Marine Equipment on Board Vessels and Offshore Units or Facilities

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard proposes to revise regulations associated with the approval, carriage, and maintenance of certain safety equipment required on board vessels and offshore units or facilities. We are taking this action to align the regulations with the current industry practice and provide more transparent regulations for the regulated industry. These proposed revisions would eliminate outdated requirements, reduce inspection and testing requirements, and update standards incorporated by reference. Additionally, this project would remove obsolete sections and align conflicting sections with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.

DATES:

Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2020–0519 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. Make arrangements to view this material by calling the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information about this document, call or email Lieutenant Jon Taylor, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG–ENG–4), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1426, email Jon.T.Taylor@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

II. Abbreviations

III. Basis and Purpose

IV. Background

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

VI. Incorporation by Reference

VII. Regulatory Analyses

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Small Entities

C. Assistance for Small Entities

D. Collection of Information

E. Federalism

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Taking of Private Property

H. Civil Justice Reform

I. Protection of Children

J. Indian Tribal Governments

K. Energy Effects

L. Technical Standards

M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2020–0519 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using www.regulations.gov, email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. That web page also explains how to subscribe for email alerts that will notify you when comments are posted or if a final rule is published. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see the Department of Homeland Security's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting but we will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CG–BSX Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety

CG–ENG Coast Guard Office of Design and Engineering Standards

COMDTINST Commandant Instruction

COSPAS Space System for the Search of Vessels in Distress

DHS Department of Homeland Security

EPIRB Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FR Federal Register

IBR Incorporation by reference

IMO International Maritime Organization

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LSA Life-Saving Appliances

MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement

MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit

MSC Marine Safety Committee

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NRTL Nationally recognized testing laboratory

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular

OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PHS Public Health Service

RTCM Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services

SARSAT Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking

SCBA Self-contained breathing apparatus

§ Section

SME Subject matter expert

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

U.S.C. United States Code

III. Basis and Purpose

The statutory authority for these regulations can be found in Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 3306 and 3703. The authority to issue regulations, pursuant to these sections, is delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, the Secretary of DHS is required to prescribe necessary regulations to ensure safety of individuals and property on board vessels subject to inspection. This proposed rule would ensure the proper design, construction, alteration, repair, and operation of vessels subject to inspection.

Under 46 U.S.C. 3703, the Secretary is required to prescribe regulations for the design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of tank and cargo vessels that may be necessary for increased protection against hazards to life and property, navigation and vessel safety, and enhanced protection of the marine environment.

This proposed rule would revise titles 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter I, subchapters NN, and 46 CFR, chapter I, subchapters A, D, F, H, I, I–A, K, L, N, Q, R, T, U, and W. These subchapters are associated with approving, carrying, and maintaining certain safety equipment required on board vessels and offshore units or facilities. The proposed revisions in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would eliminate outdated requirements, reduce inspection and testing requirements, modify submission requirements for equipment approval to allow materials to be submitted electronically, and update standards incorporated by reference. Additionally, this proposed rule would remove numerous obsolete sections and update sections to bring them into compliance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and related regulations.

IV. Background

The Coast Guard conducted a comprehensive review of regulations regarding the approval, carriage, and maintenance of marine equipment on U.S.-flagged vessels. The Coast Guard continues to review regulations with the goals of updating the references to incorporated standards that have been modified, clarifying language, and, where possible, providing additional regulatory flexibility and to minimize the regulatory burden on the affected vessels, and removing obsolete rules to ensure marine equipment requirements are current with emerging technology and industry standards.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

In general, this proposed rule would make the following changes to various subchapters in titles 33 and 46 of the CFR:

(1) Modify equipment approval submission requirements to allow for materials to be submitted electronically to typeapproval@uscg.mil, instead of the existing requirement of paper submissions in triplicate;

(2) Remove obsolete regulations for pilot hoists that are no longer allowed on U.S.-flagged vessels;

(3) Allow vessel owners and operators to use a third party to test the properties and quality of their firefighting foam;

(4) Revise the requirements for pressure vacuum relief valves to align with international consensus standards;

(5) Update requirements for lifeboat and rescue boat releasing mechanisms on board mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities to allow for lifeboats that serve as rescue boats to carry lifeboat releasing mechanisms;

(6) Remove prescriptive design requirements for lifeboat, rescue boat, and liferaft winch limit switches and align requirements with the Life-Saving Appliances (LSA) Code;

(7) Remove a redundant flame-spread testing requirement for nonmetallic piping used in certain vessels;

(8) Revise the “end-for-ending” requirement for launching appliance falls (wire ropes) to align with SOLAS, which allows for a fall replacement interval of 5 years without end-for-ending;

(9) Change the interval for hydrostatic testing of all inert gas firefighting extinguishing system bottles to align with the hydrostatic testing intervals for carbon dioxide and Halon firefighting extinguishing systems. The interval would change from at least once every 5 or 10 years (depending on bottle size) to once every 12 years;

(10) Remove the Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA) approval requirement for self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs) because MSHA no longer certifies this type of equipment for marine use;

(11) Revise the standards of fire-resistant fiber-reinforced plastic resin used to manufacture survival craft and rescue boats to allow the use of additional international standards;

(12) Remove the requirement for Coast Guard approval of Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and codify the current policy in which the Coast Guard reviews test data, instruction manuals, drawings and specifications of the EPIRB and issues a letter to the manufacturer stating whether the EPIRB satisfies all Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) Recommended Standards. This aligns with the requirements as set out in 47 CFR 80.1061.

(13) Add an option for the use of fire detection systems as excess equipment for MODUs, and a grandfathering clause for fire extinguishers on board nautical school vessels;

(14) Make editorial changes to clarify language, correct typographical errors, and delete repetitive words;

(15) Update incorporations by reference (IBRs), remove outdated IBRs, and revise CFR cite references to the correct IBRs;

(16) Correct errors in fire extinguisher quantities and ratings from a previous rulemaking; and

(17) Clarify structural fire protection requirements for means of egress on 46 CFR subchapter K vessels.

Table 1 provides a list of the types of changes, summaries of the proposed changes, and the subparts affected by this proposed rule. Further explanation for each of these categories can be found after the table.

CFR References and Changes to IBRs

This rule proposes to delete references to outdated IBR material in regulation text, delete corresponding IBR titles and information listed in the centralized IBR section(s), correct improper IBR cites in regulatory text, and correct improper CFR references as outlined in table 1. See table 3 for additional information.

Editorial

Editorial changes in this proposed rule would clarify language, correct typographical errors, and delete repetitive language in various subchapters in titles 33 and 46 of the CFR as noted in table 1.

Electronic Submissions

Current regulations require manufacturers that produce marine safety equipment needing approval to mail their paper application and supporting documentation in triplicate. The requirement for submitting paper plans in triplicate allows the office reviewing the plans to mark the plans as “approved” and return one copy to the submitter, retain one copy in the office's files, and forward the third copy to the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI). However, in current practice, manufacturers submit their applications electronically via typeapproval@uscg.mil. When plans are submitted electronically, they can be stamped electronically and filed or distributed, as described above, without the need for printing or duplication. According to internal mail tracking data, in the last 5 years, 99.2 percent of all submissions related to applications for equipment approval were submitted electronically. This proposed rule would modify the submission requirements for equipment approval to codify the use of electronic submissions. The CFR sections listed in table 1 would be updated to include optional electronic submissions and remove requirements to submit multiple copies of plans or test reports. If a manufacturer desires a stamped hard copy of plans, the hard copy plans may be submitted in triplicate, or accompanied by electronic plans, so that the copies may be filed or distributed as described above.

