamp is on the uppermost surface of the apparatus, whichever side is

floating up.

(12) Equipment (Regulation

III/38.5.1). 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 the equipment is

[[Page 25546]]

not accessible from both sides. In lieu of the equipment specified in

Sec. 160.151-7(b) and Regulation III/38.5.1, each apparatus must be

provided with--

(i) Rescue quoit and heaving line. One rescue quoit and a heaving

line as described in Sec. 160.151-21(a) on each apparatus with a

capacity of less than 25 persons; or two on each 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) Knives. Two buoyant safety knives ready for use near the

painter attachment;

(iii) Bailer. One bailer as described in Sec. 160.151-21(c) on each

apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons; or two bailers on

each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons, except that no

bailers are necessary if both sides of the floor of a reversible

apparatus are equipped with drains;

(iv) Sponge. One sponge as described in Sec. 160.151-21(d) on each

apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, or two sponges on

each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons;

(v) Paddles. Two paddles as described in Sec. 160.151-21(f) on each

apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, or four paddles on

each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons;

(vi) Flashlight. One flashlight with spare batteries as described

in Sec. 160.151-21(m);

(vii) Signaling mirror. One signaling mirror as described in

Sec. 160.151-21(o);

(viii) Repair outfit. One set of sealing clamps or plugs as

described in Sec. 160.151-21(y)(1);

(ix) Pump or bellows. One pump or bellows as described in

Sec. 160.151-21(z); and

(x) Sea anchor. One sea anchor as described in Sec. 160.151-21(e),

attached so as to be readily deployable when the apparatus inflates.

(13) Marking and labeling (Regulations III/39.7.3.4, III/39.7.3.5,

and III/39.8.6). Marking and labeling of inflatable buoyant apparatus

must be in accordance with the requirements of 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 container

of the apparatus. The capacity marking specified in regulation III/

39.8.6 must be applied to the top of each buoyancy tube.

(14) Drop test. The drop test required under paragraph 1/5.1 of IMO

Resolution A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-27(a) may be from a lesser

height, if that height is the maximum height of stowage marked on the

container.

(15) Loading and seating test. For the loading and seating test

required under paragraph 1/5.7 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and

Sec. 160.151-27(a), the loaded freeboard of the apparatus must be not

less than 200 mm (8 in.).

(16) Cold-inflation test. The cold-inflation test required under

paragraph 1/5.17.3.3.2 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-

27(a) must be conducted at a test temperature of -18 deg.C (0 deg.F).

(b) Production inspections and tests. Production inspections and

tests for inflatable buoyant apparatus must be performed in accordance

with the applicable requirements of Sec. 160.151-31.

(c) Servicing. Inflatable buoyant apparatus must be serviced

periodically at approved servicing facilities in accordance with the

applicable requirements of Secs. 160.151-35 through 160.151-57.

(d) 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 apparatus is to be carried.

(e) Requirements for ``open reversible liferafts'' under the IMO

International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (HSC Code). To be

approved as meeting the requirements for open reversible liferafts in

Annex 10 to the HSC Code, an inflatable buoyant apparatus must meet all

of the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, with

the following exceptions:

(1) The apparatus must be reversible regardless of size.

(2) The surface of the buoyancy tubes must be of a non-slip

material. At least 25 percent of the surface of the buoyancy tubes must

meet the color requirements of Sec. 160.151-15(e).

(3) The length of the painter should be such that the apparatus

inflates automatically upon reaching the water.

(4) An additional bowsing-in line must be fitted to an apparatus

with a capacity of more than 30 persons.

(5) The apparatus must be fitted with boarding ramps regardless of

size.

(6) An apparatus with a capacity of 30 or fewer persons must be

fitted with at least one floor drain.

(7) In addition to the equipment specified in Sec. 160.010-

3(a)(12), the apparatus must be provided with--

(i) Sponge. One additional sponge as described in Sec. 160.151-

21(d) on each apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons;

(ii) First-aid kit. A first-aid kit approved by the Commandant

under approval series 160.054;

(iii) Whistle. A ball-type or multi-tone whistle of corrosion-

resistant construction;

(iv) Hand flares. Two hand flares approved by the Commandant under

approval series 160.121.

(8) Marking and labeling of the apparatus must be in accordance

with Sec. 160.151-33, except that the device must be identified as a

``NON-SOLAS REVERSIBLE'', and the equipment pack must be identified as

an ``HSC Pack''.

9. Subpart 160.051, consisting of Secs. 160.051-0 through 160.051-

9, is removed, and replaced with a new subpart 160.051 to read as

follows:

Subpart 160.051--Inflatable Liferafts for Domestic Service

Sec.

160.051-1 Scope.

160.051-3 Definitions.

160.051-5 Design and performance of Coastal Service inflatable

liferafts.

160.051-7 Design and performance of A and B inflatable liferafts.

160.051-9 Equipment required for Coastal Service inflatable

liferafts.

Subpart 160.051--Inflatable Liferafts for Domestic Service

Sec. 160.051-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval by the Coast

Guard of A, B, and Coastal Service inflatable liferafts for use only in

domestic service. These liferafts must comply with all of the

requirements for SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts in subpart 160.151

except as specified in this subpart.

Sec. 160.051-3 Definitions.

In this subpart, the term:

A or B liferaft means an inflatable liferaft that meets the

requirements prescribed in subpart 160.151 for a SOLAS A or SOLAS B

liferaft, respectively, except that the capacity is less than 6 persons

and the liferaft cannot contain SOLAS markings.

Coastal Service liferaft means a liferaft that does not meet the

all of the requirements prescribed in subpart 160.151 for a SOLAS A or

SOLAS B liferaft, but that instead meets the requirements of this

subpart and is approved for use on certain uninspected vessels under

subchapter C of this chapter.

Sec. 160.051-5 Design and performance of Coastal Service inflatable

liferafts.

To obtain Coast Guard approval, each Coastal Service inflatable

liferaft must comply with subpart 160.151, with the following

exceptions:

[[Page 25547]]

(a) Canopy requirements (Regulation III/38.1.5). The canopy may--

(1) Be of a type that is furled when the liferaft inflates and that

can be set in place by the occupants. A furled canopy must be secured

to the buoyancy tubes over 50 percent or more of the liferaft's

circumference;

(2) Be of an uninsulated, single-ply design; and

(3) Have an interior of any color.

(b) Viewing port (Regulation III/38.1.5.5). The liferaft need not

have the viewing port described in Regulation III/38.1.5.5.

(c) Rainwater collection (Regulation III/38.1.5.6). The liferaft

need not have the means of rainwater collection described in Regulation

III/38.1.5.6.

(d) Capacity (Regulation III/38.2.1). The carrying capacity must be

not less than four persons.

(e) Floor insulation (Regulation III/39.2.2). The floor may be

uninsulated.

(f) Boarding ramps (Regulation III/39.4.1). The liferaft need be

provided with boarding ramps only if the combined cross-section

diameter of the buoyancy chambers is greater than 500 mm (19.5 in).

(g) Stability (Regulation III/39.5.1). Each Coastal Service

inflatable liferaft must either meet the stability criteria in

Sec. 160.151-17(a) or be fitted with water-containing stability pockets

meeting the following requirements:

(1) The total volume of the pockets must be not less than 25

percent of the minimum required volume of the principal buoyancy

compartments of the liferaft.

(2) The pockets must be securely attached and evenly distributed

around the periphery of the exteri

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.