# Inflatable Liferafts

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-11897

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** May 9, 1997
- **Citation:** 62 FR 25525

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-11897. Public record. Not legal advice.