End-for-Ending Launching Appliance Falls

Currently, 46 CFR 109.301(j) and 199.190(j) require that falls for launching appliances be replaced when necessary due to deterioration or at least every 5 years, whichever is earlier. Additionally, the falls must be turned end-for-end not more than 30 months after installation (the phrase, “turned end-for-end” means rotating the wire ropes so the ropes wear evenly). These regulations allow an alternative to the end-for-ending requirements; however, in that case, the falls must be replaced at least every 4 years. This rule proposes to remove the “end-for-ending” requirement for these launching appliance falls and require falls to be replaced at least every 5 years to align with SOLAS Chapter III, which allows for a fall replacement interval of 5 years without end-for-ending. This proposed rule would keep the requirement to replace falls when they show signs of deterioration. It has been Coast Guard policy per Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) M16000.7B, USCG Marine Safety Manual Vol. II B1 P.3.a(1)(c) that falls may be replaced in 5-year intervals if they are serviced in accordance with SOLAS Chapter III, Regulation 20.4.

EPIRB

Section 161.011–5 of title 46 of the CFR requires Coast Guard approval of EPRIBs. However, the FCC in its “Maritime Communications” final rule (68 Federal Register (FR) 46974, August 7, 2003), changed the approval process for EPIRBs in 47 CFR 80.1061. This update, which is still in effect, required FCC approval for EPIRBs, but required the Coast Guard to accept EPIRBs compliant to COSPAS, SARSAT, and RTCM standards before the FCC's review. Currently, the Coast Guard issues a letter stating compliance with these standards and does not issue approval for EPIRBs. This rule proposes to remove the requirement for Coast Guard approval of EPIRBs and align the Coast Guard's responsibility in title 46 of the CFR with the process in title 47 of the CFR.

Equipment Deletion

This rule proposes to delete references to pilot hoists as approved equipment in 46 CFR subpart 163.002 by removing this subpart from the CFR. In 2010, an International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution of the Marine Safety Committee (MSC), Resolution MSC.308(88), banned the use of pilot hoists on SOLAS vessels and updated SOLAS Chapter V requirements accordingly. Further, pilots in the United States do not use pilot hoists to embark a vessel. There are currently no Coast Guard-approved pilot hoists and there has not been a Coast Guard-approved pilot hoist since 2000. This proposed rule would also remove references to pilot hoists in 46 CFR subchapters D, H, I, I–A, and U.

Fire Protection and Other Conforming Amendments

Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 7–80, Use of Fire Detection Systems Which are Not Approved Under 46 CFR 161.002, allows the use of non-approved fire detection systems as excess equipment on board vessels if the system is listed and labeled by an NRTL. This proposed rule would add the allowance for a fire detection system listed and labeled by an NRTL to be used as excess equipment for 46 CFR subchapter I–A aligned with the guidance set forth in NVIC 7–80.

Also, the 2016 final rule, “Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment” (81 FR 48219, July 22, 2016), updated the design and approval standards for fire extinguishing equipment by changing the portable fire extinguisher ratings system from a weight-based rating system to the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) performance-based rating system. That 2016 rule added a grandfathering clause to several sections in titles 33 and 46 of the CFR; however, this clause was mistakenly left out for public nautical school ships and sailing school ships in 46 CFR subchapter R. This proposed rule would correct the oversight.

The previously mentioned “Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment” rule also updated the portable fire extinguisher ratings system throughout title 46 of the CFR. In implementing that complex rule, there were errors in extinguisher quantities and ratings in 46 CFR subchapters H, I, K, and R as listed in table 1. This proposed rule would correct those errors.

Foam Testing

Tank vessels and MODUs fitted with deck foam systems are required by 46 CFR 31.10–18(c) and 46 CFR 107.235(b)(4) to submit a representative sample of foam concentrate to the foam manufacturer to test foam gravity, pH, percentage of water dilution, and solid content. There are numerous laboratories other than those owned by foam manufacturers that can test firefighting foam concentrates. This proposed rule would add an option to allow third-party testing for firefighting foam concentrate. Allowing third parties that are accepted by the Coast Guard to test firefighting foam concentrates could be less burdensome to the vessel owners and operators and provide a level of safety similar to the current requirements that the manufacturer of the firefighting foam be the sole tester. Additionally, using a third party to test the properties of firefighting foam would increase the number of companies available to test firefighting foam properties. This proposed rule would also align with SOLAS requirements and codify CG–ENG Policy Letter 01–20, Third Party Foam Concentration Analysis.

Hydrostatic Testing for Inert Gas Cylinders

This proposed rule would change the interval for hydrostatic testing of all inert gas fire extinguishing system bottles in 46 CFR 147.66 from at least once in every 5 or 10 years (depending on bottle size) to once in every 12 years. This change would align the hydrostatic testing intervals for inert gas fire extinguishing system bottles with the intervals for carbon dioxide and halon fire extinguishing system bottles in 46 CFR 147.65 and 147.67, respectively. The Coast Guard is not aware of any data or studies that demonstrate the need for a shorter hydrostatic testing interval for inert gas extinguishing system bottles compared to carbon dioxide extinguishing system bottles. Further, this proposed change would reduce servicing costs for vessel owners or operators without increasing risk.

MODU Lifesaving Appliance Release Mechanism

Per 46 CFR 108.570(c)(3), single fall lifeboats, which also serve as rescue boats on board MODUs and OCS facilities, are required to have an automatic release mechanism approved under approval series 46 CFR subpart 160.170. This proposed rule would add an option in 46 CFR 108.570(c)(3) to allow lifeboats also serving as a rescue boat to have lifeboat release mechanisms instead of rescue boat release mechanisms. This would allow owners and operators of MODUs and OCS facilities the choice to select from a broader range of equipment options available to non-SOLAS lifeboat and rescue boat-releasing mechanisms. This change would align this regulation with a similar regulation in 46 CFR 199.160(d)(2). There is no reason to treat lifeboats that also serve as rescue boats on offshore units differently than those units installed on board ships.

Nonmetallic Piping

Title 46 CFR 116.405(f) requires that nonmetallic (that is, plastic) piping in concealed spaces of small passenger vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapter K be tested under the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E84 standard and meet a certain set of performance criteria. However, plastic piping is already required to be approved by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR subpart 164.141. The testing standard to gain this approval is a different test standard than the ASTM E84 test. Requiring two different testing standards is redundant and provides no additional benefits, adds confusion by preventing approved piping from being used, and increases the cost for pipe manufacturers and purchasers. The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the requirement to test nonmetallic pipes to ASTM E84 and clarify that if nonmetallic piping is used in concealed spaces, it must be approved under approval series 46 CFR 164.141.

Pressure-Vacuum Relief Valves

Pressure-vacuum relief valves for tank vessels required in 46 CFR 32.20–5 and 39.2011(b) must be Coast Guard-approved to approval series 46 CFR subpart 162.017. Currently, in 46 CFR subpart 162.017, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 15364 is incorporated by reference and is an alternative standard to the prescriptive requirements in 46 CFR subpart 162.017 for approval of pressure-vacuum relief valves. This proposed rule would amend 46 CFR 39.2011(b) to allow ISO 15364 valves, or valves otherwise accepted by foreign-flag Administrations, as acceptable alternatives to the type-approval requirements of 46 CFR subpart 162.017. This proposed rule would better align our regulations for pressure-vacuum relief valves with SOLAS requirements. This proposed rule would also amend 46 CFR 162.017–3(g) to replace the words “overhauling and repairs” with “maintenance,” 46 CFR 162.017–3(n) to correct an editorial error, and 46 CFR 162.017–6 to clarify the application process.

Resins for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats

Manufacturers of fiber-reinforced plastic survival craft and rescue boats who seek Coast Guard equipment approval are required to use resin accepted in 46 CFR subpart 164.120. This rule proposes to revise the regulations for survival craft and rescue boats (46 CFR subparts 160.135 and 160.156) to incorporate by reference MSC/Circular 1006, “Guidelines on Fire Test Procedures for Acceptance of Fire-Retardant Materials for the Construction of Lifeboats,” an international standard for fire retardant resins that is already incorporated by reference in 46 CFR subpart 164.120. This proposed rule would delete 46 CFR subpart 164.120 and add a review of fire-retardant resins in 46 CFR subparts 160.135 and 160.156. The Coast Guard would no longer maintain a list of accepted resins. Currently, there are 15 standards (4 ISO and 11 ASTM) incorporated by reference in subpart 164.120 that are out of date. There is no indication that using the standards for resins specified in the regulations, instead of other standards, is necessary for safely constructing fiberglass-reinforced plastic survival craft and rescue boats.

Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus

All vessels regulated in 46 CFR subchapters D, K, I, I–A, L, R, and U are required to carry an SCBA as a part of a firefighting or emergency outfit. Currently, the regulations require these SCBAs to hold a MSHA approval. However, MSHA has not approved this equipment since 1995, when the Public Health Service (PHS) published the “Respiratory Protective Devices” final rule (60 FR 30336, June 8, 1995). This proposed rule would delete the obsolete requirement for SCBAs on inspected vessels to be approved by MSHA and would align title 46 of the CFR with MSHA and PHS regulations.

Stairwell Structural Fire Protection and Means of Egress

The “Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment” rule added an option for inspected domestic vessels to meet either the structural fire protection requirements of SOLAS Chapter II–2, or the structural protection requirements found in the subchapter under which the vessel is inspected. The 2016 rule was intended to allow any U.S.-flagged vessel to be built to the requirements in SOLAS Chapter II–2, even if it is not certificated to SOLAS, which allows greater flexibility in design. However, the Coast Guard believes the 2016 rule used ambiguous language regarding the means of egress requirements for 46 CFR subchapter K vessels that used the SOLAS Chapter II–2 option for structural fire protection. This proposed rule would add language to clarify the means of egress requirements if subchapter K vessels use the SOLAS Chapter II–2 structural fire protection requirements for a design basis. This proposed rule would also harmonize stairways and ladders that meet SOLAS's structural and nonstructural fire protection requirements with U.S. design, structural, and nonstructural fire protection requirements.

Winches and Davits

This proposed rule would remove prescriptive design requirements of safety devices for lifeboat, rescue boat, and liferaft winches, and align the safety device requirement with the LSA Code. Currently, 46 CFR 160.115–7(b)(6)(vi) requires that winches for survival craft or rescue boats have a limit switch on each davit arm to prevent damage to the launching equipment. However, requiring one limit switch for each davit arm is inconsistent with the IMO's LSA Code. The Coast Guard is proposing to remove this prescriptive design requirement and align the safety device requirement with the LSA Code. This proposed rule would allow launching appliance manufacturers to use different technologies to achieve the safety performance criteria of the LSA Code.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

Material proposed for IBR appears in 46 CFR 39.1005, 39.2011, 160.135–5, 160.135–7, 160.156–5, and 160.156–7. The standards are summarized in section VIII. L. Technical Standards, of this preamble. For information about how to view this material, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Copies of the material are reasonably available from the sources listed in §§ 39.1005, 160.135–5, and 160.156–5. The following standards have already been approved for the locations where they appear in the proposed amendatory text and no change to the incorporation by reference is proposed: SOLAS, Chapter II–2, NFPA 2001, and FTP Code. Before publishing a final rule, we will submit this material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the IBR.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this proposed rule. The Coast Guard estimates this proposed rule would have no additional costs. The Coast Guard estimates this proposed rule would result in additional cost savings to industry with no reduction or change in safety benefits. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the regulatory analysis that follows.

The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the requirements in 33 CFR subchapter NN, and 46 CFR subchapters A, D, F, H, I, I–A, K, L, N, Q, R, T, U, and W. These subchapters are associated with approving, carrying, and maintaining certain safety equipment required on board vessels, offshore units, deepwater ports, and recreational vessels. These proposed revisions would eliminate outdated requirements, update standards incorporated by reference, and reduce the frequency of inspection and testing requirements for foam fire-extinguishing systems, inert gas cylinders, and lifeboat wire falls. Additionally, this proposed rule would remove obsolete sections and align conflicting sections with codes associated with the SOLAS of 1974 and the SOLAS Protocol of 1978: articles, annexes, and certificates. We expect the cost savings of this proposed rule to be associated with three items: hydrostatic testing of inert gas bottles, testing firefighting foam concentrates for fixed foam fire extinguishing systems, and replacing the fall wire ropes associated with lifeboats. Table 2 provides a summary of the impacts of the proposed rule.

Regulatory Changes of the Proposed Rule by CFR Subparts and Sections

Table 3 presents proposed regulatory changes with an assessment of the economic impact of the changes proposed to titles 33 and 46 of the CFR. The table shows the category of each proposed change, proposed affected CFR subparts and sections and descriptions of their changes, and whether there would be cost savings or no economic impact from the changes.

Affected Population

For this proposed rule, we obtained the affected population of vessels and the items they carry primarily from our Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database and from supplemental information provided to us by subject matter experts (SMEs) in CG–ENG. The affected population is the total number of U.S.-flagged vessels carrying foam fire extinguishing systems, lifeboat wire falls, and inert gas bottles for extinguishing fires. We estimate the total number of affected vessels as 581, made up of 132 vessels carrying foam fire systems, 14 vessels carrying inert gas bottles, and 435 vessels carrying lifeboats. Vessels can be carrying more than one type of equipment at a time, so there is some overlap in the number of vessels that, for example, carry a foam fire extinguishing system and lifeboats. For the purposes of our cost analysis, however, we assume there is no overlap.

Cost Analysis

This proposed rule would have a cost savings associated with reducing the maintenance intervals for hydrostatic testing of inert gas bottles and lifeboat wire falls, and expanding testing parties for fixed-foam fire extinguishing systems.

Regulatory Baseline

To obtain the cost savings associated with this proposed rule, we first calculated the current costs to mariners for firefighting foam testing, hydrostatic testing of inert gas bottles, and lifeboat wire falls. Then, we compared the current and the proposed costs to obtain the cost savings. The baseline costs for these items are as follows:

Foam Testing

Owners and operators of vessels that carry foam fire extinguishing systems are required in 46 CFR 31.10–18(c) and 46 CFR 107.235(b)(4) to submit a representative sample of firefighting foam concentrate, if carried, to the manufacturer to test for specific properties such as gravity, pH, percentage of water dilution, and solid content. Currently, the frequency of this testing is twice in a 5-year period. From information obtained in MISLE and discussions with SMEs, there are a total of 132 vessels carrying foam fire systems in our affected population because each vessel carries 1 foam fire extinguishing system on board.

Based on information we obtained from a Coast Guard-approved third-party company that tests foam fire extinguishing systems and from consultations with SMEs, the cost to perform the test is about $150, which includes the cost for a vessel owner or operator to submit a foam sample to a manufacturer for testing. We estimate the total annual undiscounted cost for foam testing to be approximately $7,920. We calculate this by assuming that in any given year, 40 percent (or 2 divided by 5 to represent the testing interval of 2 tests every 5 years) of the 132 foam systems require testing. We then multiply the result (132 × 0.40) by the cost per test ($150). Table 4 presents the baseline total undiscounted cost for fire extinguishing foam testing.

Hydrostatic Testing for Inert Gas Cylinders

Under 46 CFR subpart 147.66, vessel owners or operators for vessels that carry inert gas fire extinguishing bottles must have the bottles hydrostatically tested at least once every 10 years for bottles with an equivalent water capacity of 125 pounds or less, or 5 years for larger bottles with an equivalent water capacity of greater than 125 pounds (the water capacity of a bottle is used to obtain the volumetric size of the bottle for testing purposes because testing cannot be performed when the bottle contains an inert gas). This is necessary to ensure the integrity of the bottles. The Coast Guard contacted a company that hydrostatically tests inert gas bottles to obtain the costs associated with testing and discharging these bottles, recharging the bottles with an inert gas, and delivering the bottles to a vessel when the testing is completed.

The cost to discharge and test the bottle, rebuild the valve on the bottle, and recharge the bottle with an inert gas is about $1,220–a lump-sum amount provided to us by the testing company. The pickup and delivery costs are about $600. The company we contacted for this cost estimate provided a lump-sum figure, which includes the time it takes to drive to a vessel, disconnect the bottles, load the bottles onto the delivery vehicle, and transport the bottles to the testing facility and back to the vessel.

Therefore, the total cost a testing company charges a vessel owner or operator is about $1,820 ($1,220 + $600) to hydrostatically test inert gas bottles. Based on MISLE data and discussions with SMEs, the total number of inert gas bottles for the 14 vessels that have inert gas bottles on board is approximately 169, or approximately 12 bottles per vessel. As a result, the testing cost once in a 10-year period is about $307,580 (169 bottles × $1,820). We estimate the total annual undiscounted cost for inert gas testing to be approximately $30,758. We calculate this by assuming that 10 percent (or 1 divided by 10 to represent the testing interval of 1 test every 10 years) of the 169 inert gas cylinders require testing over a 10-year period. We then multiply the result (169 × 0.10) by the cost per test ($1,820). Table 5 presents the baseline total undiscounted cost for inert gas cylinders.

End-for-Ending Launching Appliance Falls

U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators are required to replace lifeboat launching appliance falls every 5 years according to 46 CFR 109.301 and 199.190. According to current regulations, these falls (wire ropes) must be turned end-for-end not more than 30 months, or 2.5 years, after installation during a 5-year period (the phrase “turned end-for-end” means rotating the wire ropes so the ropes wear evenly). There are two falls for each lifeboat and there are two lifeboats per vessel. Using the MISLE database, we identified 435 U.S.-flagged vessels that carry lifeboats. Each affected vessel has 2 lifeboats on board; therefore, we estimate there are 870 lifeboats that have fall wire ropes.

For cost savings purposes, we assume that each lifeboat has two fall wire ropes. The cost to turn two falls end-for-end on each launching appliance is about $2,000, based on information provided to us from a company that performs this function. Because there are 2 lifeboats per vessel, the population of lifeboat wire rope falls is 870. The total annual cost to turn falls end-for-end 2.5 years after installation for 870 lifeboat wire falls is about $348,000. We calculate this by assuming that in any given year 20 percent (or 2 divided by 10 to represent the turning interval of 1 turn every 5 years) of the 870 lifeboat wire falls require turning. We then multiply the result (870 × 0.20) by the cost per turning ($2,000). Table 6 presents the baseline total undiscounted cost for lifeboat wire falls.

We estimate the baseline total undiscounted cost to owners and operators of U.S.-flagged vessels for all three items to be about $3,866,780 ($79,200 + $3,480,000 + $307,580) (see table 7).

This proposed rule would generate cost savings as follows:

Cost Savings

The cost savings would originate from eliminating outdated requirements, reducing inspection and testing requirements, and updating standards. The cost savings of this proposed rule are associated with three items: testing concentrates for fixed foam fire systems, hydrostatic testing for inert gas bottles, and eliminating the end-for-ending requirement for launching appliance falls (wire ropes) when replaced at an interval of 5 years.

Foam Testing

There are numerous laboratories, other than those owned by foam manufacturers, that can test foam concentrates used for firefighting. Allowing a Coast Guard-accepted independent laboratory to test foam concentrates provides a similar level of safety to the current requirements and may be less burdensome to the vessel owners or operators. Additionally, the use of a third party to test the properties of the firefighting foam would allow for increased availability in the number of companies who can test firefighting foam systems.

In this proposed rule, a Coast Guard-accepted independent laboratory, in place of a manufacturer, would be permitted to perform the foam firefighting concentrates test. We estimate a charge for this service would be about $115 per system. This would result in a total annual cost of $6,072. We calculate this by assuming that, in any given year, 40 percent (or 2 divided by 5 to represent the testing interval of 2 tests every 5 years) of the 132 foam systems require testing. We then multiply the result (132 × 0.40) by the projected cost per test ($115) (see table 8).

We compared the current unit cost for firefighting foam testing of $150 when performed by a manufacturer with the projected unit cost of $115 when performed by a third party. We estimate the unit cost savings to be $35 ($150—$115). As we presented earlier in this analysis, the baseline and the projected costs for firefighting foam testing are $7,920 and $6,072, respectively (see tables 4 and 7). Therefore, the cost savings per year would be $1,848 ($7,920—$6,072), and the total cost savings for the firefighting foam testing part of this proposed rule would be about $18,480 ($79,200—$60,720), undiscounted (see table 9).

Hydrostatic Testing for Inert Gas Cylinders

We are proposing to change the hydrostatic testing interval of all inert gas firefighting extinguishing system bottles from the current requirement of once every 10 years to at least once every 12 years, which aligns with the hydrostatic testing intervals for carbon dioxide and halon firefighting extinguishing system bottles in 46 CFR 147.65.

The cost savings would be from less-frequent testing of inert gas bottles. For vessels with inert gas bottles less than 125 pounds, the test interval would change from at least once in every 10 years to at least once in every 12 years. For large bottles with inert gas bottles equal or greater than 125 pounds, the test interval would change from once in every 5 years to once in every 12 years. We found no bottles that had a capacity of more than 125 pounds of equivalent water capacity in our population; therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, the relevant change in testing interval is from once every 10 to once every 12 years. We estimate the total annual cost of hydrostatic testing for inert gas cylinders would be approximately $25,632. We calculate this by assuming that in any given year 8.3 percent (or 1 divided by 12 to represent the testing interval of 1 test every 12 years) of the 169 inert gas cylinders would require testing. We then multiply the result (169 × 0.083) by the cost per test ($1,820) (see table 10). As a result, vessel owners and operators would save $51,260 ($307,580−$256,320) in testing costs over a 10-year period (see table 11).

End-for-Ending Launching Appliance Falls

The Coast Guard proposes to revise the “end-for-ending” requirement for lifeboat launching appliance falls to align with SOLAS, which allows for a fall replacement interval of 5 years without turning the wires end-for-end. Current regulations require that falls must be replaced in 5-year intervals if they are serviced in accordance with IMO Circular MSC.1/Circ.1206 (Rev.1) and MSC.402(96).

The cost saving would be from eliminating the requirement to turn the ropes end-for-end every 2.5 years over a 10-year period of analysis. This would result in cost savings for vessel owners and operators of about $3,480,000 for the 435 U.S.-flagged vessels that have lifeboats on board. See table 12.

Table 13 shows the total cost savings for owners and operators of U.S.-flagged vessels to be about $3 million, undiscounted, over a 10-year period of analysis. We estimate the total present value or discounted cost savings of the proposed rule over a 10-year period of analysis to be between $2.5 and $3 million, at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be about $354,974 at each discount rate.

Electronic Submission

Current regulations require manufacturers that produce marine safety equipment needing approval to mail their paper application and supporting documentation in triplicate. The requirement for submitting paper plans in triplicate allows the office reviewing them to mark the approved plans and return one copy to the submitter, retain one copy in our files, and to forward the third copy to the cognizant OCMI. It is current industry practice for manufacturers to submit their applications electronically, get them stamped electronically and distributed as described above. The Coast Guard is providing an option for submitting plans electronically. There are several places in the CFR where we are removing the “in triplicate” requirement for submissions for equipment approval if the manufacturer wishes to submit plans electronically (see the table 3 for the affected CFR sections). It is current industry practice for manufacturers to submit their applications electronically. According to data from the Coast Guard's Work Management System, 99.2 percent of all submissions related to applications for equipment approval were submitted electronically over the last 5 years. So, this proposed rule would add an option for manufacturers to submit their applications and type approval materials electronically to codify the current industry practice. Therefore, there would be no change in the hourly burden estimate and no impact to the information collection request.

Benefits

We expect this proposed rule would generate qualitative benefits. The proposed rule would reduce confusion and provide flexibility to industry by allowing third-party testing for certain safety equipment required on board vessels and offshore units or facilities. It would provide regulatory clarity by removing obsolete regulations, such as the MSHA approval for SCBAs for firefighters, and through updating standards to align with SOLAS.

Alternatives

Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would retain the status quo and would not incorporate by reference industry standards into the CFR. This alternative would not align conflicting sections of the CFR with SOLAS and related regulations. Furthermore, it would not reduce the burden to industry. This alternative would not allow the Coast Guard to perform retrospective review and updates to the regulations. We rejected this alternative because it would not generate cost savings for the marine industry, nor update standards in 33 CFR chapter I or 46 CFR chapter I.

Alternative 2: Policy Over Regulation

Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would issue a NVIC or policy letter instead of proposing changes through an NPRM. As voluntary documents, neither NVICs nor policy letters are legally enforceable by the agency. A NVIC or a policy letter would not update the CFR, and the process of obtaining an equivalency test still would be needed. The Coast Guard rejected this alternative because industry would not benefit from current references and the public would not be given the opportunity to comment on current industry practice and standards.

Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative

With this alternative, the Coast Guard would revise the regulations associated with 33 CFR chapter I and 46 CFR chapter I. This is the preferred alternative because it would update current references and align conflicting sections of the CFR with SOLAS and related regulations, eliminate outdated standards, and reduce inspection and testing requirements. This alternative also allows the Coast Guard to perform retrospective reviews and updates to the regulations.

This alternative would also reduce the workload for vessel owners and operators by extending testing or maintenance intervals or expanding the range of allowable testers for three items: inert gas bottles, foam fire systems, and lifeboat launching appliances falls (wire ropes). In turn, this alternative would generate cost savings for vessel owners and operators and manufacturers of marine equipment. We presented the cost saving impacts of this alternative earlier in this analysis.

B. Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

We expect this proposed rule to generate cost savings to vessel owners and operators who own vessels that carry lifeboats, bottles of inert gas, and foam fire systems for extinguishing fires. The cost savings would be the result of reducing the maintenance intervals for hydrostatic testing for inert gas bottles and testing and maintaining lifeboat falls (wire ropes). The cost savings associated with vessel owners and operators who own vessels that carry foam fire systems for extinguishing fires would be from allowing a third party to test the firefighting foam concentrates.

Using the Coast Guard's MISLE database, we found this proposed rule would affect 390 companies that own 531 distinct vessels. Of the 390 companies, 235 companies did not have company names in our MISLE database; therefore, we assumed these 235 companies to be small entities. We found the remaining 155 companies own 296 vessels. Based on publicly available information from the online database “ReferenceUSAgov” and other online searches of companies, we found revenue or employee information on 74 of the 155 companies. Using the Small Business Administration's “Table of Size Standards” and the North American Industry Classification System codes listed in the table, we identified 51 of the 74 companies to be small entities. We determined the other 23 companies were not small entities. We did not find information on the remaining 81 companies; therefore, we assumed these companies were small entities.

Overall, we assume there are a total of 132 small entities (51 + 81) out of 155 companies for which were named in the MISLE database, or approximately 85 percent. If we add the number of small entities that we could confirm are small based on revenue or employee information (51) to the number of companies without company information (235 + 81), we assume the total number of small entities to be 367 out of the 390 companies affected by this proposed rule.

For cost savings purposes, we needed to differentiate the vessels that have different combinations of the equipment on board. MISLE's database offers data on company names, vessels, and equipment types. From MISLE's data and our small entity analysis, we found that there are six different combinations of equipment that would affect the savings for each vessel (see table 14). As a result, the affected small entities overlap and are not exclusive throughout this analysis.

Based on MISLE's data and our small entity analysis discussed earlier, we determined that the number of small entities would be 367. Out of 367 small entities, we found that 68 small entities own vessels that carry only foam fire systems. As described in the regulatory analysis above, we estimate the cost savings for foam fire systems to be about $35 for each vessel, and we assume the foam fire systems would be tested four times during the analysis period. These small entities would save about $952 annually per vessel (68 small entities × $35 savings per vessel × 0.4 systems tested per year), or about $14 per entity ($952 ÷ 68 small entities).

Using MISLE's data and the small entity analysis, we identified 251 small entities that own vessels carrying lifeboats that have fall wire ropes. Each small entity would save about $800 annually per vessel it owns (0.2 turns per year × $2,000 cost per turn × 2 lifeboats per vessel).

Based on MISLE's database, we found that only eight small entities own vessels carrying only inert gas bottles; there are 58 inert gas bottles on these vessels. As presented in the regulatory analysis above, the annual cost savings on inert gas tests would be $30 [($1,820 (cost savings per inert gas test) ÷ 10 years−$1,820 (cost savings per inert gas test) ÷ 12 years) = $30], and the cost savings for the 8 entities that would be $1,740 [58 (number of inert gas bottles) × $30 (annual cost savings per inert gas bottle)]. These 8 small entities would save, on average, about $218 ($1,740 ÷ 8) annually per entity per vessel.

Using MISLE's data and the small entity analysis, we identified 36 small entities that own vessels carrying foam fire systems and lifeboats. As presented in the previous paragraphs, the annual cost savings per entity for the foam fire systems would be $14 and the annual cost saving per entity for fall wire ropes would be $800. Therefore, we estimate these 36 small entities would save about $814 ($14 + $800) annually per entity per vessel.

Using MISLE's data and the small entity analysis described earlier, we identified two small entities that own vessels carrying inert gas bottles and lifeboats that have fall wire ropes that need to be turned periodically. As presented in the previous paragraphs, the annual cost savings for these 2 entities that own vessels carrying inert gas bottles would be $180 [6 (number of inert gas bottles carried on board vessels for both entities) × $30 (annual cost savings per inert gas bottle) = $180] and the annual cost savings for these 2 entities on fall wire ropes would be $1,600 [2 (number of entities) × $800 (cost saving per entity for fall wire ropes) = $1,600]. Therefore, the annual cost savings for these 2 entities would be $1,780 ($180 + $1,600) and these 2 small entities would save each, on average, about $890 ($1,780 ÷2).

Lastly, based on MISLE's data and the small entity analysis we presented previously, we identified two small entities that carry all three items. The annual cost savings for these 2 entities that own vessels carrying inert gas bottles would be $3,000 [100 (number of inert gas bottles carried on board vessels for both entities) × $30 (annual cost savings per inert gas bottle) = $3,000]; the annual cost savings for these 2 entities for fall wire ropes would be $1,600 [2 (number of entities) × $800 (cost saving per fall wire ropes) = $1,600]; and the annual cost savings for these 2 entities for foam fire systems would be $28 [2 (number of entities) × $14 (cost savings per foam fire systems) = $28]. Therefore, the annual cost savings for these 2 entities would be $4,628 ($3,000 + $1,600 + $28), and we estimate these 2 small entities would save, on average, about $2,314 ($4,628 ÷ 2 entities) annually per entity per vessel.

Table 14 shows the cost savings for small entities with each of the six different combinations of equipment described in the previous paragraphs.

From these 6 different combinations, the range of the annual proposed cost savings that we estimate for small entities per vessel in this analysis is between $14 and $2,314, and the total proposed annual cost savings for the small entities would be about $239,208. Table 15 shows the cost savings per revenue for the small entities for which we had revenue information.

Using MISLE's data, we found that 51 small entities, where we found revenue and employee information, own 92 vessels. Therefore, each small entity owns, on average, two vessels. Multiplying the cost savings per entity per vessel (see table 15) by the number of vessels owned by each entity or 2, yielded the following cost savings per entity: $28 for foam testing ($14 × 2 vessels per entity = $28); $1,600 for lifeboat wire falls ($800 × 2 vessels per entity = $1,600); $436 for inert gas testing ($218 × 2 vessels per entity = $436); $1,628 for foam testing and lifeboats wire falls ($814 × 2 vessels per entity = $1,628); and $1,780 for lifeboat wire falls and inert gas testing ($890 × 2 vessels per entity = $1,780). For each of the 51 small entities with known revenue, the average annual cost savings per equipment type per small entity would be less than 1 percent of annual revenue. Based on this analysis, we found that 100 percent of the small entities with known revenues that would be impacted by this proposed rule (all 51 entities) would have a cost savings that is less than 1 percent of their annual revenue. The Coast Guard's economic analysis concluded that these changes would generate cost savings and would not impose a burden on any entities affected by this proposed rule.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–121, we offer to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

D. Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no new or revised collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.

E. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.

It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703 (involving design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels) and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) (finding that the states are foreclosed from regulating tank vessels); see also Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157 (1978) (State regulation is preempted where “the scheme of federal regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it [or where] the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject” (citations omitted)). Because this proposed rule involves approving, carrying, and maintaining certain safety equipment required on board vessels and offshore units or facilities, it is part of a pervasive scheme of Federal regulation that forecloses regulation by the States. Because the States may not regulate within this field, this proposed rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132.

While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This proposed rule uses the following technical and voluntary consensus standards: ASTM D975–14, IMO MSC Circ. 1006, and ISO 15364. The proposed sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in §§ 39.1005, 160.135–5, 160.156–5, 160.171–3, and 160.174–3.

These standards provide internationally accepted and recognized parameters that equipment, material, etc. must meet to ensure its safety, proper usage, and preservation on the seas. The standards that would be incorporated were developed by either the ASTM, IMO, or ISO, which are voluntary consensus standard-setting organizations.

One ASTM standard would be incorporated by reference in this rulemaking: ASTM D975–14, “Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils” (July 30, 2014). This ASTM specification classifies grades of diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of diesel engines. As incorporated, it would define the grade of fuel necessary to perform a test for oil resistance.

One IMO standard would be incorporated by reference in this rulemaking: IMO MSC/Circular.1006 “Guidelines on Fire Test Procedures for Acceptance of Fire-Retardant Materials for the Construction of Lifeboats” (adopted on June 8, 2001). This test procedure is used for the acceptance of fire-retardant and flame-resistant materials used for the construction of lifeboats, which are required to be fire-retardant by the International Life-saving Code.

One ISO standard would be incorporated by reference in this rulemaking: ISO 15364:2021(E) (February 2021)—“Ships and marine technology—Pressure-vacuum valves for cargo tanks and devices to prevent the passage of flame into cargo tanks.” This international standard specifies the minimum requirements for performance and testing of pressure-vacuum relief valves, with emphasis on selection of materials, internal finish, and surface requirements for pressure-vacuum relief valves installed on cargo tanks in tankers.

Consistent with incorporation by reference provisions in 1 CFR part 51, this material is reasonably available. Interested persons have access to it through their normal course of business; can purchase it from the organizations identified in 46 CFR 39.1005, 160.135–5, 160.156–5, 160.171–3, and 160.174–3; or may view a copy using the methods identified in those sections.

If you disagree with our analysis of these voluntary consensus standards or are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply but are not listed, please send a comment explaining your disagreement or identifying additional standards to the docket using one of the methods under ADDRESSES .

M. Environment

We have analyzed this proposed rule under DHS Management Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under paragraphs L52, L54, and L57 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L52 pertains to regulations concerning vessel safety standards; Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations which are editorial and procedural; and Paragraph L57 pertains to regulations concerning manning, documentation, admeasurement, inspection, and equipping of vessels.

This proposed rule involves revising regulations associated with the approval, carriage, and maintenance of certain safety equipment required on board vessels and offshore units or facilities. Some of these proposed revisions are editorial or procedural actions that would eliminate outdated requirements, reduce inspection and testing requirements, update standards incorporated by reference, remove obsolete sections, and align conflicting sections with codes associated with SOLAS. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 149

• Fire prevention
• Harbors
• Marine safety
• Navigation (water)
• Occupational safety and health

46 CFR Part 2

• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Vessels

46 CFR Part 31

• Cargo vessels
• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 32

• Cargo vessels
• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Navigation (water)
• Occupational safety and health
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Seamen

46 CFR Part 34

• Cargo vessels
• Fire prevention
• Marine safety

46 CFR Part 35

• Cargo vessels
• Marine safety
• Navigation (water)
• Occupational safety and health
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Seamen

46 CFR Part 39

• Cargo vessels
• Fire prevention
• Hazardous materials transportation
• Incorporation by reference
• Marine safety
• Occupational safety and health
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 56

• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Vessels

46 CFR Part 76

• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Passenger vessels

46 CFR Part 77

• Marine safety
• Navigation (water)
• Passenger vessels

46 CFR Part 95

• Cargo vessels
• Fire prevention
• Marine safety

46 CFR Part 96

• Cargo vessels
• Marine safety
• Navigation (water)

46 CFR Part 105

• Cargo vessels
• Fishing vessels
• Hazardous materials transportation
• Marine safety
• Petroleum
• Seamen

46 CFR Part 107

• Marine safety
• Oil and gas exploration
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Vessels

46 CFR Part 108

• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Occupational safety and health
• Oil and gas exploration
• Vessels

46 CFR Part 109

• Marine safety
• Occupational safety and health
• Oil and gas exploration
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Vessels

46 CFR Part 115

• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Passenger vessels
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 116

• Fire prevention
• Incorporation by reference
• Marine safety
• Passenger vessels
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Seamen

46 CFR Part 118

• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Passenger vessels
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 132

• Cargo vessels
• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 147

• Hazardous materials transportation
• Incorporation by reference
• Labeling
• Marine safety
• Packaging and containers
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 159

• Business and industry
• Laboratories
• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 160

• Incorporation by reference
• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 161

• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 162

• Fire prevention
• Incorporation by reference
• Marine safety
• Oil pollution
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 163

• Marine safety

46 CFR Part 164

• Fire prevention
• Incorporaton by reference
• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 167

• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Schools
• Seamen
• Vessels

46 CFR Part 169

• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Schools
• Vessels

46 CFR Part 181

• Fire prevention
• Marine safety
• Passenger vessels
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

46 CFR Part 195

• Marine safety
• Navigation (water)
• Oceanographic research vessels

46 CFR Part 199

• Cargo vessels
• Marine safety
• Oil and gas exploration
• Passenger vessels
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 149 and 46 CFR parts 2, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 56, 76, 77, 95, 96, 105, 107, 108, 109, 115, 116, 118, 132, 147, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169, 181, 195, and 199 as follows:

Title 33—Navigation and Navigable Waters

PART 149—DEEPWATER PORTS: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND EQUIPMENT

1. The authority citation for part 149 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1504, 1509; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(75).

2. Amend § 149.410 by revising the section heading and introductory text to read as follows:

PART 2—VESSEL INSPECTIONS

3. The authority citation for part 2 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2110, 3306, 3316, 3703, 70034; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraphs (II)(70), (77), (90), (92); E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1–105.

4. Revise § 2.75–10(b) to read as follows:

PART 31—INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

5. The authority citation for part 31 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 3307, 3703; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(73), (92). Section 31.10–21 also issued under the authority of Sect. 4109, Pub. L. 101–380, 104 Stat. 515.

6. In § 31.10–18 paragraph (c), after the text, “manufacturer”, add the text “, or its authorized representative, or an independent laboratory accepted for this purpose by the Coast Guard,”.

PART 32—SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND HULL REQUIREMENTS

7. The authority citation for part 32 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, 3719; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92); Subpart 32.59 also issued under the authority of Sec. 4109, Pub. L. 101–380, 104 Stat. 515.

8. Amend § 32.90–1 by removing paragraph (h).

PART 34—FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT

9. The authority citation for part 34 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

10. Amend § 34.10–90(a)(3) by:

a. Adding a comma after the text, “20 gross tons or under”; and

b. Removing the text “B–II”, and adding, in its place, the text, “40–B”.

11. In § 34.50–10, in the table in paragraph (h), revise the second entry under “Service Areas” to read as follows:

PART 35—OPERATIONS

12. The authority citation for part 35 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101, 70011, 70034; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70), (73), (92).

13. In § 35.30–20(c)(1), remove the text “the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and by”.

PART 39—VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS

14. The authority citation for part 39 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7511b(f)(2); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 3715(b), 70011, 70034; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70), (92).

15. Amend § 39.1005 as follows:

a. Revise paragraph (a);

b. Redesignate paragraphs (g) through (i) as paragraphs (h) through (j);

c. Add new paragraph (g).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

16. Revise § 39.2011(b)(1) to read as follows:

PART 56—PIPING SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANCES

17. The authority citation for part 56 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1509; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(73), (75), (90), (92).

18. In § 56.60–25(a)(4), remove the sentence “Pipe that is to be used for potable water must bear the appropriate certification mark of a nationally recognized, ANSI-accredited third-party certification laboratory.”.

PART 76—FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

19. The authority citation for part 76 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

20. In § 76.50–10, in the table in paragraph (b), revise the first entry under “Safety Area”, Note 4 to Table 76.50–10(a), and Note 7 to Table 76.50–10(a) to read as follows:

PART 77—VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

21. The authority citation for part 77 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

22. In § 77.35–5 (b), remove the text “the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and”.

23. Amend § 77.40–1 by removing paragraph (h).

PART 95—FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

24. The authority citation for part 95 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

25. In § 95.50–10, at Note 4 to Table 95.50–10(a), remove the text “160–B.” and add, in its place, the text “120–B.”

PART 96—VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

26. The authority citation for part 96 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

27. In § 96.35–5(b), remove the text “the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and by”.

28. Amend § 96.40–1 by removing paragraph (h).

PART 105—COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSELS DISPENSING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

29. The authority citation for part 105 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 468(b); 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, 4502; E.O. 12777, sec. 2(d)(2) and (f), 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraphs (II)(73), (80), (92).

30. Revise § 105.14(a) to read as follows:

PART 107—INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

31. The authority citation for part 107 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3307, 3316; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(90), (92); § 107.05 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

32. In § 107.235(b)(4), remove the word, “liquid” and add, in its place, the word, “concentrate”, and, after the text, “representative”, add the text “, or an independent laboratory accepted for the purpose by the Coast Guard”.

PART 108—DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT

33. The authority citation for part 108 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3102, 3306; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(90), (92).

34. Revise § 108.103 to read as follows:

35. Revise § 108.489(a)(3) to read as follows:

36. In § 108.495, in the table, revise the fourth entry under “Service Spaces” and the first entry under “Auxiliary Spaces” to read as follows:

37. In § 108.497(a), remove the text, “the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and by”.

38. In § 108.570(c)(3), remove the word “must” and add, in its place, the word “may”.

39. Amend § 108.719 by removing paragraph (h).

PART 109—OPERATIONS

40. The authority citation for part 109 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101, 10104; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(90), (92).

41. Revise § 109.301(j) to read as follows:

PART 115—INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

42. The authority citation for part 115 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 3307; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(73), (92).

43. In § 115.810(b)(1), remove the text, “Chapter 4 of”.

PART 116—CONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT

44. The authority citation for part 116 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

45. Revise § 116.400(c) to read as follows:

46. Revise § 116.405(f) to read as follows:

PART 118—FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

47. The authority citation for part 118 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

48. Amend § 118.500 by:

a. In paragraph (c), removing the text “10” and adding, in its place, the text “5”; and

b. In paragraph (d), removing the text “(c)” and adding, in its place, the text “(b)”.

PART 132—FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

49. The authority citation for part 132 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3307; sec. 617, Pub. L. 111–281, 124 Stat. 2905; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

50. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the text “the Mine Safety and Health Administration and by”.

PART 147—HAZARDOUS SHIPS STORES

51. The authority citation for part 147 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

52. Revise § 147.66(a) and (c) to read as follows:

PART 159—APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS

53. The authority citation for part 159 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92); Section 159.001–9 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

54. Revise § 159.001–5 to read as follows:

PART 160—LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

55. The authority citation for part 160 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703,4302; E.O. 12234; 45 FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

56. Revise § 160.115–7(b)(6)(vi) introductory text and (b)(6)(vi)(A) to read as follows:

57. In §§ 160.115–9(b), 160.115–13(g)(2), 160.132–9(b), 160.132–13(g)(2), and 160.133–9(b), remove all instances of the words, “in triplicate”.

58. In § 160.133–13(g)(2), remove the text, “, in triplicate”.

59. Add § 160.135–5(d)(7) to read as follows:

60. In § 160.135–7(b)(3)(iv)(A), remove the text, “and accepted by the Commandant in accordance with 46 CFR part 164, subpart 164.120” and add, in its place, the text, “according to IMO MSC Circ. 1006 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.135–5)”.

61. In § 160.135–9(b), remove the words “in triplicate”.

62. In § 160.135–13(g)(2), remove the text “, in triplicate”.

63. Add § 160.156–5(d)(7) to read as follows:

64. In § 160.156–7(b)(3)(iv)(A), remove the text, “and accepted by the Commandant in accordance with 46 CFR part 164, subpart 164.120”, and add, in its place, the text, “according to IMO MSC Circ. 1006 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.156–7).”.

65. In § 160.156–9(b), remove the words, “in triplicate”.

66. In § 160.156–13(g)(2), remove the text, “, in triplicate”.

67. In § 160.170–9(b), remove words, “in triplicate”.

68. In § 160.170–13(g)(2), remove text, “, in triplicate,”.

69. Revise § 160.171–3 to read as follows:

70. Revise § 160.174–3 to read as follows:

PART 161—Electrical Equipment.

71. The authority citation for part 161 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

PART 161—ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

72. Revise the section heading to § 161.002–18 and paragraph (a) to read as follows:

73. Revise the section heading to § 161.002–19 and paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

74. In § 161.011–1, remove the word “approval” and add, in its place, the word “acceptance”.

75. Revise § 161.011–5 to read as follows:

76. Revise § 161.011–10 to read as follows.

77. Amend § 161.012–5 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a); and

b. In paragraph (b), removing the words “Two copies of plans” and adding, in their place, the word “Plans”.

The revision reads as follows:

78. Revise 161.013–11(c)(1) to read as follows:

79. Revise § 161.013–17 to read as follows:

PART 162—ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT

80. The authority citation for part 162 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4104, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(73), (92).

81. Add § 162.017–0 to read as follows:

82. Revise § 162.017–1 to read as follows:

83. In § 162.017–2, remove the word, “inflammable”, and add, it its place, the word, “flammable”.

84. Revise § 162.017–3(g), (n) and (r) to read as follows:

85. Amend § 162.017–6 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a);

b. In paragraph (b), removing the words “in quadruplicate”; and

c. In paragraph (c), removing the text “, by the Underwriters' Laboratories, the Factory Mutual Laboratories, or”.

The revision reads as follows.

86. Revise § 162.050–15(a) to read as follows:

87. Revise § 162.060–40(b) to read as follows:

PART 163—CONSTRUCTION

88. The authority citation for part 163 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 5115; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

Subpart 163.002 [Removed and Reserved]

89. Remove and reserve subpart 163.002, consisting of §§ 163.002–1 through 163.002–27.

PART 164—MATERIALS

90. The authority citation for part 164 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

91. Revise § 164.009–9(a) to read as follows:

92. Amend § 164.018–7 by:

a. Revise paragraph (a); and

b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the words, “Two copies of plans” and adding, in their place, the word “Plans”.

The revision reads as follows:

93. In § 164.106–3(a), remove the text “Part 6” and add, in its place, the text “Part 5”.

Subpart 164.120 [Removed]

94. Remove subpart 164.120, consisting of §§ 164.120–1 through 164.120–15.

95. In § 164.137–2, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(2).

96. Revise § 164.137–3(a) to read as follows:

97. Amend 164.138–2 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a); and

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2).

The revision reads as follows:

98. Revise § 164.138–3(a) to read as follows:

99. Amend 164.139–2 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a); and

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2).

The revision reads as follows:

100. Revise § 164.139–3(a) to read as follows:

PART 167—PUBLIC NAUTICAL SCHOOL SHIPS

101. The authority citation for part 167 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3307, 6101, 8105; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

102. Revise § 167.45–40 introductory text, and paragraphs (a), (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:

103. In § 167.45–60(a), remove the text “the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and by”.

104. Revise § 167.45–65 to read as follows:

105. Amend § 167.45–70 by:

a. Removing paragraphs (a), (b), and (c);

b. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively;

c. In new paragraph (b), removing the words “in still” and adding, in their place, the words “it is still in”; removing the words “it the cartridge” and adding, in their place, the words “if the cartridge”; and removing the word “gage” and adding, in its place, the word “gauge”; and

d. Adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

106. Add § 167.45–71 to read as follows:

107. In § 167.45–75, after the words “approved by the Coast Guard”, remove the words “or the Navy”.

PART 169—SAILING SCHOOL VESSELS

108. The authority citation for part 169 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101; Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2439; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., p. 793; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(73), (92); § 169.117 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

109. In § 169.567, in the table in paragraph (a), revise the last entry to read as follows:

110. Add § 169.568 to read as follows:

111. In§ 169.717(a)(1), remove the text “the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA) and by” and remove the text “by MSHA and NIOSH”.

PART 181—LIFESAVING SYSTEMS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTED VESSELS

112. The authority citation for part 181 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

113. In § 181.500, in the table in paragraph (b), revise the fourth entry to read as follows:

PART 195—VESSEL CONTROL AND MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS

114. The authority citation for part 195 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2113, 3306, 3307; 49 U.S.C. App. 1804; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

115. In § 195.40–1 remove paragraph (h).

PART 199—LIFESAVING SYSTEMS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTED VESSELS

116. The authority citation for part 199 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2439; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(92).

117. Revise § 199.190(j) to read as follows: