97-11897. Inflatable Liferafts  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 1997)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 25525-25557]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-11897]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    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 kheinz@comdt.uscg.mil''.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Regulatory History
    
        On October 18, 1994, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
    rulemaking entitled Inflatable Liferafts in the Federal Register (59 FR 
    52590). The Coast Guard received 51 letters commenting on the proposed 
    rulemaking. These comprised 12 letters from commercial fishermen and a 
    commercial fishermen's association, 17 form letters also apparently 
    from commercial fishermen, 9 letters from liferaft servicing 
    facilities, 4 letters from marine inspection and District offices of 
    the Coast Guard, 2 letters from marine suppliers, a letter from the 
    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), letters from an 
    association representing U.S. liferaft manufacturers and servicing 
    facilities and an association representing European lifesaving 
    appliance manufacturers, a letter from a liferaft manufacturer, a 
    letter from a vessel classification society, and a letter from the 
    Icelandic maritime
    
    [[Page 25526]]
    
    administration. One letter, from the vessel classification society, 
    suggested a public meeting on whether third parties involved in 
    liferaft inspections should have the qualifications and quality control 
    required for membership in IACS (International Association of 
    Classification Societies). The Coast Guard does not believe that such a 
    public meeting would aid this rulemaking, and accordingly will not 
    conduct one.
    
    Background and Purpose
    
        On June 17, 1983, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 
    Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) approved the 1983 Amendments to the 
    International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS). 
    The amended SOLAS, commonly referred to as ``SOLAS 74/83,'' included a 
    new Chapter III, ``Life-saving Appliances and Arrangements.''
        Since no contracting governments objected, SOLAS 74/83 was deemed 
    to be accepted on January 1, 1986, and subsequently came into force for 
    the United States and all other contracting governments on July 1, 
    1986. Ships whose keels were laid or which were at a similar stage of 
    construction on or after that date must comply with SOLAS 74/83 in 
    order to qualify for a SOLAS Safety or Safety Equipment Certificate. 
    Coast Guard-approved inflatable liferafts on these ships are also 
    required to meet the inflatable liferaft requirements of SOLAS 74/83. 
    In addition, any ship with a SOLAS Safety or Safety Equipment 
    Certificate replacing a liferaft on or after July 1, 1986, is required 
    to replace the raft with one meeting SOLAS 74/83.
        Implementation of SOLAS 74/83 (hereinafter referred to simply as 
    SOLAS for clarity) has been the subject of a series of Coast Guard 
    rulemaking documents and public meetings, culminating in an NPRM 
    published on October 18, 1994. This NPRM reflected most of the comments 
    submitted in response to the previous rulemaking documents and those 
    discussed at public meetings.
        The Coast Guard announced the first series of meetings in the July 
    30, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 30339) (CGD 84-051). These meetings 
    were held in conjunction with the U.S. Lifesaving Manufacturers 
    Association (now the United States Marine Safety Association) to 
    discuss the impending implementation of SOLAS, including the 
    implications of the new Chapter III requirements for Coast Guard-
    approved lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and their launching 
    equipment. Guidelines were also developed for lifesaving equipment 
    manufacturers regarding the additions and deviations from current Coast 
    Guard regulations necessary to meet the new Chapter III requirements.
        On December 31, 1984, the Coast Guard published an Advance Notice 
    of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (49 FR 50745) describing major changes 
    under consideration for implementation of SOLAS. The ANPRM proposed a 
    revision of the regulations involving inflatable liferafts, but did not 
    describe the revisions in detail.
        On September 27, 1984, the Coast Guard published an NPRM which 
    proposed rules for the approval and production testing of lifeboats, 
    liferafts, and lifeboat launching equipment (49 FR 38151) (CGD 83-030). 
    A public hearing on the proposal was also held at Coast Guard 
    Headquarters in Washington, DC, on February 19, 1985. The NPRM 
    published on October 18, 1994, incorporated the written comments 
    submitted in response to CGD 83-030 and the comments made at the public 
    hearing, and consequently, included approval and production testing 
    procedures which replaced proposals made for inflatable liferafts under 
    CGD 83-030. Separate rulemaking documents, to be published at a later 
    date, will propose revisions to regulations involving inspection of 
    lifeboats, davits, and winches.
        Possible changes in liferaft servicing procedures were initially 
    raised in an ANPRM published on August 14, 1986 (51 FR 29117) (CGD 81-
    010), and discussed at public meetings held on January 27, 1987, and 
    March 20, 1987. The primary objectives of the changes to inspection and 
    servicing of liferafts were to minimize the role of Coast Guard 
    inspectors while maintaining Coast Guard oversight for quality control, 
    and to allow private industry the flexibility necessary to meet the 
    changing needs of the marine industry. An additional objective was to 
    update Coast Guard regulations by implementing the relevant SOLAS 
    requirements related to servicing. The proposals related to liferaft 
    servicing which were contained in the October 18, 1994, NPRM addressed 
    the issues discussed in the 1986 ANPRM. The comments at the public 
    meetings were also considered in the development of these proposals.
        Proposals concerning improved liferaft stability first appeared in 
    an ANPRM in the Federal Register published on June 29, 1981 (46 FR 
    33341) (CGD 80-113). That ANPRM presented a summary of research 
    efforts, sea trials, and yachting casualties from the U.S. and Europe, 
    and invited comments from the public. A public hearing was held on 
    September 1, 1981. An NPRM published on January 11, 1985 (50 FR 1558) 
    summarized the comments received on this ANPRM, and also proposed 
    specific design and testing requirements to improve stability of 
    inflatable liferafts. The proposals contained in the January 11, 1985, 
    NPRM, as well as the comments to such proposals were refined and used 
    as a basis for those contained in the October 18, 1994, NPRM. The Coast 
    Guard notes that all subsequent references to an NPRM relate to the 
    October 18, 1994, NPRM.
    
    Discussion of Comments and Changes
    
    General Approval Procedures
    
    Confidentiality of Information
        Proposed Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4) required that a manufacturer 
    submitting commercial information that could cause substantial 
    commercial harm if released to the public, include a statement to that 
    effect with the information. One comment suggested that a system should 
    be developed within the Coast Guard to ensure that such information 
    remains confidential. It is unclear what sort of a system the comment 
    envisions; however, the Coast Guard does not and will not release 
    proprietary commercial information to any party other than the original 
    submitting party, except as may be required under the Freedom of 
    Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552]. Exemption b(4) of the Freedom of 
    Information Act, which is specifically referred to in Sec. 159.005-
    5(a)(4), clearly exempts the release of material that could cause 
    substantial competitive harm to the party submitting it. Consequently, 
    in this final rule, new Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4) is retained as proposed in 
    the NPRM.
    Approval of Equivalents
        One comment questioned whether, in view of the lengthy and 
    comprehensive process by which regulations are drafted, the Coast Guard 
    needed provisions allowing for approval of equipment and material not 
    meeting the letter of the regulations but having ``equivalent 
    performance characteristics.'' It further recommended that, in 
    instances where the Coast Guard does approve materials or equipment on 
    the basis of equivalency to the regulatory requirements, the Coast 
    Guard notify members of the industry holding similar approvals to allow 
    them the opportunity to exercise the same equivalency determination in 
    their products if they desire.
        The current situation in the liferaft industry is a good example of 
    the need
    
    [[Page 25527]]
    
    to approve equivalents. The existing specifications for structural 
    fabrics of liferafts are a combination of design and performance 
    requirements. A majority of liferaft manufacturers currently use 
    fabrics in their approved products that do not meet all of the design 
    requirements specified in the regulations but provide equivalent 
    performance. Those manufacturers have chosen to use these recently 
    developed fabrics to reduce weight and manufacturing cost and to 
    improve the performance of their products. The Coast Guard fully 
    expects that future research may lead to the development of new fabrics 
    and other materials and designs that, although they do not specifically 
    comply with the design requirements in the regulations, have at least 
    equivalent performance characteristics. By allowing the approval of 
    equivalents, the Coast Guard can accommodate technological improvements 
    without the need for cumbersome and lengthy regulatory changes. 
    However, at the same time, the Coast Guard is working with the 
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and other 
    consensus standards organizations to develop suitable performance 
    standards to replace existing design (and combined design-and-
    performance) standards to the extent possible, with the expectation of 
    making approval of equivalents obsolete.
        The Coast Guard already had the authority to approve equivalents to 
    inflatable liferafts and liferaft components in existing regulations 
    (46 CFR 160.051-2). The new Sec. 159.005-7 merely streamlines the 
    regulations by allowing a provision applicable to many items of 
    approved equipment to be stated in a single location.
        Concerning the suggestion that equivalency determinations be 
    disseminated to the industry to allow a ``level playing field,'' the 
    Coast Guard agrees, and will develop a system internally to disseminate 
    them. In view of the importance of dissemination as a means to ensure 
    uniform application of the regulations by the Coast Guard, 
    manufacturers should be aware that designs and materials submitted as 
    ``equivalents'' cannot be considered confidential in terms of new 
    Sec. 159.005-5(a)(4).
    
    Inflatable Buoyant Apparatuses
    
    Design and Performance Requirements
        The NPRM specified design and performance requirements for 
    inflatable buoyant apparatuses in terms of the differences between it 
    and the Coastal Service inflatable liferaft, the requirements for which 
    were, in turn, defined in terms of the differences between it and the 
    SOLAS liferaft. This convention of defining inflatable buoyant 
    apparatuses in terms of exceptions to exceptions was confusing, and so 
    in this final rule, the design and performance requirements for 
    inflatable buoyant apparatuses in Sec. 160.010-3(a) are specified as 
    direct exceptions to the corresponding SOLAS liferaft requirements in 
    subpart 160.151. There are some editorial and paragraph numbering 
    changes as a result of this change, but the substance of the affected 
    paragraphs is unchanged.
    Floor Drains
        Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(3) required that every inflatable 
    buoyant apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons be equipped 
    with self-bailing floor drains. Citing the requirement for functionally 
    similar inflatable liferafts to be equipped with bailers but not with 
    floor drains, and the added cost of providing floor drains, one comment 
    suggested that the Coast Guard permit inflatable buoyant apparatuses to 
    be equipped with either bailers or floor drains.
        The Coast Guard contends that it is not valid to compare a large 
    inflatable liferaft, which is almost completely sheltered by a canopy, 
    with an open inflatable buoyant apparatus, which has no protection 
    against waves. It is very easy for an inflatable buoyant apparatus to 
    be swamped by a single wave, after which a large apparatus (for 
    example, one of 25 persons or more capacity) can have a substantial 
    depth of water (well in excess of 1 meter) in its center. Bailers are 
    of little use in removing such a quantity of water, particularly as 
    more water is likely to be coming in during the process. However, floor 
    drains, which are generally in the form of simple fabric tubes secured 
    through the floor, are capable of quickly removing such a quantity of 
    water on a continuous basis. In calm seas, where such heavy water-
    removing capability is not needed, the floor drains can be secured to 
    prevent small quantities of water from entering the buoyant apparatus 
    through them. Because floor drains are not capable of removing all 
    water from the buoyant apparatus, bailers are needed as well.
        The proposed requirement for floor drains is less stringent than 
    the only corresponding international requirement, which is that for 
    ``open reversible liferafts'' contained in the IMO International Code 
    Of Safety For High-Speed Craft (HSC Code). The HSC Code requires an 
    apparatus with a capacity of up to 30 persons to be equipped with one 
    floor drain, and an apparatus with a capacity of greater than 30 
    persons to be equipped with two floor drains. Since there is no 
    evidence that water depth in an inflatable buoyant apparatus when 
    swamped is a significant problem for an apparatus with a capacity of 
    less than 25 persons, Sec. 160.010-3(a)(7) in the final rule retains 
    the floor drain requirements as proposed in the October 18, 1994, NPRM.
    Boarding Ladders
        One comment suggested that boarding ladders on inflatable buoyant 
    apparatuses should meet construction standards similar to those 
    required for SOLAS inflatable liferafts. They already do, since 
    Sec. 160.010-3(a) in the NPRM (the substance of which remains unchanged 
    in the final rule) requires an inflatable buoyant apparatus to 
    generally meet the design and performance requirements for SOLAS 
    inflatable liferafts in subpart 160.151.
    Position-Indicating Lamps
        Several comments suggested that the wording of Sec. 160.010-
    3(a)(8)(ii) was unclear as to whether one or two lamps are required on 
    each side of a reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus. The Coast Guard 
    agrees that the wording is ambiguous, and Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) in the 
    final rule clarifies that one lamp is required on each of the two 
    reversible sides of the apparatus.
    Sea Anchors
        Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(10), which prescribed required equipment 
    for an inflatable buoyant apparatus, did not include a sea anchor. 
    However, all manufacturers of currently approved inflatable buoyant 
    apparatuses include sea anchors with those apparatuses, although the 
    Coast Guard has not specifically required them. In addition, a sea 
    anchor is required for ``open reversible liferafts'' under the IMO HSC 
    Code. Therefore, in keeping with longstanding industry practice, and 
    the comments on the NPRM supporting consistency with international 
    requirements, Sec. 160.010-3(a)(12) in the final rule includes a 
    requirement that inflatable buoyant apparatuses be fitted with a sea 
    anchor.
    ``Overloading'' of Inflatable Buoyant Apparatuses
        Proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) required that the IMO Swamp Test be 
    conducted on an inflatable buoyant apparatus with the apparatus loaded 
    to 50% in excess of its rated capacity, rather than just to its rated 
    capacity (as specified in the test procedure). This requirement was
    
    [[Page 25528]]
    
    proposed in anticipation of rulemaking projects (since completed) 
    establishing, for some protected routes, carriage requirements based on 
    the possibility of such overloading contained in 46 CFR subchapters K, 
    T, and W.
        Citing National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations 
    in the wake of the grounding of the PILGRIM BELLE in 1985 and the 
    sinking of the COUGAR in 1988, one comment opposed this concept on the 
    grounds that it would ``make the out-of-water flotation device an in-
    water flotation device.'' The comment cautioned that overloading of 
    survival equipment should not be acceptable in any waters, no matter 
    how protected.
        The Coast Guard disagrees with the premise of the comment 
    concerning the effect of 50 percent overloading on an inflatable 
    buoyant apparatus. The cases cited in the comment involved rigid 
    buoyant apparatuses, not the inflatable type. Like an inflatable 
    liferaft, an inflatable buoyant apparatus is designed with at least 100 
    percent excess buoyancy. Consequently, it remains an out-of-water 
    flotation device even in conditions of overload far more extreme than 
    anticipated in the proposed rule. Multiple swamp tests of inflatable 
    buoyant apparatuses which have been conducted under the conditions 
    specified in the proposed rule have verified that the devices remain 
    effective under such conditions.
        However, subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, the IMO MSC 
    approved a change to Resolution A.689(17) which would effectively 
    render the proposed overload test meaningless. Specifically, in order 
    to address the potential personnel hazard and logistical problems 
    associated with swamp testing of a large survival craft loaded with 
    people, the Committee revised the Swamp Test procedure to require that 
    the device be completely swamped, but without people inside, during the 
    test. In view of the buoyancy of people wearing lifejackets, this test 
    is considered to be at least as strenuous a test of the device in the 
    swamped condition as the previous test. However, since the revised 
    procedure calls for the device to be completely swamped, it is not 
    possible to ``overload'' it as specified in the NPRM. Consequently, in 
    view of the extensive successful test experience already obtained for a 
    variety of inflatable buoyant apparatuses under overload conditions, 
    and in the interest of remaining consistent with internationally 
    accepted testing procedures, proposed Sec. 160.010-3(a)(11) has not 
    been included in this final rule. This will have the effect of 
    requiring an inflatable buoyant apparatus to be subjected to the same 
    Swamp Test as an inflatable liferaft.
    ``Open Reversible Liferafts'' Under the IMO HSC Code
        On January 1, 1996, the IMO HSC Code entered into force. Annex 10 
    to the HSC Code contains requirements for an ``open reversible 
    liferaft'' which are similar, but not identical to the requirements for 
    inflatable buoyant apparatuses as specified in this final rule. 
    Although the timing of the publication of the HSC Code did not allow 
    for discussion of it in the NPRM, a new Sec. 160.010-3(e) has been 
    added to this final rule to provide guidance to those who wish to 
    obtain approval for inflatable buoyant apparatuses which also comply 
    with the requirements for open reversible liferafts under the HSC Code. 
    This new section merely provides an alternative path to approval which 
    manufacturers may utilize as they see fit.
    
    Inflatable Liferafts
    
    Incorporation by Reference
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-1 incorporated a number of technical 
    documents by reference. One comment suggested that all material 
    incorporated by reference should be published as an appendix with the 
    final rules.
        The Coast Guard contends that the purpose of incorporating lengthy 
    technical documents by reference is to reduce repetition and, in 
    keeping with ongoing government reinvention initiatives, to reduce the 
    bulk of the Code of Federal Regulations. It would completely defeat the 
    purpose of incorporating materials by reference to publish them as 
    annexes to the final rule. Consequently, proposed Sec. 160.151-1 is 
    retained unchanged as Sec. 160.151-5 (due to editorially interchanging 
    Sec. 160.151-1 and Sec. 160.151-5) in the final rule.
    Definitions
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-3 contained a definition of ``SOLAS'' which 
    incorporated all amendments through the 1983 amendments. In the final 
    rule, this definition has been revised to incorporate amendments 
    through the 1988 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) 
    amendments. This will simplify SOLAS references for the user, since the 
    most common published version of SOLAS is a 1992 Consolidated Edition 
    which includes the 1988 amendments. The only substantive effect is 
    that, as was discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, the GMDSS 
    amendments removed the requirement for liferafts to be fitted with 
    portable lifeboat radio siting and securing arrangements as of August 
    1, 1993. The paragraph numbering in SOLAS regulation III/38.3 was 
    slightly altered as a result.
    Liferaft Capacity
        One comment questioned why capacity requirements for liferafts were 
    not included in the standards for design, performance, and construction 
    contained in proposed Secs. 160.151-7 and 160.151-15. The comment also 
    questioned whether Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 1-
    92 would remain valid for capacity conversion of unapproved liferafts 
    ``grandfathered'' for use on commercial fishing vessels.
        Like many of the requirements in the NPRM, the capacity 
    requirements for liferafts are included by reference to the 
    corresponding SOLAS regulation--in this case, by reference to 
    regulation III/39 in proposed Sec. 160.151-7(c), which remains 
    unchanged for this final rule. The standards for design, performance, 
    and construction in the final rule apply only to new construction of 
    approved liferafts, so all issues pertaining to the ``grandfathering'' 
    of unapproved liferafts on commercial fishing vessels will continue to 
    be covered by NVIC 1-92.
    Liferafts of Less Than 6 Persons Capacity
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-7 prescribed construction requirements for 
    SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts. By reference to SOLAS 
    regulation III/38 (specifically regulation III/38.2.1), this section 
    restricted inflatable liferafts to a minimum capacity of 6 persons, 
    except as otherwise specified in the subpart (for example, for coastal 
    service liferafts).
        One comment noted that the Coast Guard has long approved, and that 
    there continues to be a need for, 4-person liferafts as capable as 
    SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts. These liferafts have particular 
    application on some commercial fishing vessels, which are technically 
    required to carry SOLAS A or SOLAS B liferafts but which have been 
    permitted to carry approved 4-person liferafts if they carry 4 or fewer 
    persons on board. In the past, the Coast Guard has allowed 4-person 
    liferafts with the equivalent of SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs to 
    be marked as having ``A'' or ``B'' packs, avoiding the use of the term 
    ``SOLAS''. These rafts were issued approval numbers in the 160.051/XXX 
    series, as opposed to liferafts complying with SOLAS, which have been 
    issued approval numbers in the 160.151/XXX series. The Coast Guard 
    agrees that there continues to be
    
    [[Page 25529]]
    
    a need for approved 4-person liferafts comparable to SOLAS A and SOLAS 
    B liferafts. Consequently, to maintain the longstanding approval-
    numbering convention, the final rule does not completely remove 46 CFR 
    subpart 160.051 as was proposed in the NPRM. Instead, in the final rule 
    existing subpart 160.051 is replaced by a new subpart 160.051, which 
    covers standards for design, construction, performance, and equipment 
    for liferafts not complying with SOLAS but which are approved for use 
    in some domestic services. These include ``A'' and ``B'' inflatable 
    liferafts of less than 6 persons capacity, and coastal service 
    inflatable liferafts, which were addressed in Secs. 160.151-19, 
    160.151-23, and portions of 160.151-27 in the NPRM. This is merely an 
    editorial change; it does not affect the substance of the moved 
    sections.
    Oversight of Approval Testing
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-13 (c)-(f) required that approval testing of 
    prototype liferafts be carried out under the oversight of a Coast Guard 
    marine inspector. One comment suggested that this oversight be provided 
    by qualified third parties such as classification societies that are 
    members of the IACS, and noted that such third parties were competent 
    to perform this function.
        As discussed in the NPRM, the proposed rules struck a careful 
    balance between delegation of suitable functions to third parties under 
    Coast Guard oversight and direct Coast Guard participation in certain 
    critical areas in order to fulfill our responsibility for the approval 
    of equipment used on U.S. ships and for maintaining the knowledge and 
    experience necessary to provide adequate oversight. The proposed rules 
    allow for third-party involvement in inspection of prototype 
    construction and in production inspection after approval. However, in 
    light of the other proposed changes to the approval procedures, it is 
    essential that the Coast Guard maintain its direct involvement in the 
    required prototype testing to validate the basic design submitted for 
    approval. Consequently, Secs. 160.151-13 (c) through (f) are retained 
    in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM.
    Liferaft Design and Performance
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(c) required that a protective liner or 
    baffling arrangement be provided inside each inflatable compartment at 
    the inflation gas inlet in order to protect the compartment fabric from 
    the damaging effects of cold inflation gas. One comment suggested that 
    advances in the technology of thermoplastic-coated fabrics may result 
    in the development of fabrics not as susceptible to damage from cold 
    exposure as the fabrics currently used. Consequently, a liner or 
    baffling arrangement would not necessarily be needed on rafts 
    constructed of such fabrics. The comment suggested that the Coast Guard 
    adopt a performance criterion to allow approval of such designs, but 
    did not propose a specific test.
        The Coast Guard agrees that the requirement as proposed is 
    unnecessarily design-restrictive, and has revised the wording of 
    Sec. 160.151-15(c) in the final rule to allow means other than a liner 
    or baffling arrangement to achieve the performance objective of 
    protecting the compartment fabric from damaging effects of cold 
    inflation gas. However, the Coast Guard does not have sufficient data 
    to specify in this final rule a particular test to evaluate the 
    adequacy of designs not incorporating a liner or baffling arrangement. 
    The Coast Guard will evaluate such designs on a case-by-case basis to 
    ensure that they provide performance equivalent to that of conventional 
    designs using liners or baffling arrangements. It will be the 
    responsibility of the manufacturer, in consultation with the Coast 
    Guard, to develop a suitable test protocol to demonstrate such 
    equivalence. The Coast Guard will notify all manufacturers of any 
    designs approved under this system, and of the testing performed to 
    validate them.
    Color
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(e) required that the exterior of the 
    liferaft canopy be of a highly visible color, such as vivid reddish 
    orange. However, in a departure from existing Sec. 160.051-4(e), which 
    requires that the underside of the floor be of a dark color, the NPRM 
    did not address the color of the outside of the raft other than the 
    canopy. One comment, citing SOLAS regulation III/30.2.6, which requires 
    that life-saving appliances be of a highly visible color ``on all parts 
    where this will assist detection,'' commented that both sides of the 
    raft, and not just the canopy, should be of a color contrasting with 
    the marine environment. The comment mentioned instances where a rescue 
    unit was not able to detect a liferaft, because it had overturned.
        The Coast Guard agrees that application of a highly visible color 
    to the bottom of a liferaft can assist in detection if the liferaft is 
    overturned. This concept recently gained the support of the 
    international community as well. In the wake of the sinking of the 
    Baltic ferry ESTONIA in September 1994, where a number of casualties 
    occurred due to difficulty in locating overturned liferafts, the 26th 
    session of the IMO Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee in March 
    1995, adopted a proposal to require that water pockets affixed to the 
    bottom of liferafts be of a highly visible color. This new requirement 
    will take effect in July 1998, as part of the latest set of amendments 
    to SOLAS Chapter III, and has been incorporated in Sec. 160.151-
    17(a)(2)(vii) of this final rule. The effective date of the requirement 
    in this final rule has been deferred to coincide with the effective 
    date of the corresponding provision of SOLAS Chapter III.
    Towing Connections
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(g), like existing Sec. 160.051-7(b)(12), 
    required towing connections at opposite ends of the inflatable 
    liferaft. SOLAS regulation III/38.1.4 does not specify a number of 
    towing connections, but rather requires only that the raft be so 
    constructed as to enable it to be towed under specified conditions. 
    Several comments suggested that there is no need for more than one 
    towing connection on a liferaft since liferafts are maneuverable and 
    can be repositioned for towing if necessary. One of these comments also 
    noted that a requirement for two towing locations would add unnecessary 
    costs and require further testing of the product.
        The Coast Guard contends that one towing connection is not 
    sufficient. Under SOLAS regulation III/20.3, the lifesaving 
    arrangements for passenger ships include the ``marshalling'' of 
    liferafts, i.e., using a rescue boat to gather liferafts together for 
    the purpose of connecting them in order to facilitate their detection 
    and long-term survival. In some cases, a single rescue boat can be 
    assigned to marshall up to nine liferafts. However, it can be unwieldy 
    to connect a liferaft with only one towing connection to many other 
    liferafts. A second towing connection would considerably facilitate 
    marshalling.
        The Coast Guard also contends that the provision of a second towing 
    connection would not necessitate any further testing of the product, or 
    add any significant additional cost. Where multiple towing connections 
    are provided, they are generally identical in design, and testing of 
    one (which is required in any case) can stand for testing of both, or 
    all. The only cost associated with a second towing connection is the 
    cost of the materials involved and their assembly and installation. 
    This cost would not represent any increase over present requirements, 
    since existing 46 CFR 160.051-7(b)(12) already requires a
    
    [[Page 25530]]
    
    towing connection at each end of a liferaft.
        Despite the above discussion, the Coast Guard has amended 
    Sec. 160.151-15(g) in the final rule to remove the requirement for 
    towing connections at both ends of a liferaft in keeping with its 
    policy of not imposing unilateral requirements in excess of SOLAS. 
    However, the Coast Guard does intend to approach IMO with the concerns 
    discussed above in order to generate discussion whether a future 
    amendment to the relevant IMO requirement may be warranted.
    Weight
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(h) would limit the weight of liferafts not 
    served by launching appliances to 185 kilograms (kg) (407.8 pounds 
    (lb)), a very slight increase from the 400-lb limit in existing 46 CFR 
    160.051-3(b). One comment noted the problems associated with manually 
    launching a heavy liferaft, citing an NTSB recommendation pursuant to 
    the fire and explosion on the tankship PUERTO RICAN in 1984, that 
    liferafts be installed so that manual launching does not require any 
    unnecessary lifting, such as over a railing. The Coast Guard is aware 
    of the difficulties associated with launching liferafts near the weight 
    limit when they are not served by launching appliances. However, the 
    proposed increase in the allowable weight is trivial, essentially 
    resulting from a metric conversion. Consequently, in the final rule 
    Sec. 160.151-15(h) is not changed from the NPRM. The issue of 
    installing liferafts to avoid the necessity of lifting was addressed in 
    the Subchapter W rulemaking project (CGD 84-069), and is now covered in 
    46 CFR 199.130(a)(7).
    Strength of Lifeline Attachments
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(i) required that lifeline attachment 
    patches have a minimum breaking strength of 1.5 kN (350 lb) pull 
    exerted in a direction perpendicular to their bases. One comment 
    contended that this breaking strength is excessive, since liferafts 
    should be lifted out of the water by the towline rather than the 
    lifelines, and since the buoyancy of human bodies reduces a liferaft's 
    weight in the water.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. This is not a new requirement, stemming 
    as it does from paragraph 3.6.19 of military specification MIL-L-19496, 
    which is referred to (for design guidance) in existing Sec. 160.051-
    1(a)(1). In addition, the comment does not take into account that 
    buoyancy effects are minimal when a person in the water pulls himself 
    into a liferaft using the internal lifelines, that external lifelines 
    may be used to carry an inflated liferaft, and that the weight of a 
    liferaft can make it difficult to handle (for example, while placing it 
    in the water) by a towline attached at a single point. Although SOLAS 
    does not specifically discuss using lifelines to carry a liferaft, the 
    ability to do so is required by other responsible maritime safety 
    administrations, such as in the European Free Trade Association's 
    (EFTA) Scheme for the Reciprocal Recognition of Tests and Inspections 
    Carried Out on Ships' Equipment. That document requires that, beyond 
    being suitable for use as a lifeline, the grablines ``be suitably 
    arranged for carrying the inflated raft.'' For all of these reasons, 
    Sec. 160.151-15(i) is retained in the final rule as proposed in the 
    NPRM.
    Painter Length
        The preamble to the NPRM discussed a pending change to SOLAS 
    Chapter III which would reduce the painter length required by SOLAS to 
    the greater of 15 meters or the liferaft's stowage height plus 10 
    meters. The NPRM indicated that if the change received final approval 
    by the IMO MSC, it would be incorporated into the final rule. The 
    change was approved as part of the most recent set of SOLAS amendments, 
    to take effect July 1, 1998, and has been incorporated into the final 
    rule as Sec. 160.151-15(j). The effective date of the requirement is 
    July 1, 1998, which conforms to the SOLAS effective date. However, 
    manufacturers are encouraged to comply at the earliest possible date so 
    as to reduce the operational problems associated with excessive painter 
    lengths.
    Boarding Ladders
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-15(l) required that the steps of a boarding 
    ladder ``be of rigid or semi-rigid tubing and secured against rotation 
    to provide a suitable foothold.'' One comment suggested that this 
    requirement is unnecessarily design restrictive, and that boarding 
    ladders should be evaluated by their performance rather than on certain 
    design properties. The comment noted that more critical than the design 
    of the footholds themselves is that they be placed to prevent the 
    user's legs from going underneath the hull, thereby preventing a 
    vertical climb into the liferaft. The comment also noted that, although 
    boarding ladders are required, they are a secondary boarding aid to the 
    required boarding ramp.
        The Coast Guard agrees with the general approach proposed in the 
    comment. In the final rule, proposed Sec. 160.151-15(l) has been 
    replaced by a general performance requirement in Sec. 160.151-15(m) 
    that the steps of the boarding ladder ``must provide a suitable 
    foothold.'' As suggested in the comment, a new Sec. 160.151-27(c)(4) 
    has been added to the final rule to require that the IMO Boarding Test 
    be performed using the boarding ladder (if installed) as well as the 
    boarding ramp. The IMO Boarding Test is considerably more stringent 
    than that in current Sec. 160.051-5(e)(7) and so will ensure, through 
    demonstrated performance, that boarding arrangements are adequate for 
    those liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses for which the 
    boarding ladder is the primary means of boarding.
    Liferaft Stability
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-17(a), and the associated requirements on 
    prototype testing in proposed Sec. 160.151-29(a) and (b), prescribed 
    stability standards for SOLAS inflatable liferafts based upon the 
    performance of currently approved designs of ``heavily ballasted'' 
    liferafts. A number of comments disagreed with the proposed stability 
    standards in their entirety. The comments questioned whether the 
    benefits of improved liferaft stability would outweigh the costs, cited 
    the adverse effect the proposed stability standards would have upon the 
    cost-competitiveness of U.S.-manufactured liferafts in the 
    international market, and questioned whether the available casualty 
    history indicates that the stability of existing liferaft designs is 
    inadequate. One of the comments noted that adoption of the standards 
    would increase the weight of liferafts substantially. In many cases, 
    the weight could increase to the extent that some shipowners would need 
    to install launching appliances or expensive rack-mounting arrangements 
    when they replace their current rafts, for which such appliances are 
    not needed.
        One comment agreed with the Coast Guard's position that 
    international standards for liferafts are appropriate, and suggested 
    that, if there is a stability problem with liferafts, it should be 
    identified by the Coast Guard at the appropriate international forum 
    and a solution reached based on input from the international community. 
    Several related comments suggested adoption of the ``European Liferaft 
    Stability System'' detailed in the EFTA Scheme for the Reciprocal 
    Recognition of Tests and Inspections Carried Out on Ships' Equipment. 
    Finally, one comment proposed that, if the Coast Guard were to 
    unilaterally adopt a stability standard, it should be based on the 
    volume (a minimum of 25 percent of buoyancy-tube volume) currently 
    required for Coastal Service liferafts.
    
    [[Page 25531]]
    
        The Coast Guard agrees with the view that any regulatory 
    requirements for liferaft stability should be based upon standards 
    developed and accepted internationally. This is consistent with the 
    Coast Guard's general position that U.S. requirements should not exceed 
    the requirements of SOLAS. Until recently, however, SOLAS has been 
    vague on the issue of liferaft stability, requiring only that liferafts 
    be ``stable in a seaway.''
        In that regard, the proposals made in the NPRM have been overtaken 
    by international events. At its 26th session in March 1995, the IMO 
    Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee approved standards for 
    liferaft stability to include in the latest set of SOLAS amendments, 
    which will become effective in 1998. These requirements are based upon 
    a proposal by the United Kingdom (UK), and are generally consistent 
    with those in the EFTA Scheme, which have been in effect in many 
    countries (including most of Northern Europe) since the 1980-81 UK/
    Icelandic stability testing discussed in the NPRM. By U.S. 
    intervention, the most design-restrictive portions of the original UK 
    proposal were eliminated. The resulting SOLAS regulation requires 
    stability appendages with an aggregate volume one fourth of that 
    proposed in the NPRM, or 20 liters (.02 cubic meters) per person of 
    capacity, for liferafts with a capacity of greater than 10 persons. 
    This is around 20 percent of the required buoyancy-tube volume--
    slightly less than was proposed in the comments. For smaller liferafts, 
    the regulation requires a minimum aggregate capacity of 220 liters (.22 
    cubic meters).
        In this final rule, in place of the stability requirements proposed 
    in the NPRM in proposed Secs. 160.151-17(a) and 160.151-29(a)-(b), the 
    Coast Guard has decided to incorporate the new SOLAS stability 
    requirements, in their entirety, into Sec. 160.151-17(a). In doing so, 
    the Coast Guard adopts the comments received supporting conformance 
    with international standards. The SOLAS requirements also substantially 
    conform to the specific proposals in the comments concerning stability 
    appendage volume. The effective date of the domestic requirements is 
    July 1, 1998, to conform with the SOLAS effective date.
        In addition to opposing the proposed stability requirements in the 
    NPRM, several comments also opposed the Lift-Out Force Test and At-Sea 
    Test, both of which were proposed to evaluate compliance with those 
    requirements. Since the SOLAS requirements upon which the stability 
    requirements in this final rule are based do not cover either test, 
    neither test is retained in this final rule. Instead, there is a test 
    in Sec. 160.151-29(a) to evaluate the filling time of the stability 
    appendages against the standard in Sec. 160.151-17(a)(2)(vi). The Coast 
    Guard intends to continue research into test methods to evaluate 
    liferaft stability, perhaps including some variation of the Lift-Out 
    Force and At-Sea Tests, so it can evaluate, for equivalence to the 
    regulatory requirements, the performance of novel stability designs 
    that may be developed in the future.
        One comment supported self-righting capability for liferafts ``as 
    required by SOLAS, the righting test specified in IMO Resolution 
    A.689(17), and proposed 46 CFR 160.151-27(a).'' However, none of those 
    three documents requires self-righting capability, only the capability 
    for the inverted liferaft to be righted by a single person in the 
    water. Consistent with them, the final rule does not require that 
    liferafts be self-righting. The same comment suggested that there 
    should be a requirement that rafts always inflate right side up when 
    deployed in water. This requirement already existed in proposed 
    Sec. 160.151-27(a), by reference to the Drop Test in IMO Resolution 
    A.689(17), para. 1/5.1, which requires that the tested rafts inflate 
    upright. This requirement is retained in the final rule. It should be 
    recognized, however, that even a raft that inflates upright during 
    approval testing may not always inflate upright if it has subsequently 
    been packed incorrectly, for example, during servicing.
        A number of identical comments suggested that the Coast Guard make 
    a videotape of the various rafts in heavy seas available so that 
    mariners can see how they react and select one they ``feel comfortable 
    with.'' This suggestion has not been adopted in the final rule. Such a 
    comparative demonstration would entail essentially the same costs and 
    logistical difficulties as the heavy weather sea trial strongly opposed 
    by the liferaft industry, and further, would focus on only one aspect 
    of a liferaft's performance when there are others which are also very 
    important. The Coast Guard's position is that liferaft manufacturers 
    are in the best position to market and establish brand differentiation 
    for their products based on all of their features, and in fact actively 
    do so.
    Boarding Arrangements for Coastal Service Liferafts
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-19(f) indicated that boarding ramps are not 
    required on Coastal Service liferafts if the combined diameter of the 
    buoyancy chambers is 500 millimeters (mm) or less. One comment 
    suggested that, although boarding ramps may not be necessary under 
    these circumstances, some sort of boarding aid, such as strategically 
    placed hand holds, may be.
        The Coast Guard acknowledges the importance of adequate boarding 
    arrangements for liferafts, particularly in light of the NTSB's 
    investigation of the sinking of the bulk carrier MARINE ELECTRIC in 
    1983. As suggested by the NTSB, the NPRM proposed, and the final rule 
    requires, by reference to SOLAS regulation III/39 (specifically 
    regulation III/39.4.3 thereunder) in Sec. 160.151-7, that ``there shall 
    be means inside the liferaft to assist persons to pull themselves into 
    the liferaft from the ladder.'' In addition, the IMO Boarding Test 
    required by reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/5.8, in 
    Sec. 160.151-27(a) is considerably more stringent than the existing 
    test in Sec. 160.051-5(e)(7), and is rigorous enough to ensure that 
    boarding arrangements are adequate.
    Fabric Valise Containers
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-19(i) allowed the use of fabric valise-type 
    containers with Coastal Service inflatable liferafts, and by extension, 
    with inflatable buoyant apparatuses. This provision has been deleted 
    from the final rule, since it was substantially similar to 
    Sec. 160.151-15(n)(7) in the NPRM (retained as Sec. 160.151-15(o)(7) in 
    the final rule).
    Liferaft Equipment
        In an editorial change throughout Sec. 160.151-21, for internal 
    consistency and consistency with the terminology in Subchapter W, all 
    references to specific subparts under which particular items of 
    equipment are approved have been replaced with references to the 
    ``approval series'' under which the item is approved.
        One comment suggested that proposed Sec. 160.151-21 may lead to 
    confusion because it lists all of the equipment required for SOLAS A 
    liferafts and implies that the same equipment is needed for SOLAS B 
    liferafts. The comment suggested a clarification of the difference 
    between SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs, much as SOLAS regulation
    III/38.5.3 identifies those items in a SOLAS A Pack not required for a 
    SOLAS B Pack.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 was not intended to set forth a list of 
    the required contents of equipment packs. The required contents of the 
    SOLAS A and SOLAS B equipment packs are specified in proposed 
    Sec. 160.151-7(b), by reference to SOLAS regulation III/38.
    
    [[Page 25532]]
    
    Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 is intended only to facilitate compliance by 
    liferaft manufacturers and servicing facilities by supplementing the 
    minimal descriptions of the various individual items of equipment in 
    the SOLAS regulation. Consequently, it is retained generally intact in 
    the final rule, subject to revisions to various individual subsections 
    as discussed below.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(b) contains requirements for jackknives 
    carried in equipment packs. One comment questioned whether folding 
    knives complied with the SOLAS requirements, since SOLAS regulation 
    III/38.5.1.2 specifically requires a non-folding knife.
        By reference in Sec. 160.151-7, the proposed rules incorporated all 
    of regulation III/38, including regulation III/38.5.1.2, which requires 
    a buoyant non-folding knife. However, regulation III/38.5.1.2 also 
    requires that liferafts of 13 persons or more capacity be equipped with 
    a second knife, which may be of the folding variety. The requirement in 
    Sec. 160.151-21(b), which is retained unchanged in the final rule, 
    applies only to situations where these allowable folding knives are 
    permitted.
        Proposed Secs. 160.051-21(f) and 160.151-23(f) required that two 
    paddles of the type used to pass the IMO Maneuverability Test be 
    included in the equipment packs. A number of identical comments 
    objected to the inclusion of paddles, since they provide no 
    maneuverability on ocean waters and will only increase the pack size 
    and increase the purchase price.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. Paddles are essential to move away from 
    burning wreckage, to avoid the turbulence associated with a sinking 
    ship, and to assemble with other liferafts to facilitate survival. The 
    fact that the required paddles are of the size and type used to pass 
    the Maneuverability Test clearly demonstrates that they do provide for 
    a degree of maneuverability. Since paddles have always had to be 
    provided with inflatable liferafts, their inclusion in the equipment 
    required by the NPRM does not represent any increase in the cost or the 
    size of the equipment pack over those of existing liferafts. 
    Consequently, Secs. 160.051-9(f) (which was Sec. 160.151-23(f) in the 
    NPRM) and 160.151-21(f) are retained in the final rule as proposed in 
    the NPRM.
        Regulation III/38.5.1.7 of SOLAS, which was incorporated by 
    reference into the NPRM, with a minor modification, in proposed 
    Sec. 160.151-21(g), requires the equipment pack of a SOLAS A liferaft 
    to include three tin openers. One comment, while supporting the 
    modification in proposed Sec. 160.151-21(g) requiring sharp parts of 
    tin openers to be fitted with guards, commented that tin openers should 
    not be required unless a manufacturer specifies the carriage of canned 
    water in its liferaft.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. SOLAS does not provide for such an 
    exemption; and in discussions on this issue at IMO it was agreed that, 
    even if canned water is not packed in a liferaft, it is reasonable to 
    assume that persons abandoning ship into liferafts will attempt to 
    bring along as much canned food as possible, whereupon a tin opener 
    will be indispensable. Consequently, the requirements for tin openers, 
    and the associated modification, are retained in this final rule as 
    originally proposed.
        Pursuant to IMO MSC Circular (Circ.) 447, proposed Sec. 160.151-
    21(n) waived the SOLAS requirement for liferafts to be equipped with an 
    ``efficient radar reflector.'' The reason for the effective waiver in 
    the 1983 IMO document was that no radar reflector suitable for packing 
    in inflatable liferafts was known to be available at that time. One 
    comment suggested that MSC/Circ. 447 is an ``antiquated ruling that has 
    been overcome by time and technology,'' and that a radar reflector 
    should be a fundamental piece of required equipment for all liferafts.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. There have not been any significant 
    advances in radar reflector technology since 1983. The Coast Guard is 
    still not aware of any ``efficient'' radar reflectors suitable for 
    extended storage in the tight confines of packed inflatable liferafts, 
    and several proposals to cancel MSC/Circ. 447 have been rejected by the 
    IMO Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee for that reason. It 
    should be noted as well that, since 1983, the implementation of the 
    GMDSS, incorporating portable satellite Emergency Position Indicating 
    Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and Search and Rescue Transponders (SARTs) on 
    many ships, has largely overshadowed radar reflectors as locating aids.
        A number of identical comments suggested requiring a ``tape'' on 
    liferaft canopies that would make them more visible to radar. This 
    suggestion has not been adopted in the final rule, since the principles 
    of radar propagation and reflection would render such a product 
    ineffective as a radar reflector.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(u) required that the anti-seasickness 
    medicine required by SOLAS regulation III/38.5.1.21 be one of two 
    specified medicines carried onboard. Several comments noted that, 
    because the two specified medicines are available only by prescription, 
    this provision would require a servicing facility to obtain DEA 
    registration to distribute controlled substances. The comments also 
    noted that the specified medicines can have serious side effects making 
    their use dangerous without medical supervision.
        The Coast Guard agrees that it would be impracticable to require 
    liferaft-servicing facilities to handle controlled substances, and has 
    amended Sec. 160.151-21(u) in the final rule to remove the requirement 
    for specific medicines. Any readily available over-the-counter medicine 
    for motion sickness such as dimenhydrinate (generic formulation of 
    Dramamine) will be suitable.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-21 (v) and (w) required instructions for 
    survival and immediate action to be provided in English. One comment 
    noted that in many areas the crews do not read or speak English, and 
    suggested that the required instructions be in a language the crew 
    understands.
        The Coast Guard is very aware of the linguistic diversity of ships' 
    crews, particularly in the fishing industry. However, it would not be 
    practical to require liferaft manufacturers to make the required 
    instructions available in whatever language a particular customer (or 
    his crew) may be able to read, particularly in view of the fact that 
    the manufacturer generally does not know who the customer (let alone 
    his crew) is until long after the liferaft is packed. We encourage 
    liferaft manufacturers to make practical efforts to satisfy the 
    linguistic needs of their customers, and have revised Sec. 160.151-21 
    (v) and (w) in the final rule to make it clear that providing 
    instructions in other languages along with English is acceptable.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(x) required SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
    liferafts to be equipped with thermal protective aids approved under 
    approval series 160.174. One comment noted that these aids provide 
    critical survival capability not currently available in Ocean Service 
    or Limited Service equipment packs. The same comment further 
    recommended either that those packs be replaced by the SOLAS A and 
    SOLAS B packs, respectively, or that they have to be upgraded by the 
    addition of thermal protective aids.
        While the Coast Guard agrees that thermal protective aids can 
    significantly enhance survival prospects in certain situations, the 
    upgrading of existing approved liferafts is beyond the scope of this 
    rulemaking. Consequently, the final rule does not include any 
    requirement to upgrade such liferafts. At present, a liferaft owner 
    desiring to add thermal
    
    [[Page 25533]]
    
    protective aids to its equipment pack may, so long as the addition is 
    addressed in the manufacturer's servicing manual. Even notwithstanding 
    such optional carriage, the Coast Guard anticipates that the proportion 
    of liferafts equipped with thermal protective aids will slowly increase 
    as existing Ocean and Limited Service liferafts are taken out of 
    service and replaced by SOLAS A or SOLAS B liferafts equipped with 
    these aids. It should be noted, however, that these aids are not a 
    panacea for exposure, since a SOLAS liferaft need carry them for only 
    ten percent of its rated capacity.
        One comment questioned who would decide how many thermal protective 
    aids would be provided in each liferaft, and how the addition of these 
    protective aids would affect the re-packing of the liferaft. As 
    discussed briefly above, the number of these aids in a SOLAS liferaft 
    is specified by SOLAS regulation III/38.5.24 as the greater of ten 
    percent of its rated capacity or two. This information would be 
    included in the manufacturer's service manual, along with instructions 
    for packing the aids in the equipment pack. The manufacturer would have 
    performed all approval testing of a SOLAS liferaft with the required 
    aids packed in the equipment pack.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-21(y) required a repair kit called for by 
    SOLAS regulation III/39.10.1.1 to include six or more sealing clamps or 
    serrated conical plastic plugs, along with patches, cement, and a 
    roughing tool for making more permanent repairs. The NPRM specifically 
    requested comments concerning appropriate contents for repair kits, 
    since SOLAS does not specify its contents.
        One comment suggested that a combination of serrated plugs and 
    sealing clamps should be accepted. The comment added that the serrated 
    plugs should not have to be of plastic material, and that the Coast 
    Guard should consider the possibility of using a quick-repair material 
    such as a suitable self-adhesive tape in lieu of tube patches and 
    cement. Two comments contended that tube patches and cement are 
    virtually useless for making repairs on the water. One comment 
    suggested that conical plugs should not be approved as substitutes for 
    sealing clamps until they have been proven as effective as the clamps. 
    Another comment suggested that sealing clamps are superior to serrated 
    repair plugs, and should be used.
        The Coast Guard does not agree that sealing clamps are superior to 
    plugs in all instances. The thickness and textures of fabrics of tubes 
    of inflatable liferafts vary widely. In light of the disparate 
    effectiveness of sealing clamps and plugs with different fabrics for 
    inflatable tubes, the Coast Guard contends that liferaft manufacturers 
    are best able to determine a suitable combination for use with their 
    liferafts through testing and operational experience. It expects that 
    manufacturers will take effectiveness as well as economics into account 
    when determining suitable contents for a repair kit. It agrees that 
    wooden plugs should be accepted as well as plastic ones (and may be 
    desirable in some cases), and that a suitable quick-repair material 
    such as self-adhesive tape would be an acceptable and perhaps 
    preferable substitute for patches, cement, and a roughing tool. 
    Consequently, the wording of Sec. 160.151-21(y) has been revised in the 
    final rule to require six or more sealing clamps or serrated conical 
    plugs, or a combination of the two; five or more tube patches at least 
    50 mm (2 inches (in.)) in diameter, compatible with the liferaft 
    fabric; a roughing tool, if necessary to apply the patches; and, unless 
    the patches are self-adhesive, cement as specified in the NPRM. The 
    Coast Guard would like to be kept informed of the progress of 
    manufacturers in developing or identifying suitable self-adhesive 
    patches.
    Float-Free Arrangements
        One comment noted that there is no specific reference to float-free 
    arrangements in the proposed rules other than by reference to SOLAS 
    regulation III/38 (specifically regulation 38.6 thereunder) in proposed 
    Sec. 160.151-7, and that there is no mention of wire weak links for 
    inflatable buoyant apparatuses. The comment also questioned whether 
    hydrostatic release units used in float-free arrangements would have to 
    be approved by the Coast Guard (as is the equipment in Sec. 160.151-
    21).
        As is the case in the bulk of the proposed rules, the requirements 
    for float-free arrangements are not explicitly stated, but rather are 
    incorporated by reference to the corresponding SOLAS requirements. Weak 
    links for inflatable buoyant apparatuses are covered in Sec. 160.010-
    3(a) in the NPRM (retained substantially unchanged in the final rule), 
    which requires an inflatable buoyant apparatus to generally meet the 
    standards of design and performance for SOLAS inflatable liferafts 
    contained in subpart 160.151. Since they are of similar function and 
    packed buoyancy to inflatable liferafts, the NPRM and the final rule 
    require that buoyant apparatuses be fitted with the same weak links 
    used with inflatable liferafts, rather than the weaker weak links used 
    with life floats and rigid buoyant apparatuses.
        The requirement that hydrostatic releases used in float-free 
    arrangements be approved is a vessel requirement which is beyond the 
    scope of this equipment subpart and this rulemaking, but appears in the 
    recently updated vessel regulations at Secs. 28.125(c), 117.130 (b), 
    180.130(b), and 199.130(c)(7) of this part.
    Carriage of Additional Equipment
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-25 provided guidelines for the carriage of 
    additional equipment, beyond that required by the regulations, in 
    liferaft equipment packs. The proposed rule required that such 
    equipment be covered in the liferaft manufacturer's approved drawings 
    and servicing manual, and that specified items meet the applicable 
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations in 47 CFR part 80.
        Two comments questioned the inclusion of the Class S EPIRB and the 
    omission of the Class B EPIRB in the items specified in the proposed 
    rule, since the class S EPIRB is not commonly used in liferafts. One 
    comment questioned why only certain items were specified in the 
    proposed rule, and two comments suggested substituting a generic 
    statement that any additional equipment must meet any applicable Coast 
    Guard or FCC requirements. The Coast Guard agrees that wording to that 
    effect confers a more flexible approach. Accordingly, it has revised 
    Sec. 160.151-25 to require that any additional equipment for which 
    performance or approval standards are prescribed in 46 CFR part 160 or 
    47 CFR part 80 must comply with those standards.
        Although the proposed regulations permitted optional carriage of an 
    EPIRB, ten identical comments suggested that EPIRB's should be required 
    to be included in liferaft equipment packs. These comments noted that 
    adding an EPIRB would result in quicker location of the liferaft, so 
    that stability would not be as significant a factor. Several comments 
    suggested adding a waterproof VHF radio.
        The Coast Guard does not agree that EPIRBs and VHF radios should 
    have to be included in liferaft equipment packs. As discussed above, 
    the proposed rules allowed for adding equipment to that specifically 
    required in the equipment pack. Anyone who wants to include an EPIRB, a 
    VHF radio, or both in a liferaft may do so, provided that their packing 
    is addressed in the liferaft manufacturer's service manual. However, 
    portable versions of these
    
    [[Page 25534]]
    
    items generally already have to be carried on a ship outside of the 
    liferaft, and a trained crew should know to retrieve them in the event 
    of an emergency so as to be ready to carry them into the liferaft. 
    Consequently, the final rule does not mandate the inclusion of EPIRBs 
    or VHF radios in liferaft equipment packs.
    
    Approval Inspections and Tests
    
        By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-
    27(a) required that all liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatus be 
    subjected to the same Cold Inflation Test, at a test temperature of 
    -30 deg.C. The preamble to the NPRM solicited comments as to whether 
    the Coast Guard should approve Coastal Service liferafts and inflatable 
    buoyant apparatus tested at a higher temperature, such as -18 deg.C, 
    since other countries approve them. One comment supported this 
    suggestion, while another supported an increase in the testing 
    temperature to -12 deg.C in order to reduce costs by reducing the sizes 
    of inflation cylinders and the dimensions of raft containers.
        The Coast Guard agrees that an increase in the testing temperature 
    for Coastal Service liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatus is 
    warranted, but finds the proposal to increase the testing temperature 
    to -12 deg.C excessive for the following reasons. These products are 
    often used in areas where the temperature falls below -12 deg.C. In 
    addition, the HSC Code specifies a range of operational temperatures 
    down to -18 deg.C for open reversible liferafts, which are functionally 
    similar to inflatable buoyant apparatus, and countries with climates 
    similar to ours have substantial and successful operational experience 
    with the test temperature of -18 deg.C. Therefore, Sec. 160.051-5(l) of 
    the final rule has been revised to require the Cold Inflation Test in 
    IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/5.17.3.3.2, to be conducted at a test 
    temperature of -18 deg.C for Coastal Service inflatable liferafts, and 
    Sec. 160.010-3(a)(16) allows the same for inflatable buoyant apparatus.
        The Cold Inflation Test in IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 1/
    5.17.3.3.2, requires that the liferaft be exposed to the test 
    temperature for at least 24 hours before the test. The Hot Inflation 
    Test in para. 1/5.17.3.3.3 requires that the liferaft be exposed to the 
    test temperature for at least 7 hours before the test. The existing 
    procedures for these tests in 46 CFR 160.051-5(e)(11) require that the 
    liferaft be fitted with thermocouples and exposed to the appropriate 
    test temperature until the interior of the liferaft reaches that test 
    temperature, which often takes considerably in excess of 24 hours. One 
    comment suggested that this ``weakening'' of the test procedure is 
    unjustified and may not be an accurate determinant of the raft's 
    ability to inflate hot or cold.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. The tests in the IMO recommendation have 
    been used worldwide for approval of liferafts for many years, and there 
    has been no indication that the liferafts approved according to those 
    or similar tests are deficient in hot or cold performance. In fact, it 
    is misleading to evaluate these tests in terms only of the changes in 
    the required temperature exposures. The IMO Cold Inflation Test, for 
    example, is a more stringent test than the test in existing regulation, 
    since it requires the raft to reach design pressure (as opposed to 
    design shape) in the specified time. Most rafts approved to existing 
    U.S. requirements will fail this test without upgrading of the gas 
    charge. Similarly, the IMO Hot Inflation Test requires that the 
    pressure-relief valves be sufficient to prevent the liferaft from 
    reaching twice working pressure. There was no corresponding requirement 
    in existing regulations. For these reasons, the Hot and Cold Inflation 
    Tests are retained in the final rule as proposed by Sec. 160.151-27(a), 
    with reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), paragraph 5.17.
        Also with reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed 
    Sec. 160.151-27(a) would require a Towing Test at a speed of 3 knots, 
    rather than 5 knots as at present. One comment questioned the validity 
    of revising the requirement since no justification was provided for 
    lowering the speed.
        The Coast Guard does not agree that the lower speed of the Towing 
    Test as proposed represents a drop of standards. The existing test in 
    46 CFR 160.051-5(e)(8) requires towing at 5 knots, but does not include 
    any minimum distance. The IMO test, while at a lower specified speed, 
    also includes a stringent minimum distance. Especially since it is 
    extremely unlikely that a loaded liferaft would ever be towed at speeds 
    in excess of 3 knots, the IMO test is a more realistic and more 
    repeatable test. The test is retained in the final rule as proposed.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-27(c)(5) would require that, when the Canopy 
    Closure Test is performed, the accumulated water in the liferaft must 
    not exceed 4 liters. One comment suggested that this requirement is 
    extreme and unnecessary, since this quantity of water is so 
    insignificant that it cannot even be bailed from the liferaft. The 
    comment proposed that the wording in the IMO testing recommendation, 
    that there be no ``significant accumulation'' of water within the 
    liferaft, be retained by reference without any elaboration.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. The term ``significant accumulation'' is 
    subjective and so is essentially meaningless. The Coast Guard considers 
    that SOLAS regulation III/38.1.5.3, which requires that the canopy 
    ``exclude seawater,'' dictates that the canopy closure be watertight. 
    The Coast Guard realizes, however, that complete watertightness is 
    practically impossible for a product constructed of fabric, and that 
    the nature of the test procedure dictates that a small amount of water 
    will likely enter the raft if only as the canopy is opened to check the 
    raft at the conclusion of the test. The specified 4-liter maximum is 
    intended to be a generous allowance for this inevitable minor leakage, 
    not to define the limit of a dangerous amount. The suggestion in the 
    comment that this would not even be enough water to bail indirectly 
    supports the choice of this figure, since the presence of enough water 
    to require bailing would, based on experience with numerous tests 
    performed in conjunction with other maritime safety administrations, 
    certainly constitute a failure of the test. For these reasons, proposed 
    Sec. 160.151-27(c)(5) is retained unchanged in the final rule.
    Production Tests and Inspections
        By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-
    31(d) would require each production liferaft to undergo an overpressure 
    test at 1.5 times working pressure. The preamble to the NPRM noted that 
    a change to this test, to make it consistent with the ``Necessary 
    Additional Pressure (NAP) Test'' done during servicing, had been 
    tentatively approved by the Lifesaving, Search and Rescue Sub-Committee 
    of IMO, and would be incorporated in the final rule if it obtained 
    final approval. That approval was given by the 66th session of the IMO 
    MSC in Resolution MSC.54(66) of 30 May 1996.
        One comment supported the reference to the existing overpressure 
    test in Resolution A.689(17), and commented that the Coast Guard should 
    ensure that the NAP Test is at least equivalent to that test before 
    adopting it. Since the overpressure test currently in the IMO 
    recommendation is at 1.5 times working pressure, and the NAP Test is at 
    a minimum of twice working pressure, the Coast Guard is confident that 
    the NAP Test is at least equivalent, and has incorporated it in this 
    final rule by updating the incorporation by reference of Resolution 
    A.689(17) to include amendments through and including Resolution 
    MSC.54(66). Consequently,
    
    [[Page 25535]]
    
    the reference to Resolution A.689(17), part 2, paragraph 5.1.4 in 
    Sec. 160.151-31(d) now covers the updated test.
        By reference to IMO Resolution A.689(17), proposed Sec. 160.151-31 
    (d) and (e) would require inflatable compartments of liferafts to 
    undergo a 1-hour air-holding test with an allowable pressure drop of 5 
    percent, rather than the 6-hour, 10 percent test in existing 46 CFR 
    160.051-5(c)(3). One comment suggested that the existing test should be 
    retained unless the Coast Guard can show that the revised test will 
    provide the same assurance of the liferaft's airtightness.
        The Coast Guard has several years of experience with the IMO test, 
    because it has been allowed for liferafts approved to the SOLAS 
    requirements since its adoption by the IMO. The Coast Guard knows of no 
    problems associated with the reduction of the testing period, and 
    believes that the 1-hour test is an adequate measure of the 
    airtightness of a liferaft, especially combined with the required NAP 
    test. Consequently, the test is retained in the final rule in 
    Secs. 160.151-31 (d) and (e) as proposed in the NPRM.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-31(a) would require that liferaft production 
    inspections be performed under the oversight of an accepted independent 
    laboratory. One comment strongly supported the use of third parties for 
    this purpose, and suggested that such parties should be required to 
    have the qualifications and quality control required for IACS 
    membership.
        Section 160.151-31(a) has been retained in this final rule as 
    proposed. The Coast Guard does not intend to restrict acceptance as 
    third parties for production inspections to classification societies or 
    IACS members. The Coast Guard considers that the existing independent 
    laboratory acceptance standards in Sec. 159.010, which have been used 
    successfully for years to accept numerous third parties to inspect a 
    variety of approved products, are sufficient to evaluate and accept 
    third parties for liferaft production inspections.
        The Coast Guard recognizes that manufacturers will likely not be 
    able to comply immediately with the requirement in proposed 
    Sec. 160.151-31(g) to arrange for periodic inspections by an accepted 
    independent laboratory. Consequently, Sec. 160.151-31(g) in the final 
    rule has been revised to give manufacturers up to one year to comply 
    with this requirement. A new Sec. 160.151-31(h) has been added to the 
    final rule to address procedures for the transitional period while 
    manufacturers arrange for independent laboratory inspection. This 
    paragraph is similar to existing Sec. 160.051-5(a), except that it 
    allows the OCMI the option of attending or not when notified of final 
    production inspections.
    
    Liferaft Servicing
    
    Servicing Intervals
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-35(a) would require that inflatable liferafts 
    (and by extension, inflatable buoyant apparatus) be serviced 
    ``periodically'' at a servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard. 
    One comment suggested that the servicing interval should be 
    definitively stated, perhaps by reference to SOLAS regulation III/19, 
    which requires servicing annually.
        A more definitive statement of servicing intervals appears in 
    proposed Sec. 160.151-57(n). Under Sec. 160.151-57(n) in the NPRM and 
    in this final rule, annual servicing is no longer applicable in all 
    cases, since the first servicing of a new liferaft on a non-SOLAS ship 
    can be delayed until the raft is two years old provided that dated 
    survival equipment in the liferaft will not expire before the next 
    servicing due date.
        Multiple comments suggested that that annual servicing is 
    unnecessary and costly. In support of this view, several of these 
    comments cited the fact that most of the equipment in a liferaft's 
    equipment pack remains serviceable for far longer than a year. One 
    comment suggested that servicing intervals could be extended 
    considerably by the placement of the liferaft equipment in a waterproof 
    container. Nine of the comments proposed alternative servicing 
    intervals, ranging from biennially to once every 5 years; however, none 
    of these comments provided any justification for the proposed intervals 
    or any evidence that they would not adversely affect the performance of 
    the liferaft. One letter cited the difficulty of removing the liferaft 
    from the vessel for servicing, and the potential for damage when doing 
    so. Several comments noted that the choice of servicing facilities is 
    limited, and the prices they charge exorbitant.
        The Coast Guard does not agree that annual servicing is 
    unnecessary. Servicing intervals do not derive exclusively from the 
    need to examine and replace dated equipment, although some equipment, 
    such as flashlight batteries and cement in repair kits, does typically 
    require annual replacement. During servicing, in addition to having its 
    emergency equipment examined, the liferaft itself is unfolded, inflated 
    with air and tested for airtightness, and repaired if needed. The 
    cylinder is weighed, and the liferaft fabric and structure examined for 
    damage and deterioration. The liferaft is then refolded and repacked, 
    which serves to extend the life of the liferaft fabric by relocating 
    the creases. This procedure has been the requirement in the U.S. for 
    some decades, and is also the norm internationally, required by SOLAS 
    regulation III/19.8.1. Although some manufacturers have done some 
    developmental work on methods of extending service intervals, the Coast 
    Guard is not currently aware of any methods shown to provide the same 
    level of assurance of a raft's operational readiness as the currently 
    required annual servicing. The Coast Guard is also not aware of any 
    other maritime safety administrations currently allowing extension of 
    servicing intervals. Consequently, the final rule does not extend 
    intervals for liferaft servicing beyond those contained in existing 
    regulation and in SOLAS, except for new liferafts on ships not 
    certificated under SOLAS. This minimal extension was first permitted by 
    46 CFR 28.140(b) for new liferafts on commercial fishing vessels, as a 
    way of mitigating the expense of compliance with the new regulations 
    for safety of vessels in the commercial fishing industry. The Coast 
    Guard considers this extension to be low-risk in view of the stringent 
    production testing to which new liferafts are subjected, and so these 
    final rules extend its application to new liferafts on all vessels not 
    SOLAS-certificated. The Coast Guard may reexamine this position in the 
    future with further experience and research by the industry.
        One comment opposed allowing the first servicing of new liferafts 
    to be extended to two years, citing dated items in the liferaft. 
    Section 160.151-57(n) in the NPRM and in this final rule addresses this 
    comment by permitting such extensions only if dated survival equipment 
    in the liferaft will not expire before the next due date for servicing.
    Servicing Costs
        A number of comments discussed the limited choice of servicing 
    facilities and the prices charged for servicing. The Coast Guard notes 
    these comments, however the Coast Guard does not have any authority to 
    regulate the economics of the liferaft-servicing industry. It would 
    advise consumers to investigate the availability and suitability of 
    servicing facilities before purchasing a liferaft. Although liferaft 
    manufacturers are required as a condition of approval to demonstrate 
    some reasonable geographic coverage of servicing facilities, the Coast 
    Guard cannot require or guarantee that a servicing
    
    [[Page 25536]]
    
    facility will be conveniently located for every liferaft owner.
        One comment suggested that liferaft servicing should be performed 
    by the manufacturer, with servicing costs and schedules provided at the 
    time of liferaft purchase. The final rule does not shift the burden of 
    service onto the manufacturer. Most liferaft manufacturers are equipped 
    primarily to manufacture liferafts, not to service them, and the costs 
    and time associated with transporting the liferafts to the manufacturer 
    for servicing would be enormous. The existing system better serves the 
    owner of the liferaft by providing for reasonably local access to 
    liferaft servicing. Advance notice of recurring servicing costs would 
    be impossible to provide with any degree of certainty, since these 
    costs vary from liferaft to liferaft depending on how and where the 
    liferaft is stored and numerous other factors that cannot be determined 
    in advance with any certainty.
    Manufacturers' Responsibilities
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) would require a manufacturer to make 
    the servicing manual, servicing manual revisions, service bulletins, 
    liferaft plans, and any unique parts and tools that may be necessary to 
    service the manufacturer's liferafts available to each technician who 
    has successfully completed the manufacturer's initial or refresher 
    training course within the periods specified in Sec. 160.151-41(e). 
    Several comments opposed this requirement, since it implies that the 
    specified items are the property of the technician rather than the 
    servicing facility (which likely paid for the training). Several of the 
    comments further noted that individual technicians may have no vested 
    interest in the liferaft-servicing business, since not all facility 
    owners are qualified technicians, and that the manufacturer has no 
    relationship with or recourse against an individual technician. One 
    comment suggested that it would be unduly burdensome for manufacturers 
    to have to provide each technician, rather than each approved servicing 
    facility, with updates. Two comments proposed that the wording of 
    Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) be changed to require that the manufacturer make 
    the specified items available to approved service facilities staffed by 
    technicians who have been trained within the specified periods, rather 
    than to the technicians themselves.
        The Coast Guard agrees in concept with the suggested change to 
    proposed Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3), since it will accomplish substantially 
    the same end as the proposal in the NPRM. The change has been 
    incorporated in Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule with one minor 
    revision; since Sec. 160.151-41(e) already requires an approved 
    servicing facility to employ at least one currently trained technician, 
    it is not necessary to include that as a condition in this regulation. 
    Consequently, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule requires that the 
    items specified in the NPRM be made available to ``each approved 
    servicing facility'' servicing the manufacturer's liferafts.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-39(b) would require that the manufacturer 
    ``conduct a refresher training program for recertification of 
    previously trained servicing technicians.'' Several comments disagreed 
    with this requirement, since they do not believe a technician should 
    have a right in perpetuity to be trained. One of the comments proposed 
    wording that would indicate that the manufacturer will conduct a 
    refresher training program ``by invitation.'' Another comment suggested 
    that manufacturers should have to open up their training courses to any 
    technician from a facility approved by the Coast Guard, to ensure that 
    the approval of servicing facilities is based upon the qualifications 
    of the facility and its technicians, not upon business considerations. 
    One comment suggested that a servicing technician's certification 
    should be linked to a particular approved facility.
        As indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, the proposed rule did not 
    intend to mandate who must receive training, or that a manufacturer 
    must provide training on demand. It intended to require only that a 
    manufacturer have an established refresher-training program so that it 
    is possible to maintain an approved servicing network in compliance 
    with the training requirements in Sec. 160.151-41(e). The Coast Guard 
    does not intend to get involved in whom a manufacturer invites to 
    attend the program. It has slightly refined the wording of 
    Sec. 160.151-39(b) in the final rule to clarify its intent.
        The suggestion that a technician's certification be linked to a 
    particular approved facility has not been adopted in the final rule. 
    Subject to relevant legal considerations, a manufacturer can include 
    such a linkage in its certifications, but the Coast Guard does not 
    agree that there is any compelling reason why certification to service 
    a particular make of liferaft should not be portable.
    Approval Process for Servicing Facilities
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(b) would revise the process by which 
    servicing facilities obtain Coast Guard approval. Rather than the 
    manufacturer's designating a selected facility as at present under 46 
    CFR 160.051-6(d), a servicing facility would apply directly to the OCMI 
    for approval. There would no longer be an explicit requirement for 
    advance authorization by a manufacturer of a servicing facility.
        A number of comments opposed this change. The reasons cited in the 
    comments were that the proposed change does not allow for a 
    manufacturer's ``approval'' of a servicing facility as is effectively 
    the case at present, and does not require ``manufacturer support as 
    outlined in IMO Resolution A.761(18), Annex 2.'' One of the comments 
    noted that it appeared the proposed rules would mandate a reduction in 
    the manufacturer's control over the servicing of its product. One 
    comment noted that any manufacturer must retain the right to determine 
    who will distribute its products. One comment suggested that 
    technicians must have manufacturer training, and suggested that the 
    manufacturer should periodically visit a servicing facility to train 
    and observe the servicing technicians.
        The Coast Guard generally disagrees with all of the comments cited 
    above. First, the IMO Resolution referred to does not require, as the 
    comments wish, that servicing facilities be ``accredited'' by the 
    manufacturer. The wording of the resolution was crafted carefully to 
    avoid such a result. It does require that the manufacturer establish a 
    servicing network by accrediting a sufficient number of servicing 
    stations, that each of those stations be staffed with qualified 
    personnel, and that the manufacturer provide the Administration with a 
    list of them. However, it does not require that every facility approved 
    by the Administration be so accredited.
        The proposed rules have no effect on a manufacturer's selection of 
    distributors for its products. They address only servicing facilities, 
    which may or may not also be distributors. Distribution and servicing 
    are distinct activities.
        As it indicated in the NPRM, the Coast Guard desires to focus on 
    the technical qualifications of the servicing facility, and not on the 
    facility's business arrangements with the manufacturer. The IMO 
    resolution upon which the proposed rules were based
    
    [[Page 25537]]
    
    clearly spells out the technical requirements for approval of a 
    servicing facility: a suitable space, parts, tools, manuals, and 
    appropriately trained personnel. If those requirements are met, there 
    is no significant value added by an explicit business relationship with 
    the manufacturer. Since such a relationship is not essential to the 
    adequate functioning of a servicing facility, the Coast Guard sees no 
    need to allow the liferaft manufacturing industry to control which 
    members of the servicing industry have access to the program of Coast 
    Guard approval.
        Manufacturers' support of approved servicing facilities is required 
    by the IMO recommendation on servicing and by Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of 
    the NPRM and the final rule. This rule actually represents a 
    strengthening of the requirements for such support, not, as several 
    comments implied, an abandonment of them.
        One comment noted that ``to remove the manufacturer approval would 
    remove the manufacturer's quality control abilities.'' However, neither 
    existing regulations nor the proposed rules give the manufacturer any 
    explicit responsibility for control of quality of facilities servicing 
    their liferafts. In fact, to do so, or to require, as suggested in one 
    comment from a facility, that manufacturers visit all of their 
    servicing facilities periodically to train and observe servicing 
    technicians, could be burdensome to manufacturers. Under such 
    requirements, manufacturers would have to give the same degree of 
    attention to remote and overseas facilities that they give to local 
    ones. Quality control is the responsibility of the facility itself, and 
    the Coast Guard intends to continue adequate oversight over the 
    facilities to ensure that quality control is adequate. Note that 
    nothing in this final rule prevents a manufacturer from entering into 
    or maintaining a relationship with an approved facility, which 
    relationship may include quality-control arrangements.
        Several comments suggested that if all servicing facilities had to 
    compete with each other, a black market for manuals and parts would 
    appear, and facilities would cut corners to maintain profits.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard has no authority or 
    desire to restrict competition among liferaft-servicing facilities, and 
    believes that the oversight required by these final rules will serve to 
    inhibit those facilities from cutting corners for financial reasons. 
    Concerning the creation of a black market for servicing manuals and 
    parts, Sec. 160.151-37(c) in the NPRM and in the final rule requires 
    each manual to bear the original signature of a manufacturer's 
    representative attesting its consistency with the manual approved by 
    the Commandant. Consequently, ``bootleg'' copies of manuals of 
    questionable accuracy, as may be in circulation at present, should no 
    longer exist. Provided that replacement parts used are genuine parts as 
    specified in the manual, the Coast Guard is not concerned with where a 
    facility obtains them. However, this should not be a problem in any 
    case since, as discussed above, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule 
    requires that the manufacturer make unique parts or tools required for 
    servicing available to each facility approved by the Coast Guard to 
    service the manufacturer's liferafts.
        One comment noted that it appeared the proposed changes to the 
    approval process for facilities may be driven in part by Coast Guard 
    concern that current regulations may foster a monopoly in the servicing 
    industry, and explained in detail how this is not the case at all at 
    present. However, the premise of the comment is incorrect, since the 
    Coast Guard is not concerned with nor has any authority over the 
    regulation of business practices in the servicing industry.
        One comment suggested that the proposed rules appeared to indicate 
    that the Coast Guard would hold a facility qualified to service one 
    manufacturer's rafts qualified to service all manufacturer's rafts, and 
    supported retaining the manufacturer in the approval process to ensure 
    that proper repair techniques are used. The same comment pointed out 
    the importance of manufacturers' knowing the identity of the facilities 
    that service their rafts.
        Under the proposed rules, servicing facilities would continue to be 
    approved separately for each individual make of liferaft. For each make 
    for which approval is sought, a facility would still need to have 
    appropriately manufacturer-certified personnel, servicing manuals, and 
    all parts and tools required by the manufacturer, and to demonstrate 
    the proficiency of its technicians. The requirements for training would 
    be strengthened from those at present by requiring that the training be 
    current. Overall, the proposed rules strengthen the technical 
    requirements for approval of a facility, so the Coast Guard is 
    confident that the ability of facilities to properly service and repair 
    liferafts will not be adversely affected by the removal of the 
    requirement for a formal manufacturer's authorization. To keep 
    manufacturers apprised of the facilities servicing their liferafts, the 
    Coast Guard would continue the present practice of sending a copy of 
    each facility-approval letter to the manufacturer whose rafts it is 
    approving a facility to service.
        One comment suggested that facilities should submit a servicing 
    report describing the servicing of liferafts performed outside of the 
    United States to the Coast Guard. It offered no reason.
        The Coast Guard approves servicing facilities outside the United 
    States, and their servicing activities are subject to supervision by 
    OCMIs just the same as servicing at any other approved facility. The 
    Coast Guard does not believe that reporting requirements for liferaft 
    servicing should vary with the geographic location of a servicing 
    facility. The paperwork burden of reporting servicing performed outside 
    the United States would not serve any useful purpose.
        For the reasons discussed above, proposed Sec. 160.151-41(b) is 
    retained unchanged in the final rule. The Coast Guard realizes that 
    manufacturers will retain a good deal of practical control over 
    facilities servicing their rafts under that rule, for example through 
    non-compete clauses and control of access to training. However, there 
    will no longer be any reason for the Coast Guard to get involved in 
    these sorts of business arrangements.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(c) would require that, for a servicing 
    facility to obtain Coast Guard approval, it would need to demonstrate 
    the complete servicing of a liferaft of the type for which it seeks 
    approval, in the presence of either the cognizant OCMI or a third-party 
    inspector accepted by the OCMI. Several comments suggested that such a 
    demonstration should not be necessary if a technician from the facility 
    has already demonstrated his abilities to a Coast Guard inspector 
    during initial or refresher training held at a different location (such 
    as the manufacturer's plant).
        The Coast Guard agrees, and amends Sec. 160.151-41 in the final 
    rule to indicate that certification by a Coast Guard inspector, or by a 
    third-party inspector accepted by the OCMI, of completion of the 
    specified demonstration at the time of initial or refresher training is 
    acceptable in lieu of a demonstration at the facility seeking approval. 
    In addition, this section in final form allows the certification to be 
    made by the manufacturer's trainer, since the trainer would obviously 
    be well enough qualified to be accepted by the OCMI in any case. 
    However, the provision is not moved to Sec. 160.151-39 as proposed in 
    two comments, since, although Sec. 160.151-39(c) requires notification 
    of the cognizant OCMI before holding required training, that training 
    may not
    
    [[Page 25538]]
    
    always be attended by a Coast Guard inspector. One comment suggested 
    that a Coast Guard inspector should be present at every training course 
    to ensure the thoroughness of the training and to enable the Coast 
    Guard to better oversee liferaft servicing operations. However, 
    resources and priorities of the Coast Guard do not always allow such 
    attendance.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-41(c)(8) would require that, for the Coast 
    Guard to approve a servicing facility, the facility would need to 
    demonstrate that it can repair a leak in a liferaft's main buoyancy 
    chamber and then subject the repaired chamber to ``the inflation test 
    described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), para. 2/5.1.5.'' One comment 
    suggested that the repaired chamber should be subjected to an 
    overpressure test rather than an inflation test.
        This comment stems in part from some imprecise wording in the NPRM, 
    since para. 2/5.1.5 of Resolution A.689(17) is a test of leakage at 
    working pressure, not an inflation test. The Coast Guard agrees that an 
    inflation test is not necessary to ensure that a repair has been done 
    properly, and that an overpressure test is a more appropriate test of a 
    repair than either an inflation test or a test of leakage at working 
    pressure. Section 160.151-41(c)(8) in the final rule requires that the 
    repaired chamber be subjected to the Necessary Additional Pressure test 
    in Sec. 160.151-57(k).
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-45(a) would require a servicing facility to 
    maintain ``a complete set of the manufacturer's plans for each 
    inflatable liferaft to be serviced.'' Two comments noted that complete 
    sets of plans are generally not held by facilities, and that it is 
    sufficient to have service manuals that give ``all relevant 
    information.''
        The Coast Guard agrees that a requirement for a servicing facility 
    to hold a complete set of manufacturing plans would constitute an 
    unnecessary record-keeping burden. The intention is made clearer in 
    Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the NPRM and in the final rule. To eliminate 
    any ambiguity, Sec. 160.151-45(a) in the final rule has been revised to 
    refer to the description of the necessary plans in Sec. 160.151-
    35(b)(3).
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-47 contains requirements for the owner or 
    operator of an approved servicing facility. Two comments suggested that 
    the requirements should include an annual letter from the liferaft 
    manufacturer(s) for which the facility is approved demonstrating their 
    continued technical and consultative support.
        The Coast Guard believes that such a letter would serve no useful 
    purpose, and would therefore represent an unnecessary paperwork burden. 
    As discussed above, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) of the final rule requires 
    that a manufacturer make certain items available to facilities approved 
    by the Coast Guard. Demonstration by an approved facility that it has 
    those items is more substantive evidence of the required technical and 
    consultative support than a letter. Consequently, the suggested 
    requirement for an annual letter has not been incorporated into the 
    final rule.
    Servicing at Remote Sites
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-49 would allow for approval of servicing 
    facilities to perform servicing at remote sites, such as on board ships 
    or offshore facilities, rather than at the facilities themselves. One 
    comment suggested that a facility must be specifically authorized in 
    its letter of approval from the manufacturer to conduct servicing at 
    remote sites.
        As discussed above, in a change from the current regulation, this 
    final rule does not require explicit manufacturer authorization as a 
    condition for approval of a servicing facility. Consequently, the 
    ``letter of approval from the manufacturer'' on which the comment 
    proposes to require an authorizing endorsement for remote servicing 
    does not exist. Therefore, the suggested requirement for manufacturer 
    authorization to conduct servicing at remote sites has not been 
    incorporated in this final rule. However, Sec. 160.151-49 in the final 
    rule now requires that a facility conducting servicing at remote sites 
    be specifically authorized to do so in its letter of approval from the 
    Coast Guard.
        One comment suggested that the provisions on remote-site servicing 
    should be deleted in their entirety, since the intended beneficiaries 
    of those provisions (such as MODUs and quick-turnaround vessels) would 
    in reality see little benefit under the proposed rules. The comment 
    noted that the same difficulties faced by the raft owner in shipping 
    the raft to an approved facility would be faced by the remote-site 
    technician, who would have to import his tools, manuals, parts, etc. at 
    great transportation cost. The comment also cited the difficulty of 
    obtaining work permits in some areas.
        The Coast Guard agrees that remote-site servicing may not be 
    practicable or advantageous in many cases. However, the NPRM does not 
    require remote-site servicing; it merely permits it as an option. The 
    argument that it is inherently impracticable is belied by the fact that 
    the Coast Guard has allowed remote-site servicing at the special 
    request of owners of offshore facilities and servicing facilities under 
    existing regulations. Consequently, the suggestion to delete the 
    provisions on remote-site servicing has not been incorporated in the 
    final rule.
        Referring to proposed Sec. 160.151-49, one comment suggested that 
    servicing facilities outside the United States should be specifically 
    approved by the manufacturer since they will not be by the Coast Guard. 
    This is incorrect, since the Coast Guard does and will continue to 
    approve facilities outside the United States. For servicing at remote 
    sites such as oil rigs, the facility performing the work will still 
    have to be approved by the Coast Guard, and the provisions in the 
    facility's letter of approval authorizing it to perform servicing at 
    remote sites will signify that the Coast Guard has evaluated the 
    facility's ability to perform proper servicing in the field.
    Supervision of Liferaft Servicing
        The NPRM proposed replacing the current system of universal Coast 
    Guard witnessing of liferaft servicing with a system of Coast Guard 
    supervision by means of periodic spot checks, with the frequency of the 
    spot checks at the discretion of the OCMI.
        One comment suggested that, rather than change its current system 
    of inspection of servicing to use its resources more efficiently, the 
    Coast Guard should ask Congress for additional personnel.
        The Coast Guard does not believe it is realistic or desirable to 
    maintain an existing inspection program that can be carried out just as 
    effectively with a more efficient use of fewer resources of the Coast 
    Guard. The proposed conversion from universal inspection of servicing 
    to spot checks would not take place in a vacuum. Although Coast Guard 
    presence at actual servicing would become less frequent under the rules 
    proposed in the NPRM, the technical requirements for facility approval 
    would be significantly strengthened, as would the training requirements 
    for servicing technicians. Overall, the Coast Guard expects that the 
    changes proposed in the NPRM, taken together, will ensure that liferaft 
    servicing continues to be done properly and under adequate supervision.
        One comment completely supported the conversion to spot checks, 
    since servicing technicians at facilities are well trained and 
    qualified, and scheduling a Coast Guard inspector to witness every 
    liferaft servicing is not only burdensome on the Coast Guard's 
    personnel resources but also a financial burden to facilities and an 
    operational burden on ship operators awaiting
    
    [[Page 25539]]
    
    liferaft servicing. The comment also noted that the NPRM is consistent 
    with ongoing efforts toward Maritime Regulatory Reform and with the 
    shifting of appropriate activities to the private sector.
        One comment suggested that there should be a stated minimum 
    frequency of spot checks, and that in no case should the number of spot 
    checks be less than two a year. Another comment suggested that Coast 
    Guard inspectors should observe the servicing or oversee the 
    performance of third-party inspectors in some reasonable percentage of 
    instances.
        The Coast Guard agrees that spot checks by the OCMI must be at some 
    minimum frequency to provide adequate oversight. However, the Coast 
    Guard does not believe that it is appropriate to impose an inflexible 
    requirement upon itself through these regulations. It intends that, 
    when this final rule takes effect, the Commandant will provide 
    appropriate internal guidance to field units to implement the system of 
    supervision by spot checks. In this way, the Coast Guard can take into 
    account any unusual requirements or conditions of particular OCMI 
    zones, and can refine its administration of the program as it gains 
    experience with the new system.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(a) would require that a servicing facility 
    taking in a liferaft to be serviced under its Coast Guard approval 
    notify the OCMI of the make, size, and age of the liferaft, and whether 
    the liferaft is due for a 5-year inflation test. Acting on that 
    information, the OCMI would decide whether the servicing of the 
    liferaft must be witnessed by an inspector.
        One comment suggested that providing the specified information 
    before servicing would be unnecessarily costly, since many vessels 
    operate on extremely tight schedules. The comment proposed that the 
    facility be required only to notify the OCMI of its intent to service a 
    liferaft, and to provide any information available at the time of 
    notice (but not any particular information). Two comments suggested 
    that proposed Sec. 160.151-53 adds uncertain costs to the servicing of 
    a liferaft, since a facility has no way of knowing in advance whether 
    an individual raft will be subject to inspection where a user fee or 
    third-party-inspection fee will be added. One of these comments 
    suggested that the Coast Guard perform random inspections of every 
    facility at no cost to that facility. Another comment suggested that, 
    to make costs involved with servicing inspections predictable, the 
    Coast Guard make periodic (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual) inspections, 
    with or without notice.
        None of these comments have been incorporated in the final rule. 
    Because of constraints on the resources of the Coast Guard, the NPRM 
    proposed to replace the current system of universal Coast Guard 
    witnessing of liferaft servicing for inspected vessels with a system of 
    spot checks by the OCMI. Overall, that system should substantially 
    decrease, for all servicing facilities, the burden associated with 
    scheduling of Coast Guard inspectors for every liferaft servicing and, 
    for foreign facilities, the travel and subsistence expenses of Coast 
    Guard inspectors. However, for spot checks to provide effective 
    supervision of liferaft servicing, it is essential that the Coast Guard 
    focus its resources in the areas of greatest risk. In the case of 
    liferaft servicing, the greatest risk will likely be in the areas of 
    the oldest rafts, particularly those undergoing the five-year inflation 
    test, and perhaps on makes of liferafts that have demonstrated 
    reliability problems in the past. The required information should not 
    be difficult to obtain, since it is all marked on the outside of the 
    liferaft container. A facility called by a ship for the servicing of 
    one of its liferafts would merely need to request that the ship provide 
    the information marked on the outside of the container, whereupon the 
    facility would pass that information to the OCMI when giving the 
    required notice of servicing.
        The suggestions for random periodic inspections have not been 
    adopted, because they do not allow for the Coast Guard's resources to 
    be focused on the areas of highest risk. In addition, such a system 
    would result in the lowest-volume facilities' being subjected to a 
    proportionally much greater degree of supervision than the higher-
    volume facilities.
        One comment questioned whether a servicing facility must notify the 
    OCMI when it plans to service a liferaft from a commercial fishing 
    vessel. The NPRM and the final rule require notice whenever a facility 
    is to service a liferaft for which it is approved by the Coast Guard, 
    regardless of the source of the liferaft.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(c)(2) would allow a servicing facility, 
    when a Coast Guard marine inspector is not available in a timely manner 
    to witness a servicing that needs to be witnessed, to engage a third-
    party inspector accepted by the OCMI to witness the servicing on behalf 
    of the OCMI. Third-party inspection would be at the expense of the 
    facility.
        Two comments suggested that the OCMIs should retain sole 
    responsibility for supervision of servicing of liferafts in their 
    respective zones to maintain the Coast Guard's level of expertise in 
    this area. Another comment stressed the importance of maintaining the 
    Coast Guard's expertise, and suggested that Coast Guard inspectors 
    should observe the servicing or oversee the performance of third-party 
    inspectors in some reasonable percentage of instances.
        The Coast Guard agrees with the comments that it is essential that 
    the Coast Guard maintain its base of knowledge and experience in this 
    highly specialized area. It is anticipated that most spot checks would 
    in fact be conducted by Coast Guard marine inspectors. However, the 
    nature of the spot-check system, in targeting areas of greatest risk, 
    means there may be instances when the witnessing of a particular event 
    is necessary and yet when the Coast Guard does not have adequate 
    resources to attend in a timely manner. To minimize the scheduling 
    burden on servicing facilities and ship operators, the proposed rule 
    affords some flexibility in those instances. Therefore, the suggestion 
    that all spot checks be conducted by a Coast Guard inspector has not 
    been incorporated in the final rule.
        One comment opposed third-party inspections, since unlike the Coast 
    Guard, third-party inspectors would have an economic interest in the 
    outcome of the inspection. A ship operator could influence a third-
    party inspector's decision about whether the liferafts fail the 
    inspection because, if the liferafts fail the inspection, the operator 
    may not hire the inspector again.
        This comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what was 
    proposed in the NPRM. A third-party inspector as described in the NPRM 
    would be hired not by a ship operator but rather by the servicing 
    facility; an operator might not even be aware that a third-party 
    inspector is involved. The third-party inspector's function would be to 
    oversee the performance of the facility, not to evaluate the condition 
    of the liferaft. The presence of an independent third-party inspector 
    during liferaft servicing would be expected to discourage a facility 
    from allowing economic considerations to influence its evaluation of a 
    liferaft, since the inspector would ensure adherence of the facility to 
    the objective and quantitative criteria in the relevant regulations and 
    in the manufacturer's servicing manual.
        Four comments suggested that third-party inspection based on fee 
    for profit
    
    [[Page 25540]]
    
    would greatly increase the cost of liferaft servicing, and one further 
    commented that it would be an unfair system in terms of fees unless a 
    nationwide fee could be agreed upon.
        These rules have no effect on the cost of Coast Guard inspections; 
    inspections at domestic servicing facilities continue to be provided at 
    no charge, and foreign facilities continue to be billed for the 
    inspector's travel and subsistence. The cost of any third-party 
    inspections as allowed by these rules will be borne by the facility in 
    all cases. However, these rules do not require such inspections; they 
    are merely an option available to facilities in cases where constraints 
    on resources of the Coast Guard may not allow response in time to meet 
    a facility's desired delivery schedule. The Coast Guard does not have 
    the authority to regulate fees for such services, and does not believe 
    a uniform fee would be reasonable given the wide variety of parties who 
    could be accepted as inspectors and the worldwide distribution of 
    approved facilities in sometimes-remote locations.
        Three comments expressed concern that untrained personnel might be 
    assigned to oversee liferaft servicing, and asked what training or 
    qualifications a third-party inspector would have to have in order to 
    be able to perform this work.
        As was discussed in the NPRM, third-party inspectors engaged to 
    oversee liferaft servicing would be subject to acceptance by the OCMI. 
    Like the proposed rule, this final rule does not require a third-party 
    inspector to necessarily represent an independent laboratory fully 
    compliant with 46 CFR subpart 159.010. Individuals such as experienced 
    marine surveyors with appropriate practical training or background 
    could be employed. And, like the proposed rule, this final rule gives 
    OCMIs the authority to accept third-party inspectors in their 
    respective zones (as opposed to central approval by the Commandant), 
    since OCMIs will be better able, taking into account their local 
    knowledge and conditions, to evaluate prospective local third-party 
    inspectors of less-than-national scope. To maintain some uniformity of 
    requirements, the Commandant will provide OCMIs with general guidelines 
    for use in evaluating and accepting third-party inspectors where they 
    are used.
        One comment suggested that performance monitoring of accepted 
    third-party organizations would have to be done by the OCMI, and 
    questioned how this relationship would be any different from the 
    current situation between facilities and the OCMI. The difference is 
    that, under the current system, the OCMI is in the facility for every 
    servicing of a liferaft from an inspected vessel. Under the system 
    proposed in the NPRM, the Coast Guard would be in the facility only for 
    periodic spot checks, at which time it could audit records pertaining 
    to any third-party inspections that may have been performed.
        The same comment noted that problems may arise between a facility 
    and third-party inspector, such as conflicts over personality, 
    scheduling, and payment. Obviously, the Coast Guard has neither any 
    intention nor any authority to regulate these areas. Since the facility 
    selects and hires a third-party inspector, it can ``fire'' the 
    inspector as well in the event of an irreconcilable conflict.
        One comment suggested that the Coast Guard would need to establish 
    a ``complaint board'' to address instances of ``unfair actions taken by 
    third party inspectors.'' The Coast Guard does not agree that such a 
    dedicated body is needed in view of established appeal procedures in 
    current regulations. Allegations of actions taken by a third-party 
    inspector that are contrary to the terms of the OCMI's acceptance of 
    the inspector would be evaluated by the OCMI, and corrective action 
    (which could include termination of acceptance) taken as appropriate. A 
    party reporting such allegations who is not satisfied with the OCMI's 
    response can appeal the OCMI's decision to the District Commander and 
    then to the Commandant, if necessary.
        One comment suggested that the Coast Guard should attend every 
    servicing of a ``grandfathered'' liferaft whose carriage on an 
    uninspected commercial-fishing-industry vessel is permitted under 46 
    CFR part 28, because these rafts were not manufactured under 
    supervision of the Coast Guard and thus their construction is suspect. 
    The comment also suggests that the Coast Guard should assume the 
    responsibility for monitoring the condition of these rafts, since it is 
    allowing them to continue in use until they are no longer serviceable.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. The guidelines used by the Coast Guard 
    to allow grandfathering of these liferafts are very stringent, 
    including a gas inflation test and a Necessary Additional Pressure 
    Test, both at the first servicing. The Coast Guard considers these 
    tests sufficient to screen out any rafts of questionable construction. 
    In addition, although grandfathered rafts themselves are not formally 
    approved by the Coast Guard, they have to be serviced at servicing 
    facilities approved by the Coast Guard. Since proposed Sec. 160.151-
    53(a) would require a servicing facility to notify the OCMI of every 
    liferaft taken in for servicing under its Coast Guard approval, 
    grandfathered liferafts would be just as subject to an OCMI's spot 
    check as any other liferaft.
        The Coast Guard also disagrees that grandfathered rafts should be 
    subject to special supervision because it lets them be used until they 
    are no longer serviceable. This condition is not unique to 
    grandfathered liferafts, since any liferaft may continue to be used 
    until it is no longer serviceable.
    Deviations From Procedures in the Servicing Manual
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-53(d) would allow servicing facilities to 
    deviate from servicing manual procedures with the approval of the OCMI. 
    As discussed in the NPRM preamble, this provision would include 
    substitution of comparable equipment when survival equipment approved 
    by the Coast Guard is not available for some reason. One comment 
    suggested that equipment substitution should be permitted only if the 
    substituted equipment meets or exceeds the Coast Guard-approved 
    equipment, and also meets SOLAS approval requirements.
        The Coast Guard agrees in principle with this comment. It is the 
    Coast Guard's intention that any substitute survival equipment be at 
    least comparable to Coast Guard-approved equipment. As was discussed in 
    the NPRM, however, the wide variety of equipment available and the 
    approval requirements for some types of equipment do not always allow 
    for a definitive determination in the field whether a particular piece 
    of equipment would meet all applicable requirements of the Coast Guard. 
    Although it is anticipated that equipment substitutions will be quite 
    rare in any case, there will no doubt be instances where the OCMI has 
    to use his judgment and experience in determining whether a particular 
    deviation is acceptable. Section 160.151-53(d) is retained in the final 
    rule as proposed, since it adequately describes the general procedure 
    for handling deviations subject to the OCMI's discretion.
    Suspension and Withdrawal of Approval of Servicing Facilities
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-55 specifies conditions under which the Coast 
    Guard can suspend or withdraw the approval of a servicing facility. Two 
    comments suggested that this section should be revised to give 
    manufacturers the right to withdraw approvals from facilities.
    
    [[Page 25541]]
    
        The Coast Guard does not agree. As discussed earlier, SOLAS 
    requires a servicing facility to be approved by the Administration 
    (i.e., the Coast Guard), not by the manufacturer. Under Sec. 160.151-
    35(b)(3) of this final rule (which varies from the NPRM language 
    because of a comment by the same association commenting on this 
    provision), a manufacturer must provide technical support to each 
    service station approved by the Coast Guard to service that 
    manufacturer's liferafts. If a manufacturer is aware that a facility is 
    not properly servicing liferafts, the manufacturer can report that to 
    the Coast Guard; the Coast Guard will take appropriate action under 
    Sec. 160.151-55(a)(2). Alternatively, a manufacturer can discontinue 
    providing refresher training for the facility's technician(s). However, 
    this final rule does not allow a manufacturer to arbitrarily or 
    unilaterally cause the withdrawal of a servicing facility's approval by 
    the Coast Guard.
    Servicing Procedures
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(b)(3) would require that, during annual 
    servicing, an inflatable floor be inflated until firm, allowed to stand 
    for one hour, then still be firm after two hours. Three comments 
    suggested that this test is excessive, and proposed that the test 
    should last one hour. The Coast Guard agrees that there is no reason 
    why the floor test should last longer than the working pressure leakage 
    test to which the rest of the liferaft is subjected, and Sec. 160.151-
    57(b)(3) has been revised in the final rule to require only a one-hour 
    test.
        In place of the annual test currently required by 46 CFR 160.051-
    6(e), proposed Sec. 160.151-57(f) would require a davit-launched 
    liferaft to be subjected to a launching-load test at every other 
    servicing. This is the same interval specified in IMO Resolution 
    A.761(18). One comment suggested that this interval would be sufficient 
    for newer liferafts, but suggested that the requirement should be 
    annual testing for rafts over ten years old due to the possibility of 
    deterioration of the materials.
        The Coast Guard has not incorporated this comment in the final 
    rule. Its policy is not to impose requirements in excess of SOLAS on 
    U.S.-flag ships, and we are not aware of any data to suggest that the 
    biennial test in Sec. 160.151-57(f) is inadequate to identify, in a 
    timely manner, liferafts deteriorating due to age. Consequently, 
    Sec. 160.151-57(f) is retained in the final rule as proposed in the 
    NPRM.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(g) would require that the 5-year gas 
    inflation test be conducted with the liferaft still secured in its 
    container, rather than after being removed from its container as 
    required by current 46 CFR 160.051-6(f)(2). Several comments suggested 
    that, because of the increased bottle charges and higher nitrogen 
    content in the gas mixture necessary to comply with the requirements of 
    SOLAS, performing the test in this manner raises concerns about safety 
    as well as about unnecessary damage to the liferaft. Both comments 
    proposed that the final rule allow the raft to be removed from its 
    container for this test as is the current practice.
        As was explained in the NPRM, the forces on a liferaft are 
    significantly different when it is inflated in its container with the 
    retaining bands in place from when it is removed from the container 
    first. The Coast Guard continues to believe that performing the gas 
    inflation test with the liferaft packed in its container is a useful 
    means of detecting marginal or unsatisfactory structural connections in 
    the liferaft in a realistic operating environment. However, the current 
    IMO recommendation on servicing requires that the liferaft be removed 
    from its container before performing the test. Because of concerns 
    about the increased risk of damage to a liferaft when inflating it on 
    the shop floor instead of in the water, there has been little support 
    at IMO for modifying the test as proposed in the NPRM. Consequently, to 
    remain consistent with the current internationally accepted 
    requirement, Sec.  160.151-57(g) in the final rule requires removing 
    the folded raft from its container before actuating the inflation 
    system, as was suggested in the comments.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(i) would require that, when a liferaft ten 
    or more years past its date of manufacture leaks extensively or shows 
    fabric damage after a gas inflation test, it must be condemned. One 
    comment suggested that ``fabric damage'' is a vague description, and 
    that it is not unusual for liferafts exhibiting some signs of porosity 
    to successfully pass all required testing.
        The Coast Guard agrees that minor porosity, although it might 
    technically be considered to be ``fabric damage,'' should not 
    necessarily mandate the condemnation of a liferaft that otherwise 
    passes all of the required servicing tests. Particularly with the 
    addition of the annual Necessary Additional Pressure test for liferafts 
    over ten years old, the normal testing procedure between gas-inflation 
    tests should be adequate to identify fabric deficiencies serious enough 
    to adversely affect the operational performance of the liferaft. The 
    Coast Guard is concerned, though, about fabric damage other than minor 
    porosity, such as cold cracking. Such damage would tend to be more 
    aggressive and more progressive than simple porosity, and the fact that 
    a liferaft with cold cracking might pass all of the required servicing 
    tests would not necessarily guarantee that it would not fail 
    catastrophically at its next inflation by its gas inflation system.
        In view of the above, the Coast Guard has decided to partially 
    adopt the suggestion in the comment. Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(i) in the 
    final rule requires that a liferaft more than ten years old that leaks 
    extensively or shows fabric damage ``other than minor porosity'' after 
    the gas-inflation test must be condemned.
    Liferaft Markings as an Aid to Search and Rescue
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) would require a servicing facility 
    to mark the liferaft canopy, or the device required by proposed 
    Sec. 160.151-17(c), with the name of the vessel on which the liferaft 
    will be installed or the name of the vessel owner (if the information 
    is known). One comment suggested that providing this marking can be a 
    problem, since companies sometimes trade liferafts among different 
    vessels. Another comment questioned how important it is to know what 
    ship a liferaft is from, since generally only one ship sinks at any 
    particular time. The same comment suggested that the ship 
    identification could not be attached to the painter, since the painter 
    is generally cut at the raft after deployment.
        As discussed in the NPRM under heading entitled ``Raft Markings as 
    an Aid to Search and Rescue'', this requirement is pursuant to IMO 
    Resolution A.759(18). Its main intent is to address the too-frequent 
    situation of a liferaft being found adrift with no persons aboard and 
    no identifying markings, e.g., a liferaft which is inadvertently 
    released from a ship in heavy seas. Such a liferaft will obviously have 
    no one aboard to cut the painter, and so an identification device 
    attached to the painter will remain intact to serve its purpose.
        Knowing which ship a liferaft found adrift came from lets SAR 
    forces check to ensure that the ship is safe. An unmarked and unmanned 
    liferaft found adrift naturally leads to speculation whether the ship 
    it is from experienced a sudden casualty with no opportunity
    
    [[Page 25542]]
    
    to signal distress, which can result in expensive and fruitless 
    searches.
        Concerning the trading of liferafts by companies or cooperatives, 
    Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) requires a servicing facility to apply the 
    marking only if the information is known. However, manufacturers will 
    have to include in their servicing manuals instructions for facilities 
    to retrofit the device required by Sec. 160.151-17(c) on existing 
    liferafts so that vessel operators will have a means of specifying the 
    identity of the vessel on which a liferaft is fitted without the 
    necessity of anyone's opening the liferaft container. Such 
    identification could be easily changed as a liferaft is traded within a 
    company or cooperative.
        In view of the above discussion, Sec. 160.151-57(m)(2) is retained 
    in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM. The effective date for the 
    requirement is July 1, 1998, which is the date the requirement will 
    become mandatory under SOLAS.
    Inspection Stickers and Certificates
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3) would require a servicing facility 
    to affix an inspection sticker to each liferaft it services, indicating 
    the manufacturer of the liferaft, the identification of the facility, 
    and the expiration date of the servicing. This sticker would replace 
    the metal inspection plate currently required by 46 CFR 160.051-8(a).
        One comment opposed the replacement of the metal inspection plate 
    by a sticker, since the sticker would not show what kind of equipment 
    is in the liferaft, would wear or fade easily, and would come off the 
    container easily. Two comments suggested that it was unsatisfactory 
    that the sticker would not show the inspection record. Another comment 
    cited the added cost to the customer and noted that, if the sticker 
    were to replace the servicing certificate, the customer would not know 
    the expiration dates of the equipment inside the liferaft.
        The Coast Guard disagrees with the substance of these comments in 
    their entirety. First, the sticker would not replace, but would be in 
    addition to, the container markings otherwise required by SOLAS and by 
    proposed Sec. 160.151-33(b), which include specification of the type of 
    equipment pack in the liferaft. The inspection record will continue to 
    appear on the liferaft itself per proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(1). The 
    sticker would not replace the servicing certificate, which is required 
    by proposed Sec. 160.151-57(p); however, the certificate need not 
    indicate the expiration dates of the packed equipment in any case. Note 
    that, notwithstanding the information required on the sticker, a 
    manufacturer can require or allow the marking of any other relevant 
    information by including it in the servicing manual. The durability of 
    the sticker and its attachment to the liferaft container are 
    specifically addressed in proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3), which 
    requires the sticker to be of a type that will remain legible for two 
    years in a marine environment and that cannot be removed without being 
    destroyed. Such stickers are readily available, and their cost is 
    nominal.
        One comment noted that, since the stickers do not require specific 
    identification by Coast Guard inspector, they could be affixed to 
    liferafts whose servicing was not witnessed by the Coast Guard. 
    Consequently, a facility could affix a sticker to a liferaft that it 
    had not even opened. The same comment also noted that not requiring a 
    Coast Guard inspector's identification on the service record marking 
    required by proposed Sec. 160.151-57(m)(1) would allow a facility to 
    repack a raft without even inflating it.
        The Coast Guard believes that the vast majority of servicing 
    facilities are professional organizations dedicated to high-quality 
    liferaft servicing in accordance with all relevant laws, regulations, 
    and manufacturers' instructions, who perform high-quality work whether 
    the Coast Guard witnesses it or not. Nevertheless, there are documented 
    instances where unscrupulous facilities have engaged in acts such as 
    those described in the comment discussed above, even under existing 
    regulations. A facility wishing to avoid supervision by the Coast Guard 
    need only fail to notify the Coast Guard of a liferaft taken in for 
    servicing. A requirement for Coast Guard identification on stickers or 
    on servicing record markings has not deterred in the past, and would 
    not deter in the future, a facility intent on not performing the work 
    for which it is paid.
        In view of the above discussion, Sec. 160.151-57(m)(3) is retained 
    in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM. The requirement has an 
    effective date 6 months from the date of publication in the Federal 
    Register, so as to allow those manufacturers who have not yet begun 
    using the stickers to obtain and distribute them.
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(p) would require that a servicing facility 
    issue a certificate to the liferaft owner or owner's agent for each 
    liferaft it services. One comment proposed that this section be revised 
    to require also that the facility provide a copy of the servicing 
    certificate to the manufacturer.
        The Coast Guard disagrees. While it is obvious that providing the 
    liferaft owner with a certificate facilitates demonstration to the 
    relevant authorities that a liferaft has been properly serviced, the 
    Coast Guard knows of no compelling reason (and the comment did not 
    offer any) why the certificate should be required by regulation to be 
    provided to the manufacturer as well. If the manufacturer wants a copy 
    of each servicing certificate, that can be arranged by agreement 
    between the manufacturer and the facilities servicing the 
    manufacturer's rafts, or by requiring it in the manufacturer's approved 
    servicing manual. Consequently, the proposal in the comment has not 
    been adopted in the final rule.
        One comment suggested that servicing certificates should be 
    supplied, controlled, and serialized by manufacturers to inhibit 
    counterfeiting and to ensure that only approved and authorized 
    facilities conduct servicing. The Coast Guard disagrees that it is 
    necessary to regulate the form and substance of the certificates in 
    such detail. As discussed above, manufacturers desiring to do so can 
    accomplish the same end by agreement between themselves and the 
    facilities servicing their rafts, or by specifying particular 
    certificates in the approved servicing manuals. If a manufacturer 
    demands in the manual particular certificates as part of the servicing 
    procedure, Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3) will require that the manufacturer 
    make those certificates available to approved facilities.
    Reporting Damage and Defects
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-57(r) would require, in accordance with the 
    IMO recommendation on liferaft servicing, that servicing facilities 
    transmit to the OCMI, at least annually, information concerning damage 
    and defects found in liferafts during servicing and repair. This 
    information would be used by the OCMI and the Commandant to identify 
    recurring problems, and to correct them by requiring manufacturers to 
    make appropriate modifications to their equipment or their procedures.
        One comment suggested that the specified information should be 
    provided to the affected manufacturer(s) as well. It also suggested 
    that the information should be provided quarterly rather than annually, 
    though it offered no reason for the increase in frequency.
        The Coast Guard disagrees that it is necessary or even desirable 
    for servicing facilities to have to provide the same information to 
    several different parties.
    
    [[Page 25543]]
    
    The IMO recommendation requires only that the information be made 
    available to the ``Administration.'' As discussed above, a manufacturer 
    desiring to obtain complete servicing records from facilities servicing 
    its liferafts can accomplish that either by agreement with the affected 
    facilities or by simply requiring it in the approved servicing manual. 
    As was noted in another comment, the Coast Guard expects that OCMIs who 
    identify recurring problems in liferafts or their servicing on the 
    basis of the data submitted to them will inform the Commandant, who 
    will evaluate the information and bring it to the attention of the 
    affected manufacturer(s) for action as appropriate. Consequently, the 
    suggestions in the comment have not been adopted in the final rule.
    Penalty for Improper Servicing
        One comment noted that there is currently no civil penalty 
    regulation associated with liferaft servicing, and asked what penalty 
    is available for a facility performing improper servicing. When the 
    NPRM was published, there was indeed no established penalty. Since 
    then, section 310 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 amended 
    46 U.S.C. 3318(b) to make servicing or alteration of lifesaving 
    equipment so as to intentionally render that equipment unsafe or unfit 
    for its purpose a Class D felony.
    
    Instructions for Training and Maintenance
    
        Proposed Sec. 160.151-59 would require the manufacturer to prepare 
    ``training and maintenance instructions'' to comply with SOLAS 
    regulations III/18.2, 19.3, 51, and 52. One comment suggested that all 
    references to ``training'' in this section should be modified to 
    ``operating'' or ``operating and maintenance.'' The reason given was 
    that liferaft manufacturers are not in the business of training, and 
    should not be responsible for preparation of training materials.
        The Coast Guard believes the suggestion in the comment has merit, 
    since the terminology used in the referenced SOLAS regulations may lead 
    to some confusion. What is required by SOLAS regulation III/51 is the 
    placement in a ship's training manual of not strictly training material 
    but rather ``instructions and information, in easily understood terms 
    illustrated wherever possible'': a simple set of operating instructions 
    for the education and ready reference of the ship's crew. To minimize 
    ambiguity, in the final rule proposed Sec. 160.151-59 is broken into 
    both a new Sec. 160.151-59 (Operating instructions and information for 
    the ship's training manual) and a new Sec. 160.151-61 (Maintenance 
    instructions), and all references in the final rule to ``training 
    material'' have been amended appropriately.
    
    Consequential Revisions
    
        Currently, in 46 CFR 199.190(g)(3) refers to subpart 160.051 for 
    servicing requirements for inflatable liferafts. This final rule 
    revises the reference to subpart 160.151, and expands its application 
    to include inflatable buoyant apparatuses.
    
    Incorporation by Reference
    
        The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 
    Sec. 160.151-5 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 
    CFR part 51. The material is available as indicated in that section.
    
    Regulatory Evaluation
    
        This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under 
    section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
    assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
    that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
    Budget under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory 
    policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 
    FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
        A draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
    policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for 
    inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the 
    Evaluation follows.
        The draft evaluation estimated a total one-time cost of $710,000 
    for liferaft manufacturers to comply with the proposed rule, including 
    about $560,000 for them to individually complete the proposed at-sea 
    test for stability. This final rule does not require the at-sea test 
    proposed in the NPRM, and consequently the cost of the test is not 
    included in this final regulatory evaluation. The total anticipated 
    one-time cost for compliance with this rule is therefore $150,000, or 
    approximately $60 per new SOLAS liferaft.
        This final rule should result in a net recurring annual cost of 
    about $156,000. Annual saving of almost $500,000 in servicing costs are 
    possible as a result of the revisions to the servicing procedures in 
    this rule, but some of those savings are offset by an increase of 
    $218,000 in the annual cost of new SOLAS equipment that will have to be 
    replaced during annual servicings. New liferafts will incur an annual 
    increase of $214,000 needed to comply with the new SOLAS requirements, 
    and $22,000 in fees for inspections by independent laboratories. In 
    addition, the NPRM projected a cost of $200,000 for stability 
    appendages, which will be reduced to about $100,000 by the revisions to 
    the stability requirements in this rule. All of these increases, 
    totalling $336,000 or about $672 per new SOLAS liferaft, should fall on 
    manufacturers and presumably be passed through to purchasers. With both 
    one-time and recurring costs taken into account, the acquisition cost 
    of a new SOLAS liferaft would be increased by about $732, still one-
    third less than the $1156 increase projected in the NPRM. The average 
    cost of annual servicing will drop by about $62 per year per liferaft, 
    as projected in the NPRM. The regulatory evaluation discounts costs at 
    7 percent to determine future costs. On the basis of this analysis, the 
    evaluation estimates that the cost of compliance with this rule will be 
    about $1,264,000 over 10 years. Economic research indicates that $2.7 
    million per statistical life saved is a reasonable estimate of people's 
    willingness to pay for safety. Therefore, this rule will be cost-
    effective even if it saves only one life over a 10 year period. The 
    recent history of casualties involving liferafts, such as the MARINE 
    ELECTRIC in 1983 (with loss of life due to difficulty in boarding the 
    liferaft), and the 1992 NETTIE H. and 1993 TRUE LIFE casualties (both 
    with loss of life, where overturned liferafts could not be easily 
    located due to dark bottoms), strongly suggest that liferaft 
    improvements such as the boarding ramps, stability systems, and highly 
    visible coloring on the underside mandated by SOLAS and by this rule 
    will result in the saving of one or more lives.
        The regulatory evaluation also discusses other benefits than the 
    saving of lives. First, liferafts approved by the Coast Guard will meet 
    the requirements of SOLAS. This will ensure that U.S.-registered 
    vessels are not being penalized or delayed in foreign ports because of 
    non-compliance. Second, as a signatory to the SOLAS Convention, the 
    United States is obligated to make sure its vessels comply. This final 
    rule will also enhance the lifesaving potential and operational 
    efficiency of inflatable liferafts by making them easier to board from 
    the water, by increasing their stability in heavy seas, and by various 
    other improvements required by the 1983 and subsequent SOLAS 
    amendments.
    
    Small Entities
    
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 
    Coast Guard considered whether this rule will have
    
    [[Page 25544]]
    
    a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
    entities. ``Small entities'' include small businesses and not-for-
    profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are 
    not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
    populations less than 50,000. All seven U.S. manufacturers of 
    inflatable liferafts and all (approximately 105) U.S. facilities 
    servicing inflatable liferafts qualify as small entities. (Foreign 
    manufacturers and servicing facilities are not considered small 
    entities for the purposes of this analysis.) This final rule would 
    affect all manufacturers and servicing facilities to about the same 
    degree. U.S. firms (the small entities) may already hold a small cost 
    advantage over their foreign counterparts in that the Coast Guard does 
    not require reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses to 
    conduct inspections at their facilities. Any additional costs incurred 
    as a result of this rule are expected to be passed through to the 
    consumer, resulting in a negligible economic impact on manufacturers 
    and servicing facilities.
        Most consumers of liferafts will probably be small entities as 
    well. As discussed above, the acquisition cost of a new SOLAS 
    inflatable liferaft should increase by less than 20 percent under this 
    rule. This increase should not create a substantial hardship for most 
    consumers. In fact, for the regulated market, liferaft production has 
    shifted predominantly toward liferafts complying with SOLAS since 
    approximately 1987, and the Coast Guard is unaware of any significant 
    adverse effects of any price increases associated with SOLAS 
    compliance. Further, as noted above, the average cost of annual 
    servicing will drop by $62 over the life of the raft, resulting in a 
    negligible difference in lifetime cost.
        The Coast Guard has developed these rules to provide for compliance 
    with relevant international treaties and internationally accepted 
    standards at the lowest possible cost to the regulated public. In 
    response to the many comments received on the issue of cost, the most 
    costly provisions in the NPRM, concerning stability testing, were 
    practically eliminated in favor of compliance with relevant 
    international standards. There were no public comments concerning the 
    initial regulatory flexibility analysis in the NPRM, which concluded 
    that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on 
    a substantial number of small entities. This final rule substantially 
    reduces the financial burden on small entities relative to the proposed 
    rules. The reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements 
    of this rule are substantially similar to those which have been in long 
    standing effect and industry practice, and require no particular 
    professional skills for compliance. Therefore, the Coast Guard 
    certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
    U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this final rule will not have a significant 
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    
    Assistance for Small Entities
    
        In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
    Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard 
    offers to assist small entities in understanding the rule so it can 
    evaluate its effects on them and allow them to participate in the 
    rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is affected 
    by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
    options for compliance, please contact Kurt Heinz, at either telephone 
    202-267-1444, fax 202-267-1069, or E-mail address 
    kheinz@comdt.uscg.mil''.
    
    Collection of Information
    
        This final rule provides for a collection of information under the 
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As required 
    by 5 U.S.C. 3507(d) the Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this rule 
    to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the 
    collection of information. The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the 
    Federal Register when they have been approved. There were no comments 
    on the information collection requirements proposed in the NPRM, and 
    this final rule does not impose any information collection requirements 
    other than those which were proposed in the NPRM. The section numbers 
    of information collection requirements which are either new or have not 
    yet been approved by OMB are as follows:
        a. Sec. 160.151-21((n).
        b. Sec. 160.151-21(u).
        c. Sec. 160.151-21(y)(4).
        d. Sec. 160.151-33.
        e. Sec. 160.151-39(c).
        f. Sec. 160.151-41(b).
        g. Sec. 160.151-45.
        h. Sec. 160.151-53.
        i. Sec. 160.151-57(m).
        j. Sec. 160.151-57(p).
        k. Sec. 160.151-57(r).
        l. Sec. 160.151-59.
        m. Sec. 160.151-61 (was part of Sec. 160.151-59 in the NPRM).
    
    Federalism
    
        The Coast Guard has analyzed this final rule under the principles 
    and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that 
    this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism to 
    warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The authority to 
    establish standards for the approval of lifesaving equipment to be 
    carried on board vessels has been committed to the Coast Guard by 
    Federal statutes. Further, because liferafts are distributed in a 
    national marketplace, divergent requirements regarding their 
    manufacture would lead to confusion, added expense, and reduced safety. 
    Therefore, the Coast Guard intends to preempt State and local 
    regulations on the same subject that are inconsistent with this rule. 
    There were no comments concerning the federalism implications of this 
    rule as proposed in the NPRM.
    
    Environment
    
        The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this final 
    rule and concluded that under section 2.B.2.e(34)(e) of Commandant 
    Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
    environmental documentation. The requirements in this final rule affect 
    the design and servicing of inflatable liferafts. This rule will have a 
    positive impact on safety, and clearly have no impact on the 
    environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in 
    the docket for inspection and copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. 
    There were no comments concerning the environmental impacts of this 
    rule as proposed in the NPRM.
    
    List of Subjects
    
    46 CFR Part 159
    
        Business and industry, Laboratories, Marine safety, Reporting and 
    recordkeeping requirements.
    
    46 CFR Part 160
    
        Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
    Incorporation by reference.
    
    46 CFR Part 199
    
        Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration, Passenger 
    vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
    
        For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 
    CFR parts 159, 160, and 199 as follows:
    
    PART 159--APPROVAL OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
    
        1. The authority citation for part 159 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    [[Page 25545]]
    
    
        Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46; Section 
    159.001-9 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
    
        2. In Sec. 159.005-5, add paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 159.005-5  Preapproval review: Contents of application.
    
        (a) * * *
        (4) If the material submitted under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
    section contains confidential commercial information that could cause 
    substantial competitive harm if released to the public, a statement to 
    the effect that the material is considered privileged and confidential 
    under exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 
    552), and that it should not be released to anyone other than the 
    original submitter.
    * * * * *
        3. In Sec. 159.005-7, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 159.005-7  Preapproval review: Coast Guard action.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) An item of equipment or material that does not meet all of the 
    requirements of this subchapter for design or performance may be 
    approved by the Commandant if it has equivalent performance 
    characteristics. The item has equivalent performance characteristics if 
    the application and any approval tests prescribed by the Commandant, in 
    place of or in addition to the approval tests required by this 
    subchapter, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commandant that the 
    item is at least as effective as one that meets the requirements of 
    this subchapter.
        4. In Sec. 159.005-13, revise the introductory text of paragraph 
    (a) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 159.005-13  Equipment or material: Approval.
    
        (a) If from analysis of the material and data required to be 
    submitted under this subpart, the Commandant determines that the 
    equipment or material meets the applicable subpart or has equivalent 
    performance characteristics in accordance with Sec. 159.005-7(c), the 
    Commandant--
    * * * * *
        5. In Sec. 159.007-9, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 159.007-9  Production inspections and tests.
    
    * * * * *
        (d) The manufacturer shall admit a Coast Guard inspector to any 
    place where approved equipment is manufactured, for the purpose of 
    verifying that the equipment is being manufactured in accordance with 
    the approved plans and the requirements of this subchapter.
    
    PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT
    
        6. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, and 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 
    FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
    
        7. In Sec. 160.010-2, remove paragraph designators (a) through (d) 
    and add the definition for inflatable buoyant apparatus at the end of 
    the section to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 160.010-2  Definitions.
    
    * * * * *
        Inflatable buoyant apparatus. An inflatable buoyant apparatus is 
    flotation equipment that depends on inflated compartments for buoyancy 
    and is designed to support a specified number of persons completely out 
    of the water.
        8. Sections 160.010-3 and 160.010-4 are redesignated, as 
    Secs. 160.010-4 and 160.010-5 respectively, and a new Sec. 160.010-3 is 
    added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 160.010-3  Inflatable buoyant apparatus.
    
        (a) Design and performance. To obtain Coast Guard approval, an 
    inflatable buoyant apparatus must comply with subpart 160.151, with the 
    following exceptions:
        (1) Canopy requirements (SOLAS Chapter III, regulation 38, 
    paragraph 1.5 (III/38.1.5)). It does not need a canopy.
        (2) Capacity (Regulation III/38.2.1). The carrying capacity must be 
    not less than four persons.
        (3) Floor insulation (Regulation III/39.2.2). The floor may be 
    uninsulated.
        (4) Stability (Regulation III/39.5.1). It does not need stability 
    pockets.
        (5) Righting (Regulation III/39.5.2). A reversible one does not 
    need arrangements for righting.
        (6) One with a capacity of 13 or more persons must be reversible, 
    with the floor arranged between the buoyancy chambers so that the 
    apparatus can, floating either side up, accommodate the number of 
    persons for which it is approved. One with a capacity of 12 or fewer 
    persons must either be reversible in the same manner, or be designed so 
    that it can be readily righted by one person.
        (7) One with a capacity of 25 or more persons must be provided with 
    self-bailing floor drains. If the floor of a reversible one includes 
    one or more drains, each drain must be arranged to completely drain the 
    floor of water when the device is fully loaded, and must prevent water 
    from flowing back onto the floor.
        (8) If the buoyancy tubes are not vivid reddish orange, vivid 
    yellow, or a fluorescent color of a similar hue, panels of such hue 
    must be secured to the buoyancy chambers so that a minimum of 1 m\2\ 
    (11 ft\2\) is visible from above the apparatus when it is floating 
    either side up.
        (9) Boarding ramp (Regulation III/39.4.1). Boarding ramps are not 
    required if the combined cross-section diameter of the buoyancy 
    chambers is 500 millimeters (mm) (19.5 in.) or less. An apparatus with 
    a combined cross-section diameter greater than 500 mm (19.5 in.) 
    requires boarding ramps as follows:
        (i) For an apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, at 
    least one ramp must be provided;
        (ii) For an apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons, at 
    least two ramps must be provided; and
        (iii) The boarding ramps required by this paragraph must allow 
    persons to board with either side of a reversible apparatus floating 
    up, or the full number of ramps required must be installed on each 
    side.
        (10) Boarding ladder (Regulation
    III/39.4.2). Boarding ladders must be provided on each inflatable 
    buoyant apparatus as follows:
        (i) One ladder must be provided on each apparatus with a capacity 
    of less than 25 persons, except that, for an apparatus with a capacity 
    of 13 or more persons that is not equipped with a boarding ramp, two 
    ladders must be provided.
        (ii) Two ladders must be provided on each apparatus with a capacity 
    of 25 or more persons.
        (iii) The ladders required by this paragraph must allow persons to 
    board with either side of a reversible apparatus floating up, or the 
    full number of ladders required must be installed on each side.
        (11) One or more exterior canopy lamps meeting the requirements of 
    Sec. 160.151-15(n) of this subchapter must be provided such that--
        (i) On a non-reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus, one lamp is 
    mounted so that it is on the uppermost surface of the floating 
    apparatus; and
        (ii) On a reversible apparatus, two lamps are mounted so that one 
    lamp is on the uppermost surface of the apparatus, whichever side is 
    floating up.
        (12) Equipment (Regulation
    III/38.5.1). All equipment required by this paragraph must be either 
    packed in a container accessible to the occupants, or otherwise secured 
    to the apparatus. Duplicate equipment must be provided, for each side 
    of a reversible inflatable buoyant apparatus, if the equipment is
    
    [[Page 25546]]
    
    not accessible from both sides. In lieu of the equipment specified in 
    Sec. 160.151-7(b) and Regulation III/38.5.1, each apparatus must be 
    provided with--
        (i) Rescue quoit and heaving line. One rescue quoit and a heaving 
    line as described in Sec. 160.151-21(a) on each apparatus with a 
    capacity of less than 25 persons; or two on each apparatus for a 
    capacity of 25 or more persons. The heaving line(s) must be mounted 
    adjacent to a boarding ramp (or boarding ladder, if no ramps are 
    installed), and ready for immediate use;
        (ii) Knives. Two buoyant safety knives ready for use near the 
    painter attachment;
        (iii) Bailer. One bailer as described in Sec. 160.151-21(c) on each 
    apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons; or two bailers on 
    each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons, except that no 
    bailers are necessary if both sides of the floor of a reversible 
    apparatus are equipped with drains;
        (iv) Sponge. One sponge as described in Sec. 160.151-21(d) on each 
    apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, or two sponges on 
    each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons;
        (v) Paddles. Two paddles as described in Sec. 160.151-21(f) on each 
    apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons, or four paddles on 
    each apparatus with a capacity of 25 or more persons;
        (vi) Flashlight. One flashlight with spare batteries as described 
    in Sec. 160.151-21(m);
        (vii) Signaling mirror. One signaling mirror as described in 
    Sec. 160.151-21(o);
        (viii) Repair outfit. One set of sealing clamps or plugs as 
    described in Sec. 160.151-21(y)(1);
        (ix) Pump or bellows. One pump or bellows as described in 
    Sec. 160.151-21(z); and
        (x) Sea anchor. One sea anchor as described in Sec. 160.151-21(e), 
    attached so as to be readily deployable when the apparatus inflates.
        (13) Marking and labeling (Regulations III/39.7.3.4, III/39.7.3.5, 
    and III/39.8.6). Marking and labeling of inflatable buoyant apparatus 
    must be in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 160.151-33, except 
    that the device must be identified as an ``INFLATABLE BUOYANT 
    APPARATUS'', and no ``SOLAS'' markings shall be placed on the container 
    of the apparatus. The capacity marking specified in regulation III/
    39.8.6 must be applied to the top of each buoyancy tube.
        (14) Drop test. The drop test required under paragraph 1/5.1 of IMO 
    Resolution A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-27(a) may be from a lesser 
    height, if that height is the maximum height of stowage marked on the 
    container.
        (15) Loading and seating test. For the loading and seating test 
    required under paragraph 1/5.7 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and 
    Sec. 160.151-27(a), the loaded freeboard of the apparatus must be not 
    less than 200 mm (8 in.).
        (16) Cold-inflation test. The cold-inflation test required under 
    paragraph 1/5.17.3.3.2 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-
    27(a) must be conducted at a test temperature of -18 deg.C (0 deg.F).
        (b) Production inspections and tests. Production inspections and 
    tests for inflatable buoyant apparatus must be performed in accordance 
    with the applicable requirements of Sec. 160.151-31.
        (c) Servicing. Inflatable buoyant apparatus must be serviced 
    periodically at approved servicing facilities in accordance with the 
    applicable requirements of Secs. 160.151-35 through 160.151-57.
        (d) Instruction placard. An instruction placard meeting the 
    requirements of Sec. 160.151-59(c), giving simple procedures and 
    illustrations for inflating, launching, and boarding the inflatable 
    buoyant apparatus, must be made available to the operator or master of 
    each vessel on which the apparatus is to be carried.
        (e) Requirements for ``open reversible liferafts'' under the IMO 
    International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (HSC Code). To be 
    approved as meeting the requirements for open reversible liferafts in 
    Annex 10 to the HSC Code, an inflatable buoyant apparatus must meet all 
    of the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, with 
    the following exceptions:
        (1) The apparatus must be reversible regardless of size.
        (2) The surface of the buoyancy tubes must be of a non-slip 
    material. At least 25 percent of the surface of the buoyancy tubes must 
    meet the color requirements of Sec. 160.151-15(e).
        (3) The length of the painter should be such that the apparatus 
    inflates automatically upon reaching the water.
        (4) An additional bowsing-in line must be fitted to an apparatus 
    with a capacity of more than 30 persons.
        (5) The apparatus must be fitted with boarding ramps regardless of 
    size.
        (6) An apparatus with a capacity of 30 or fewer persons must be 
    fitted with at least one floor drain.
        (7) In addition to the equipment specified in Sec. 160.010-
    3(a)(12), the apparatus must be provided with--
        (i) Sponge. One additional sponge as described in Sec. 160.151-
    21(d) on each apparatus with a capacity of less than 25 persons;
        (ii) First-aid kit. A first-aid kit approved by the Commandant 
    under approval series 160.054;
        (iii) Whistle. A ball-type or multi-tone whistle of corrosion-
    resistant construction;
        (iv) Hand flares. Two hand flares approved by the Commandant under 
    approval series 160.121.
        (8) Marking and labeling of the apparatus must be in accordance 
    with Sec. 160.151-33, except that the device must be identified as a 
    ``NON-SOLAS REVERSIBLE'', and the equipment pack must be identified as 
    an ``HSC Pack''.
        9. Subpart 160.051, consisting of Secs. 160.051-0 through 160.051-
    9, is removed, and replaced with a new subpart 160.051 to read as 
    follows:
    
    Subpart 160.051--Inflatable Liferafts for Domestic Service
    
    Sec.
    160.051-1  Scope.
    160.051-3  Definitions.
    160.051-5  Design and performance of Coastal Service inflatable 
    liferafts.
    160.051-7  Design and performance of A and B inflatable liferafts.
    160.051-9  Equipment required for Coastal Service inflatable 
    liferafts.
    
    Subpart 160.051--Inflatable Liferafts for Domestic Service
    
    
    Sec. 160.051-1  Scope.
    
        This subpart prescribes requirements for approval by the Coast 
    Guard of A, B, and Coastal Service inflatable liferafts for use only in 
    domestic service. These liferafts must comply with all of the 
    requirements for SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts in subpart 160.151 
    except as specified in this subpart.
    
    
    Sec. 160.051-3  Definitions.
    
        In this subpart, the term:
        A or B liferaft means an inflatable liferaft that meets the 
    requirements prescribed in subpart 160.151 for a SOLAS A or SOLAS B 
    liferaft, respectively, except that the capacity is less than 6 persons 
    and the liferaft cannot contain SOLAS markings.
        Coastal Service liferaft means a liferaft that does not meet the 
    all of the requirements prescribed in subpart 160.151 for a SOLAS A or 
    SOLAS B liferaft, but that instead meets the requirements of this 
    subpart and is approved for use on certain uninspected vessels under 
    subchapter C of this chapter.
    
    
    Sec. 160.051-5  Design and performance of Coastal Service inflatable 
    liferafts.
    
        To obtain Coast Guard approval, each Coastal Service inflatable 
    liferaft must comply with subpart 160.151, with the following 
    exceptions:
    
    [[Page 25547]]
    
        (a) Canopy requirements (Regulation III/38.1.5). The canopy may--
        (1) Be of a type that is furled when the liferaft inflates and that 
    can be set in place by the occupants. A furled canopy must be secured 
    to the buoyancy tubes over 50 percent or more of the liferaft's 
    circumference;
        (2) Be of an uninsulated, single-ply design; and
        (3) Have an interior of any color.
        (b) Viewing port (Regulation III/38.1.5.5). The liferaft need not 
    have the viewing port described in Regulation III/38.1.5.5.
        (c) Rainwater collection (Regulation III/38.1.5.6). The liferaft 
    need not have the means of rainwater collection described in Regulation 
    III/38.1.5.6.
        (d) Capacity (Regulation III/38.2.1). The carrying capacity must be 
    not less than four persons.
        (e) Floor insulation (Regulation III/39.2.2). The floor may be 
    uninsulated.
        (f) Boarding ramps (Regulation III/39.4.1). The liferaft need be 
    provided with boarding ramps only if the combined cross-section 
    diameter of the buoyancy chambers is greater than 500 mm (19.5 in).
        (g) Stability (Regulation III/39.5.1). Each Coastal Service 
    inflatable liferaft must either meet the stability criteria in 
    Sec. 160.151-17(a) or be fitted with water-containing stability pockets 
    meeting the following requirements:
        (1) The total volume of the pockets must be not less than 25 
    percent of the minimum required volume of the principal buoyancy 
    compartments of the liferaft.
        (2) The pockets must be securely attached and evenly distributed 
    around the periphery of the exterior bottom of the liferaft. They may 
    be omitted at the locations of inflation cylinders.
        (3) The pockets must be designed to deploy underwater when the 
    liferaft inflates. If weights are used for this purpose, they must be 
    of corrosion-resistant material.
        (h) Lamp (Regulation III/39.6.3). The liferaft need not have the 
    manually controlled interior lamp described in Regulation III/39.6.3.
        (i) Markings (Regulations III/39.7.3.4 and III/39.7.3.5). The words 
    ``COASTAL SERVICE'' must appear on the container, and the type of 
    equipment pack must be identified as ``Coastal Service''. No ``SOLAS'' 
    markings may appear on the container.
        (j) Drop test. The drop test required under paragraph 1/5.1 of IMO 
    Resolution A.689(17) and 160.151-27(a) may be from a lesser height, if 
    that height is the maximum height of stowage marked on the container.
        (k) Loading and seating test. For the loading and seating test 
    required under paragraph 1/5.7 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and 
    Sec. 160.151-27(a), the loaded freeboard of the liferaft must be not 
    less than 200 mm (8 in.).
        (l) Cold-inflation test. The cold-inflation test required under 
    paragraph 1/5.17.3.3.2 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) and Sec. 160.151-
    27(a) must be conducted at a test temperature of -18 deg.C (0 deg.F).
    
    
    Sec. 160.051-7  Design and performance of A and B inflatable liferafts.
    
        To obtain Coast Guard approval, each A and B inflatable liferaft 
    must comply with the requirements in subpart 160.151, with the 
    following exceptions:
        (a) Capacity (Regulation III/38.2.1). The carrying capacity must be 
    not less than four persons.
        (b) Markings (Regulations III/39.7.3.4 and III/39.7.3.5). The type 
    of equipment pack must be identified as ``A'' or ``B'', respectively, 
    instead of ``SOLAS A'' or ``SOLAS B''. No ``SOLAS'' markings may appear 
    on the container.
    
    
    Sec. 160.051-9  Equipment required for Coastal Service inflatable 
    liferafts.
    
        In lieu of the equipment specified in Sec. 160.151-21, the 
    following equipment must be provided with a Coastal Service inflatable 
    liferaft:
        (a) Rescue quoit and heaving line. One rescue quoit and a heaving 
    line as described in Sec. 160.151-21(a).
        (b) Knife. One knife, of a type designed to minimize the chance of 
    damage to the inflatable liferaft and secured with a lanyard.
        (c) Bailer. One bailer as described in Sec. 160.151-21(c).
        (d) Sponge. One sponge as described in Sec. 160.151-21(d).
        (e) Sea anchor. One sea anchor as described in Sec. 160.151-21(e).
        (f) Paddles. Two paddles of the same size and type as used to pass 
    the maneuverability test in paragraph 1/5.10 of IMO Resolution 
    A.689(17).
        (g) Whistle. One whistle as described in Sec. 160.151-21(i) of this 
    part.
        (h) Flashlight. One flashlight with spare batteries as described in 
    Sec. 160.151-21(m).
        (i) Signalling mirror. One signalling mirror as described in 
    Sec. 160.151-21(o).
        (j) Survival instructions. Instructions on how to survive as 
    described in Sec. 160.151-21(v).
        (k) Instructions for immediate action. Instructions for immediate 
    action as described in Sec. 160.151-21(w).
        (l) Repair outfit. One set of sealing clamps or plugs as described 
    in Sec. 160.151-21(y)(1).
        (m) Pump or bellows. One pump or bellows as described in 
    Sec. 160.151-21(z).
        (n) Plugs for pressure-relief valves. Plugs for pressure-relief 
    valves as described in Sec. 160.151-21(aa).
        10. Subpart 160.151, consisting of Secs. 160.151-1 through 160.151-
    59, is added to read as follows:
    
    Subpart 160.151--Inflatable Liferafts (SOLAS)
    
    Sec.
    160.151-1  Scope.
    160.151-3  Definitions.
    160.151-5  Incorporation by reference.
    160.151-7  Construction of inflatable liferafts.
    160.151-9  Independent laboratory.
    160.151-11  Approval procedure.
    160.151-13  Fabrication of prototype inflatable liferafts for 
    approval.
    160.151-15  Design and performance of inflatable liferafts.
    160.151-17  Additional requirements for design and performance of 
    SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts.
    160.151-21  Equipment required for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
    liferafts.
    160.151-25  Additional equipment for inflatable liferafts.
    160.151-27  Approval inspections and tests for inflatable liferafts.
    160.151-29  Additional approval tests for SOLAS A and SOLAS B 
    liferafts.
    160.151-31  Production inspections and tests of inflatable 
    liferafts.
    160.151-33  Marking and labeling.
    160.151-35  Servicing.
    160.151-37  Servicing manual.
    160.151-39  Training of servicing technicians.
    160.151-41  Approval of servicing facilities.
    160.151-43  Conditions at servicing facilities.
    160.151-45  Equipment required for servicing facilities.
    160.151-47  Requirements for owners or operators of servicing 
    facilities.
    160.151-49  Approval of servicing facilities at remote sites.
    160.151-51  Notice of approval.
    160.151-53  Notice to OCMI of servicing.
    160.151-55  Withdrawal of approval.
    160.151-57  Servicing procedure.
    160.151-59  Operating instructions and information for the ship's 
    training manual.
    160.151-61  Maintenance instructions.
    
    Subpart 160.151--Inflatable Liferafts (SOLAS)
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-1  Scope.
    
        This subpart prescribes standards, tests, and procedures for 
    approval by the Coast Guard of SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
    liferafts, and for their periodic inspection and repair at approved 
    facilities (``servicing''). Certain provisions of this subpart also 
    apply to inflatable buoyant apparatus as specified in Sec. 160.010-3 
    and to inflatable liferafts for domestic service as specified in 
    subpart 160.051.
    
    [[Page 25548]]
    
    Sec. 160.151-3  Definitions.
    
        In this subpart, the term:
        Commandant means the Commandant (G-MSE), United States Coast Guard, 
    2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
        Servicing means periodic inspection, necessary repair, and 
    repacking by a servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard. 
    Requirements for periodic inspection and repair of inflatable liferafts 
    approved by the Coast Guard are described in Secs. 160.151-35 through 
    160.151-57.
        SOLAS means the International Convention for the Safety of Life at 
    Sea, 1974, as amended by the International Maritime Organization 
    through the 1988 (GMDSS) amendments, dated 9 November 1988.
        SOLAS A Liferaft means a liferaft that meets the requirements of 
    this subpart for an inflatable liferaft complying with SOLAS and 
    equipped with a SOLAS A equipment pack.
        SOLAS B Liferaft means a liferaft that meets the requirements of 
    this subpart for an inflatable liferaft complying with SOLAS and 
    equipped with a SOLAS B equipment pack.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-5  Incorporation by reference.
    
        (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart 
    with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
    with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other 
    than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard 
    must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and make the 
    material available to the public. All approved material is on file at 
    the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 
    700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and 
    Engineering Standards (G-MSE), 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 
    20593-0001, and is available from the sources indicated in paragraph 
    (b) of this section.
        (b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this 
    subpart and the sections affected are as follows:
    American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1916 Race St., 
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
        ASTM F1014--Standard Specification for Flashlights on Vessels, 
    1986--160.151-21
    International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications Section, 4 
    Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England
        Resolution A.689(17)--Recommendation on Testing of Life-saving 
    Appliances, 27 November 1991, including amendments through Resolution 
    MSC.54(66), adopted 30 May 1996--160.151-21; 160.151-27; 160.151-31; 
    160.151-57
        Resolution A.657(16)--Instructions for Action in Survival Craft, 19 
    November 1989--160.151-21
        Resolution A.658(16)--Use and Fitting of Retro-reflective Materials 
    on Life-saving Appliances, 20 November 1989--160.151-15; 160.151-57.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly National 
    Bureau of Standards), c/o National Technical Information Service, 
    Springfield, VA 22161
        NBS Special Publication 440 (Order No. PB265225) Color: Universal 
    Language and Dictionary of Names, 1976--160.151-15
    Naval Forms and Publications Center, Customer Service, Code 1052, 5801 
    Tabor Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19120
        MIL-C-17415E--(Ships)--Cloth, Coated, and Webbing, Inflatable Boat 
    and Miscellaneous Use--160.151-15
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-7  Construction of inflatable liferafts.
    
        Except as specified in this subpart, each SOLAS A and SOLAS B 
    inflatable liferaft must meet the requirements of Chapter III of SOLAS. 
    To be approved under this subpart, inflatable liferafts must be 
    constructed in accordance with the following provisions of SOLAS:
        (a) Chapter III, Regulation 30, paragraph 2 (III/30.2), General 
    requirements for life-saving appliances.
        (b) Chapter III, Regulation 38 (III/38) General requirements for 
    liferafts.
        (c) Chapter III, Regulation 39 (III/39) Inflatable liferafts.
        (d) Chapter III, Regulation 51 (III/51) Training manual.
        (e) Chapter III, Regulation 52 (III/52) Instructions for on-board 
    maintenance.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-9  Independent laboratory.
    
        Tests and inspections that this subpart requires to be conducted by 
    an independent laboratory must be conducted by an independent 
    laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of part 
    159 of this chapter to perform such tests and inspections. A list of 
    accepted laboratories is available from the Commandant.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-11  Approval procedure.
    
        (a) A manufacturer seeking approval of an inflatable liferaft must 
    comply with the procedures in part 159, subpart 159.005, of this 
    chapter and in this section.
        (b) A manufacturer seeking approval of an inflatable liferaft must 
    submit an application meeting the requirements of Sec. 159.005-5 of 
    this chapter for preapproval review. To meet the requirements of 
    Sec. 159.005-5(a)(2) of this chapter, the manufacturer shall submit--
        (1) General-arrangement drawing including principal dimensions;
        (2) Seating-arrangement plan;
        (3) Plans for subassemblies;
        (4) Plans for carriage and, in detail, stowage of equipment;
        (5) Plans for the inflation system;
        (6) Plans for the outer container;
        (7) Plans for any lifting shackle or ring, including diameter in 
    cross-section, used for connecting the suspension tackle of a davit-
    launched inflatable liferaft to the automatic disengaging device used 
    for its hoisting and lowering;
        (8) Other drawing(s) necessary to show that the inflatable liferaft 
    complies with the requirements of this subpart;
        (9) Description of methods of seam and joint construction;
        (10) Samples and identification of each material used in the 
    buoyancy chambers, floor, and canopy, including the identity of their 
    manufacturers, and segments of each type of seam made from such 
    materials; and
        (11) Complete data pertinent to the installation and use of the 
    proposed inflatable liferaft, including the maximum proposed height of 
    its installation above the water, and the maximum length of the sea 
    painter installed in the inflatable liferaft.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-13  Fabrication of prototype inflatable liferafts for 
    approval.
    
        If the manufacturer is notified that the information submitted in 
    accordance with Sec. 160.151-11 is satisfactory to the Commandant, 
    fabrication of a prototype inflatable liferaft must proceed in the 
    following sequence:
        (a) The manufacturer shall arrange for an independent laboratory to 
    inspect the liferaft during its fabrication and prepare an inspection 
    report meeting the requirements of Sec. 159.005-11 of this chapter. The 
    independent laboratory shall conduct at least one inspection during 
    layup of the buoyancy tubes of the liferaft, at least one inspection of 
    the finished liferaft when fully inflated, and as many other 
    inspections as are necessary to determine that the liferaft--
        (1) Is constructed by the methods and with the materials specified 
    in the plans;
        (2) Passes the applicable inspections and tests required by 
    Sec. 160.151-31; and
        (3) Conforms with the manufacturer's plans.
        (b) The manufacturer shall submit the independent laboratory's 
    inspection report to the Commandant for review.
    
    [[Page 25549]]
    
        (c) If, after review of the inspection report of the independent 
    laboratory, the Commandant notifies the manufacturer that the liferaft 
    is in compliance with the requirements of this subpart, the 
    manufacturer may proceed with the approval tests required under 
    Secs. 160.151-27 and 160.151-29.
        (d) The manufacturer shall notify the cognizant OCMI of where the 
    approval tests required under Secs. 160.151-27 and 160.151-29 will take 
    place and arrange with the OCMI a testing schedule that allows for a 
    Coast Guard inspector to travel to the site where the testing is to be 
    performed.
        (e) The manufacturer shall admit the Coast Guard inspector to any 
    place where work or testing is performed on inflatable liferafts or 
    their component parts and materials for the purpose of--
        (1) Assuring that the quality-assurance program of the manufacturer 
    is satisfactory;
        (2) Witnessing tests; and
        (3) Taking samples of parts or materials for additional inspections 
    or tests.
        (f) The manufacturer shall make available to the Coast Guard 
    inspector the affidavits or invoices from the suppliers of all 
    essential materials used in the production of inflatable liferafts, 
    together with records identifying the lot numbers of the liferafts in 
    which such materials were used.
        (g) On conclusion of the approval testing, the manufacturer shall 
    comply with the requirements of Sec. 159.005-9(a)(5) of this chapter by 
    submitting the following to the Commandant:
        (1) The report of the prototype testing prepared by the 
    manufacturer. The report must include a signed statement by the Coast 
    Guard inspector who witnessed the testing, indicating that the report 
    accurately describes the testing and its results.
        (2) The final plans of the liferaft as built. The plans must 
    include--
        (i) The servicing manual described in Sec. 160.151-37;
        (ii) The instructions for training and maintenance described in 
    Secs. 160.151-59 and 160.151-61, respectively;
        (iii) The final version of the plans required under Sec. 160.151-
    11(b), including--
        (A) Each correction, change, or addition made during the 
    construction and approval testing of prototypes;
        (B) Sufficient detail to determine that each requirement of this 
    subpart is met;
        (C) Fabrication details for the inflatable liferaft, including 
    details of the method of making seams and joints; and
        (D) Full details of the inflation system.
        (h) A description of the quality-control procedures that will apply 
    to the production of the inflatable liferaft. These must include--
        (1) The system for checking material certifications received from 
    suppliers;
        (2) The method for controlling the inventory of materials;
        (3) The method for checking quality of seams and joints; and
        (4) The inspection checklists used during various stages of 
    fabrication to assure that the approved liferaft complies with the 
    approved plans and the requirements of this subpart.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-15   Design and performance of inflatable liferafts.
    
        To satisfy the requirements of the regulations of SOLAS indicated 
    in Sec. 160.151-7, each inflatable liferaft must meet the following 
    requirements of this section:
        (a) Workmanship and materials (Regulation III/30.2.1). Each 
    liferaft must be constructed of the following types of materials 
    meeting MIL-C-17415E, or materials accepted by the Commandant as 
    equivalent or superior--
        (1) Type 2, Class B, for the canopy;
        (2) Type 8 for seam tape;
        (3) Type 11 for the inflatable floor; and
        (4) Type 16, Class AA, for all other inflatable compartments and 
    structural components.
        (b) Seams (Regulation III/30.2.1). Each seam must be at least as 
    strong as the weakest of the materials joined by the seam. Each seam 
    must be covered with tape where necessary to prevent lifting of and 
    damage to fabric edges.
        (c) Protection from cold inflation-gas (Regulation III/30.2.1). 
    Each inflatable compartment must be provided with a protective liner or 
    baffling arrangement at the inflation-gas inlet, or other equally 
    effective means to prevent damage from exposure to cold inflation-gas.
        (d) Compatibility of dissimilar materials (Regulation III/30.2.4). 
    Where dissimilar materials are combined in the construction of a 
    liferaft, provisions must be made to prevent loosening or tightening 
    due to differences in thermal expansion, freezing, buckling, galvanic 
    corrosion, or other incompatibilities.
        (e) Color (Regulation III/30.2.6). The primary color of the 
    exterior of the canopy must be vivid reddish orange (color number 34 of 
    NBS Special Publication 440), or a fluorescent color of a similar hue.
        (f) Retroreflective material (Regulation III/30.2.7). Each 
    inflatable liferaft must be marked with Type I retroreflective material 
    approved under part 164, subpart 164.018, of this chapter as complying 
    with SOLAS. The arrangement of the retroreflective material must comply 
    with IMO Resolution A.658(16).
        (g) Towing attachments (Regulation III/38.1.4.) Each towing 
    attachment must be reinforced strongly enough to withstand the towing 
    strain, and marked to indicate its function.
        (h) Weight (Regulation III/38.2.2). The weight of the liferaft 
    including its container and equipment may not exceed 185 kg (407.8 lb), 
    unless the liferaft is intended for launching into the water directly 
    from its stowed position using an inclined or hand-tilted rack, or is 
    served by a launching appliance approved by the Commandant under 
    approval series 160.163.
        (i) Lifelines (Regulation III/38.3.1). Each lifeline must be made 
    of nylon tubular webbing with a minimum diameter of 14 mm (9/16-inch), 
    rope with a minimum diameter of 10 mm (\3/8\-inch), or equivalent. Each 
    lifeline-attachment patch must have a minimum breaking strength of 1.5 
    kN (350 lb) pull exerted perpendicular to the base of the patch. Each 
    bight of an exterior lifeline must be long enough to allow the lifeline 
    to reach to the waterline of the liferaft when it is afloat.
        (j) Painter length (Regulation III/38.3.2). On or before July 1, 
    1998, the length of the liferaft painter shall be not less than 10 
    meters (33 feet) plus the liferaft's maximum stowage height, or 15 
    meters (49 feet), whichever is greater.
        (k) Painter system (Regulation III/38.6.1). The painter protruding 
    from the liferaft container must be inherently resistant, or treated to 
    be resistant, to deterioration from sunlight and salt spray, and 
    resistant to absorption and wicking of water.
        (l) Inflation cylinders (Regulation III/39.2.3). Each compressed-
    gas inflation cylinder within the liferaft must meet the requirements 
    of Sec. 147.60 of this chapter, and be installed so that--
        (1) Slings and reinforcements of sufficient strength retain the 
    inflation cylinders in place when the liferaft is dropped into the 
    water from its stowage height and during inflation; and
        (2) The painter and the inflation cylinders of the liferaft are 
    linked to start inflation when the painter is pulled by one person 
    exerting a force not exceeding 150 N (34 lb).
        (m) Boarding ladders (Regulation III/39.4.2). The steps of each 
    boarding ladder must provide a suitable foothold.
        (n) Canopy lamps (Regulation III/39.6.2). The exterior liferaft 
    canopy lamp must be approved by the Commandant under approval series 
    161.101.
    
    [[Page 25550]]
    
        (o) Containers (Regulation III/39.7.1). Each container for packing 
    liferafts--
        (1) Must include a telltale made with a seal-and-wire, or 
    equivalent, method for indicating whether the liferaft has been 
    tampered with or used since packing;
        (2) Must be designed so that the liferaft breaks free of the 
    container when inflation is initiated, without the need to manually 
    open or remove any closing arrangement;
        (3) Must have an interior surface smooth and free from splinters, 
    barbs, or rough projections;
        (4) Must be of rigid construction where the liferaft is intended 
    for float-free launching or for exposed stowage on deck;
        (5) If rigid, must be designed to facilitate securing the 
    inflatable liferaft to a vessel to permit quick release for manual 
    launching;
        (6) If constructed of fibrous-glass-reinforced plastic, must be 
    provided with a means to prevent abrasion of the liferaft fabric, such 
    as by using a gel-coated interior finish of the container, enclosing 
    the liferaft in an envelope of plastic film, or equivalent means; and
        (7) Except as provided in paragraph (o)(4) of this section, may be 
    of fabric construction. Each container of fabric construction must be 
    made of coated cloth, include carrying handles and drain holes, and be 
    adaptable to stowage and expeditious removal from lockers and deck-
    mounted enclosures adjacent to liferaft-launching stations. The weight 
    of a liferaft in a fabric container including its container and 
    equipment may not exceed 100 kg (220 lb).
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-17  Additional requirements for design and performance of 
    SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts.
    
        To satisfy the requirements of the indicated regulations of SOLAS, 
    each SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferaft must be manufactured in 
    accordance with Secs. 160.151-7 and 160.151-15, and must comply with 
    the following additional requirements:
        (a) Stability (Regulation III/39.5.1). (1) Each liferaft with a 
    capacity of more than 8 persons must have a waterplane of circular or 
    elliptical shape. A hexagonal, octagonal, or similar outline 
    approximating a circular or elliptical shape is acceptable.
        (2) Each liferaft manufactured under this subpart must have water-
    containing stability appendages on its underside to resist capsizing 
    from wind and waves. On or before July 1, 1998, these appendages must 
    meet the following requirements:
        (i) The total volume of the appendages must not be less than 220 
    liters (7.77 ft\3\) for liferafts approved to accommodate up to 10 
    persons. The volume of an appendage is calculated using the bottom of 
    the lowest opening in an appendage as the height of the appendage, and 
    by deducting the volume of any objects inside the appendage. No opening 
    designed to close as water is forced out of an appendage is an opening 
    for the purpose of this calculation.
        (ii) The total volume of the appendages for liferafts approved to 
    accommodate more than 10 persons must be not less than 20  x  N liters 
    (0.706  x  N ft\3\), where N = the number of persons for which the 
    liferaft is approved.
        (iii) The appendages must be securely attached and evenly 
    distributed around the periphery of the exterior bottom of the 
    liferaft. They may be omitted at the locations of inflation cylinders.
        (iv) The appendages must consist of at least two separate parts so 
    that damage to one part will permit at least half of the required total 
    volume to remain intact.
        (v) Openings in or between the appendages must be provided to limit 
    the formation of air pockets under the inflatable liferaft.
        (vi) The appendages must be designed to deploy underwater when the 
    liferaft inflates, and to fill to at least 60 percent of their capacity 
    within 25 seconds of deployment. If weights are used for this purpose, 
    they must be of corrosion-resistant material.
        (vii) The primary color of the appendages must be vivid reddish 
    orange (color number 34 of NBS Special Publication 440), or a 
    fluorescent color of a similar hue.
        (b) Boarding ramp (Regulation III/39.4.1). The boarding ramp must 
    have sufficient size and buoyancy to support one person weighing 100 kg 
    (220 lb), sitting or kneeling and not holding onto any other part of 
    the liferaft.
        (c) Marking (Regulation III/39.8). On or before July 1, 1998, means 
    must be provided for identifying the liferaft with the name and port of 
    registry of the ship to which it is to be fitted, so that the 
    identification can be changed without opening the liferaft container.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-21  Equipment required for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
    liferafts.
    
        To obtain Coast Guard approval, the equipment in each SOLAS A and 
    SOLAS B inflatable liferaft must meet the following specific 
    requirements when complying with the indicated regulations of SOLAS:
        (a) Heaving line (Regulation III/38.5.1.1). The buoyant heaving 
    line described by Regulation III/38.5.1.1 must have a breaking strength 
    of not less than 1.1 kN (250 lb), and must be attached to the 
    inflatable liferaft near the entrance furthest from the painter 
    attachment.
        (b) Jackknife (Regulation III/38.5.1.2). Each folding knife carried 
    as permitted by Regulation III/38.5.1.2 must be a jackknife approved by 
    the Commandant under approval series 160.043.
        (c) Bailer (Regulation III/38.5.1.3). Each bailer described by 
    Regulation III/38.5.1.3 must have a volume of at least 2 L (125 in\3\).
        (d) Sponge (Regulation III/38.5.1.4). Each sponge described by 
    Regulation III/38.5.1.4 must have a volume of at least 750 cm\3\ (48 
    in\3\) when saturated with water.
        (e) Sea anchors (Regulation III/38.5.1.5). Sea anchors without the 
    swivels described by Regulation III/38.5.1.5 may be used if, during the 
    towing test, a sea anchor of their design does not rotate when 
    streamed. The sea anchors need not have the tripping lines described by 
    Regulation III/38.5.1.5 if, during the towing test, a sea anchor of 
    their design can be hauled in by one person.
        (f) Paddles (Regulation III/38.5.1.6).The paddles must be at least 
    1.2 m (4 ft) long and must be of the same size and type as used to pass 
    the maneuverability test in paragraph 1/5.10 of IMO Resolution 
    A.689(17).
        (g) Tin-opener (Regulation III/38.5.1.7). Each sharp part of a tin-
    opener described by Regulation III/38.5.1.7 must have a guard.
        (h) First-aid kit (Regulation III/38.5.1.8). Each first-aid kit 
    described by Regulation III/38.5.1.8 must be approved by the Commandant 
    under approval series 160.054.
        (i) Whistle (Regulation III/38.5.1.9). The whistle described by 
    Regulation III/38.5.1.9 must be a ball-type or multi-tone whistle of 
    corrosion-resistant construction.
        (j) Rocket parachute flare (Regulation III/38.5.1.10). Each rocket 
    parachute flare described by Regulation III/38.5.1.10 must be approved 
    by the Commandant under approval series 160.136.
        (k) Hand flare (Regulation III/38.5.1.11). Each hand flare 
    described by Regulation III/38.5.1.11 must be approved by the 
    Commandant under approval series 160.121.
        (l) Buoyant smoke signal (Regulation III/38.5.1.12). Each buoyant 
    smoke signal described by Regulation III/38.5.1.12 must be of the 
    floating type approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.122.
        (m) Electric torch (Regulation III/38.5.1.13). The waterproof 
    electric torch
    
    [[Page 25551]]
    
    described by Regulation III/38.5.1.13 must be a Type I or Type III 
    flashlight constructed and marked in accordance with ASTM F1014. Three-
    cell-size flashlights bearing Coast Guard approval numbers in the 
    161.008 series may continue to be used as long as they are serviceable.
        (n) Radar reflector (Regulation III/38.5.1.14). The radar reflector 
    may be omitted if the outside of the container of the inflatable 
    liferaft includes a notice near the ``SOLAS A'' or ``SOLAS B'' marking 
    indicating that no radar reflector is included.
        (o) Signalling mirror (Regulation III/38.5.1.15). Each signalling 
    mirror described by Regulation III/38.5.1.15 must be approved by the 
    Commandant under approval series 160.020.
        (p) Lifesaving signals (Regulation III/38.5.1.16). If not provided 
    on a waterproof card or sealed in a transparent waterproof container as 
    described in Regulation III/38.5.1.16, the table of lifesaving signals 
    may be provided as part of the instruction manual.
        (q) Fishing tackle (Regulation III/38.5.1.17). The fishing tackle 
    must be in a kit approved by the Commandant under approval series 
    160.061.
        (r) Food rations (Regulation III/38.5.1.18.) The food rations must 
    be approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.046.
        (s) Drinking water (Regulation III/38.5.1.19). The fresh water 
    required by Regulation III/38.5.1.19 must be ``emergency drinking 
    water'' approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.026. The 
    desalting apparatus described in Regulation III/38.5.1.19 must be 
    approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.058. After July 1, 
    1998, 1.0 liter/person of the required water may be replaced by an 
    approved manually powered reverse osmosis desalinator capable of 
    producing an equal amount of water in two days.
        (t) Drinking cup (Regulation III/38.5.1.20). The drinking cup 
    described in Regulation III/38.5.1.20 must be graduated in ounces or 
    milliliters or both.
        (u) Anti-seasickness medicine (Regulation III/38.5.1.21). The anti-
    seasickness medicine required by Regulation III/38.5.1.21 must include 
    instructions for use and be marked with an expiration date.
        (v) Survival instructions (Regulation III/38.5.1.22). The 
    instructions required by Regulation III/38.5.1.22 on how to survive in 
    a liferaft must--
        (1) Be waterproof;
        (2) Whatever other language or languages they may be in, be in 
    English;
        (3) Meet the guidelines in IMO Resolution A.657(16); and
        (4) Be suspended in a clear film envelope from one of the arch 
    tubes of the canopy.
        (w) Instructions for immediate action (Regulation III/38.5.1.23). 
    The instructions for immediate action must--
        (1) Be waterproof;
        (2) Whatever other language or languages they may be in, be in 
    English;
        (3) Meet the guidelines in IMO Resolution A.657(16);
        (4) Explain both the noise accompanying the operation of any 
    provided pressure-relief valves, and the need to render them inoperable 
    after they complete venting; and
        (5) Be suspended from the inside canopy, so they are immediately 
    visible by survivors on entering the inflatable liferaft. They may be 
    contained in the same envelope with the instructions on how to survive 
    if the instructions for immediate action are visible through both faces 
    of the envelope.
        (x) Thermal protective aid (Regulation III/38.5.1.24).
        Each thermal protective aid described by Regulation III/38.5.1.24 
    must be approved by the Commandant under approval series 160.174.
        (y) Repair outfit (Regulation III/39.10.1.1). The repair outfit 
    required by Regulation III/39.10.1.1 must include--
        (1) Six or more sealing clamps or serrated conical plugs, or a 
    combination of the two;
        (2) Five or more tube patches at least 50 mm (2 in) in diameter;
        (3) A roughing tool, if necessary to apply the patches; and
        (4) If the patches are not self-adhesive, a container of cement 
    compatible with the liferaft fabric and the patches, marked with 
    instructions for use and an expiration date.
        (z) Pump or bellows (Regulation III/39.10.1.2). The pump or bellows 
    required by Regulation III/39.10.1.2 must be manually operable and 
    arranged to be capable of inflating any part of the inflatable 
    structure of the liferaft.
        (aa) Plugs for pressure-relief valves. Plugs for rendering 
    pressure-relief valves inoperable must be provided in any liferaft 
    fitted with such valves, unless the valves are of a type that can be 
    rendered inoperable without separate plugs. If provided, plugs for 
    pressure-relief valves must be usable with hands gloved in an immersion 
    suit, and must either float or be secured to the liferaft by a lanyard.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-25  Additional equipment for inflatable liferafts.
    
        The manufacturer may specify additional equipment to be carried in 
    inflatable liferafts if the equipment is identified in the 
    manufacturer's approved drawings and if the packing and inspection of 
    the equipment is covered in the servicing manual. Any such additional 
    equipment for which performance or approval standards are prescribed in 
    this part or in 47 CFR part 80 must comply with those standards.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-27  Approval inspections and tests for inflatable 
    liferafts.
    
        (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, to satisfy 
    the testing requirements of: IMO Resolution A.689(17), part 1, 
    paragraphs 5.1 through 5.15 inclusive; paragraph 5.16 for a davit-
    launched inflatable liferaft; and paragraph 5.17, a prototype 
    inflatable liferaft of each design submitted for Coast Guard approval 
    must meet the additional specific requirements and tests specified in 
    paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
        (b) The Commandant may waive certain tests for a liferaft identical 
    in construction to a liferaft that has successfully completed the 
    tests, if the liferafts differ only in size and are of essentially the 
    same design.
        (c) Tests must be conducted in accordance with the indicated 
    paragraphs of IMO Resolution A.689(17), except:
        (1) Jump test (Paragraph 1/5.2). One-half of the jumps must be with 
    the canopy erect, and the remainder with the canopy furled or deflated. 
    If a ``suitable and equivalent mass'' is used, it must be equipped with 
    the shoes described in paragraph 1/5.2.1 of Resolution A.689(17), and 
    arranged so the shoes strike the liferaft first.
        (2) Mooring-out test (Paragraph
    1/5.5). Initial inflation may be with compressed air.
        (3) Loading and seating test (Paragraph 1/5.7). For a liferaft not 
    intended for use with a launching or embarkation appliance, the persons 
    used to determine seating capacity shall wear insulated buoyant 
    immersion suits rather than lifejackets.
        (4) Boarding test (Paragraph 1/5.8). This test must be performed 
    using each boarding ramp or boarding ladder which is installed on the 
    liferaft.
        (5) Canopy-closure test (Paragraph
    1/5.12). This test is required only for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable 
    liferafts. For a davit-launched liferaft, any opening near the lifting 
    eye should be sealed during the test to prevent the ingress of water. 
    The water accumulated
    
    [[Page 25552]]
    
    within the liferaft at the end of the test must not exceed 4 liters (1 
    gallon).
        (6) Detailed inspection (Paragraph 1/5.14). The independent 
    laboratory's inspection of the prototype liferaft under Sec. 160.151-
    13(a) satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1/5.14.
        (7) Davit-launched liferafts--strength test (Paragraph 1/5.16.1). 
    The calculation of combined strength of the lifting components must be 
    based on the lesser of--
        (i) The lowest breaking strength obtained for each item; or
        (ii) The component manufacturer's ultimate strength rating.
        (d) The boarding ramp on each liferaft equipped with one must be 
    demonstrated capable of supporting one person weighing 100 kg (220 lb), 
    sitting or kneeling and not holding onto any other part of the 
    liferaft.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-29  Additional approval tests for SOLAS A and SOLAS B 
    inflatable liferafts.
    
        To verify compliance with the requirements of Regulation III/
    39.5.1, on or before July 1, 1998, the following test must be conducted 
    for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts in addition to those 
    required by Sec. 160.151-27 and IMO Resolution A.689(17):
        (a) Test of filling time for stability appendages. A representative 
    sample of each type and size of stability appendage to be fitted to a 
    liferaft must be tested as follows:
        (1) The appendage must be attached to a testing jig similar in 
    material and construction to the appendage's intended location on a 
    liferaft. The method of attachment must be the same as used on a 
    liferaft. The appendage and jig must be attached to a scale capable of 
    recording peak readings, and suspended over a pool of calm water. The 
    dry weight must be recorded.
        (2) The appendage and jig must then be quickly lowered into the 
    water until the appendage is completely submerged. When the appendage 
    has been in the water for 25 seconds, it must be smoothly lifted 
    completely out of the water, and the peak weight after the appendage is 
    removed from the water recorded.
        (3) The difference in weights measured according to paragraphs 
    (a)(1) and (2) of this section must be at least 60 percent of the 
    appendage's volume, calculated in accordance with Sec. 160.151-
    17(a)(2)(i).
        (b) [Reserved]
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-31  Production inspections and tests of inflatable 
    liferafts.
    
        (a) Production inspections and tests of inflatable liferafts must 
    be carried out in accordance with the procedures for independent 
    laboratory inspection in part 159, subpart 159.007, of this chapter and 
    with those of this section.
        (b) Each liferaft approved by the Coast Guard must be identified 
    with unique lot and serial numbers as follows:
        (1) Each lot must consist of not more than 50 liferafts of the same 
    design and carrying capacity.
        (2) A new lot must begin whenever the liferafts undergo changes of 
    design, material, production method, or source of supply for any 
    essential component.
        (3) The manufacturer may use a running-lot system, whereby the 
    fabrication of the individual liferafts of a lot occurs over an 
    extended interval under an irregular schedule. Each running lot must 
    comprise not more than 10 liferafts of the same design and carrying 
    capacity. Each running-lot system must be in accordance with a 
    procedure proposed by the manufacturer and approved by the Commandant.
        (4) Unless a lot is a running lot, each lot must consist of 
    liferafts produced under a process of continuous production.
        (c) Among the records required to be retained by the manufacturer 
    under Sec. 159.007-13 of this chapter, are affidavits or invoices from 
    the suppliers identifying all essential materials used in the 
    production of approved liferafts, together with the lot numbers of the 
    liferafts constructed with those materials.
        (d) Each approved liferaft must pass each of the inspections and 
    tests described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), part 2, paragraphs 5.1.3 
    through 5.1.6 inclusive, and prescribed by paragraphs (e) through (g) 
    of this section. For a davit-launched liferaft, these tests must be 
    preceded by the test described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), part 2, 
    paragraph 5.2.
        (e) The test described in IMO Resolution A.689(17), Paragraph 2/
    5.1.5, must be conducted under the following conditions:
        (1) The test must last 1 hour, with a maximum allowable pressure 
    drop of 5 percent after compensation for changes in ambient temperature 
    and barometric pressure.
        (2) For each degree Celsius of rise in temperature, 0.385 kPa must 
    be subtracted from the final pressure reading (0.031 psig per degree 
    Fahrenheit). For each degree Celsius of drop in temperature, 0.385 kPa 
    must be added to the final pressure reading (again, 0.031 psig per 
    degree Fahrenheit).
        (3) For each mm of mercury of rise in barometric pressure, 0.133 
    kPa must be added to the final temperature-corrected pressure reading 
    (0.049 psig per 0.1 inch of mercury). For each mm of mercury of drop in 
    barometric pressure, 0.133 kPa must be subtracted from the final 
    temperature-corrected pressure reading (again, 0.049 psig per 0.1 inch 
    of mercury). Corrections for changes in ambient barometric pressure are 
    necessary only if a measuring instrument open to the atmosphere, such 
    as a manometer, is used.
        (f) One liferaft from each lot of fewer than 30 liferafts, and two 
    from each lot of 30 to 50 liferafts, must pass the test described in 
    IMO Resolution A.689(17), part 2, paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. If any 
    liferaft fails this test--
        (1) The reason for the failure must be determined;
        (2) Each liferaft in the lot must be examined for the defect and 
    repaired if reparable, or scrapped if irreparable; and
        (3) The lot test must be repeated, including random selection of 
    the liferaft or liferafts to be tested. If any liferafts from the lot 
    have left the place of manufacture, they must be recalled for 
    examination, repair, and testing as necessary; or else the required 
    actions must take place at an approved servicing facility.
        (g) On or before May 11, 1998, the manufacturer shall arrange for 
    inspections by an accepted independent laboratory at least once in each 
    calendar quarter in which production of liferafts approved by the Coast 
    Guard takes place. The time and date of each inspection must be 
    selected by the independent laboratory, to occur when completed 
    liferafts are in the manufacturing facility and others are under 
    construction. The manufacturer shall ensure that the inspector from the 
    independent laboratory--
        (1) Conducts the inspection and witnesses the tests required by 
    paragraph (f) of this section, and further conducts a visual inspection 
    to verify that the liferafts are being made in accordance with the 
    approved plans and the requirements of this subpart;
        (2) Examines the records of production inspections and tests for 
    liferafts produced since the last inspection by an independent 
    laboratory to verify that each required inspection and test has been 
    carried out satisfactorily;
        (3) Conducts a design audit on at least one liferaft approved by 
    the Coast Guard each year. If possible, different models of liferafts 
    must be examined in the design audit from year to year. To retain Coast 
    Guard approval, the manufacturer shall demonstrate to the inspector 
    during each design audit that--
    
    [[Page 25553]]
    
        (i) Each part used in the liferaft matches the part called for by 
    the approved plans;
        (ii) Each part and subassembly are of the materials and components 
    indicated on the approved plans or their bills of materials; and
        (iii) Each critical dimension is correct as shown either by 
    measurement or by proper fit and function in the next-higher assembly.
        (h) Until such time as the manufacturer has arranged for 
    inspections by an accepted independent laboratory in accordance with 
    paragraph (g) of this section, the manufacturer shall notify the 
    cognizant OCMI whenever final production inspections and tests are to 
    be performed so that the OCMI may, at his option, assign a marine 
    inspector to the factory to witness the applicable tests and satisfy 
    himself that the quality assurance program of the manufacturer is 
    satisfactory.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-33  Marking and labeling.
    
        (a) Whatever other languages they may be in, markings required on 
    each inflatable liferaft and its container must be in English.
        (b) The markings required on the liferaft container under 
    Regulation III/39.7.3 of SOLAS must be on a plate or label sufficiently 
    durable to withstand continuous exposure to environmental conditions at 
    sea for the life of the liferaft. In addition, the container must be 
    marked with the--
        (1) Manufacturer's model identification; and
        (2) U.S. Coast Guard approval number.
        (c) In addition to the markings required on the inflatable liferaft 
    under Regulation III/39.8 of SOLAS, the liferaft must be marked with 
    the--
        (1) Manufacturer's model identification;
        (2) Lot number; and
        (3) U.S. Coast Guard approval number.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-35  Servicing.
    
        (a) Inspection and repair. Inflatable liferafts carried under the 
    regulations in this chapter, and in chapter I of title 33 CFR, must be 
    inspected periodically by a servicing facility approved by the Coast 
    Guard, repaired as necessary, and repacked. Requirements for periodic 
    inspection and repair of liferafts approved by the Coast Guard appear 
    in Secs. 160.151-37 through 160.151-57.
        (b) Manufacturer's requirements. To retain Coast Guard approval of 
    liferafts, the manufacturer must:
        (1) Prepare a servicing manual or manuals complying with 
    Sec. 160.151-37 to cover each model and size of liferaft that the 
    manufacturer produces. The manual or manuals must be submitted to the 
    Commandant for approval.
        (2) At least once each year, issue a list of revisions to the 
    manual or manuals, and issue a list of bulletins affecting the manual 
    or manuals, that are in effect.
        (3) Make available to each servicing facility approved by the Coast 
    Guard the manual or manuals, the revisions, the bulletins, the plans, 
    and any unique parts and tools that may be necessary to service the 
    liferaft. The plans may be either the manufacturing drawings, or 
    special plans prepared especially for use by servicing technicians. 
    They may be incorporated into the manual or manuals.
        (4) Have a training program complying with Sec. 160.151-39 for the 
    certification of servicing technicians.
        (5) Notify the OCMI for the zone in which the servicing facility is 
    located whenever the manufacturer becomes aware of servicing at 
    approved facilities that is not in accordance with the requirements of 
    this subpart, or aware of falsification by an approved facility of 
    records required by this subpart.
        (c) A manufacturer of liferafts not approved by the Coast Guard may 
    establish servicing facilities approved by the Coast Guard for such 
    liferafts in the United States if the manufacturer meets the 
    requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-37  Servicing manual.
    
        (a) The servicing manual must provide instructions on performing 
    the following tasks:
        (1) Removing the inflatable liferaft from the container for testing 
    without damaging the liferaft or its contents.
        (2) Examining the liferaft and its container for damage and wear 
    including deteriorated structural joints and seams.
        (3) Determining the need for repairs.
        (4) Performing each repair which can be made by a servicing 
    facility.
        (5) Identifying repairs that the manufacturer must perform.
        (6) Determining when liferaft equipment must be replaced.
        (7) Conducting tests required by Sec. 160.151-57.
        (8) Repacking the liferaft.
        (9) Changing the maximum height of stowage of the liferaft by 
    changing the length of the painter.
        (10) Special equipment limitations or packing instructions, if any, 
    necessary to qualify the liferaft for a particular height of stowage.
        (11) Changing the service of the liferaft by changing the contents 
    of the equipment pack.
        (12) Proper marking of the liferaft container, including approval 
    number, persons' capacity, maximum height of stowage, service 
    (equipment pack), and expiration date of servicing.
        (13) A list of parts for--
        (i) Survival equipment;
        (ii) Compressed-gas cylinders;
        (iii) Inflation valves;
        (iv) Relief valves; and
        (v) Repair equipment.
        (14) The necessary pressures for each size of approved liferaft for 
    conducting the ``Necessary Additional Pressure'' test required by 
    Sec. 160.151-57(k).
        (b) Each revision to a servicing manual, and each bulletin, that 
    authorizes the modification of a liferaft, or that affects the 
    compliance of a liferaft with any requirement under this subpart, must 
    be submitted to and approved by the Commandant. Other revisions and 
    bulletins need not be approved, but a copy of each must be submitted to 
    the Commandant when issued.
        (c) Each manual provided under this section must bear the original 
    signature of a representative of the manufacturer attesting that it is 
    a true copy of the manual approved by the Commandant.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-39  Training of servicing technicians.
    
        (a) The training program for certification of servicing technicians 
    must include--
        (1) Training and practice in packing an inflatable liferaft, 
    repairing buoyancy tubes, repairing inflation-system valves, and other 
    inspections and operations described in the approved servicing manual;
        (2) An evaluation at the end of the training to determine whether 
    each trainee has successfully completed the training; and
        (3) Issuance of a certificate of competence to each technician who 
    successfully completes the training.
        (b) The manufacturer shall maintain refresher training for 
    recertification of previously trained servicing technicians. This 
    training must include--
        (1) Checking the performance of the technicians in the inspections 
    and operations described in the manual;
        (2) Retraining of the technicians in inspections and operations for 
    which they are deficient;
        (3) Training and practice in new inspections and operations;
        (4) An evaluation at the end of the training to determine whether 
    or not each trainee has successfully completed the training; and
        (5) Issuance of a certificate of competence to each technician who 
    successfully completes the training.
    
    [[Page 25554]]
    
        (c) Each time the manufacturer holds a course for servicing 
    technicians who will perform servicing on liferafts approved by the 
    Coast Guard, the manufacturer shall notify the cognizant OCMI 
    sufficiently in advance to allow, at the option of the OCMI, for a 
    Coast Guard inspector or inspectors to travel to the site where the 
    training is to occur.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-41  Approval of servicing facilities.
    
        (a) To obtain and maintain Coast Guard approval as an ``approved 
    servicing facility'' for a particular manufacturer's inflatable 
    liferafts, a facility must meet the requirements, and follow the 
    procedures, of this section.
        (b) The owner or operator of a servicing facility desiring Coast 
    Guard approval shall apply to the cognizant OCMI. The application must 
    include--
        (1) The name and address of the facility;
        (2) The name(s) of its competent servicing technician(s);
        (3) Identification of the manufacturer(s) of the liferafts the 
    facility will service; and
        (4) Any limits or special conditions that should apply to the 
    approval of the facility.
        (c) The owner or operator of the servicing facility shall arrange 
    for an inspection with the OCMI to whom the owner or operator applied 
    under paragraph (b) of this section. A currently trained servicing 
    technician shall successfully demonstrate the complete service to each 
    make and type of liferaft for which approval as a servicing facility is 
    sought, in the presence of a Coast Guard inspector or of a third-party 
    inspector accepted by the OCMI, or such technician shall present 
    evidence of having performed such service at the time of initial or 
    refresher training. The service must include:
        (1) Removing the liferaft from the container for testing without 
    damaging the liferaft or its contents;
        (2) Examining the liferaft and its container for damage and wear;
        (3) Determining the need for repairs;
        (4) Determining whether equipment must be replaced;
        (5) Conducting the tests required by Sec. 160.151-57;
        (6) Repacking the liferaft;
        (7) Inflating the fully packed liferaft using its inflation 
    mechanism; and
        (8) Repairing a leak in a main buoyancy chamber, and subjecting the 
    repaired chamber to the Necessary Additional Pressure test described in 
    Sec. 160.151-57(k). This repair may be done on a liferaft that actually 
    needs it, on one condemned, or on an inflatable chamber fabricated of 
    liferaft material specifically for this purpose. (An otherwise 
    serviceable liferaft should not be damaged for this purpose.)
        (d) Whenever servicing of liferafts takes place, each servicing 
    facility must allow Coast Guard inspectors or third-party inspectors 
    accepted by the OCMI access to the place where the servicing occurs.
        (e) Each servicing facility must employ at least one servicing 
    technician who has successfully completed the manufacturer's training 
    described in Sec. 160.151-39 (a) or (b), including training in the 
    servicing of davit-launched liferafts if the facility will service 
    these. The training must have been completed within the preceding--
        (1) 12 months for the facility to obtain its approval to service 
    the liferafts of a particular manufacturer; or
        (2) 36 months for the facility to retain approval to service the 
    liferafts of a particular manufacturer.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-43  Conditions at servicing facilities.
    
        (a) Each facility must maintain a room to service inflatable 
    liferafts that--
        (1) Is clean;
        (2) Is fully enclosed;
        (3) Has enough space to service the number of liferafts likely to 
    be present for service at one time;
        (4) Has a ceiling high enough to hold and allow overturning of a 
    fully inflated liferaft of the largest size to be serviced, or is 
    furnished with an equally efficient means to facilitate the inspection 
    of bottom seams;
        (5) Has a smooth floor that will not damage a liferaft, can be 
    easily cleaned, and is kept clean and free from oil, grease, and 
    abrasive material;
        (6) Is well lit but free from direct sunlight;
        (7) Is arranged to maintain an even temperature and low humidity in 
    each area where liferafts are pressure tested, including by mechanical 
    air-conditioning equipment in climates where it is necessary;
        (8) Is arranged so that stored liferafts are not subjected to 
    excessive loads and, if stacked one directly on top of another, does 
    not have them stacked more than two liferafts high;
        (9) Is efficiently ventilated but free of drafts; and
        (10) Is a designated no-smoking area.
        (b) In addition to the room required by paragraph (a) of this 
    section, each facility must maintain areas or rooms for storage of 
    liferafts awaiting servicing, repair, or delivery; for repair and 
    painting of reinforced plastic containers; for storage of pyrotechnics 
    and other materials, such as spare parts and required equipment; and 
    for administrative purposes.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-45  Equipment required for servicing facilities.
    
        Each servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard must maintain 
    equipment to carry out the operations described in the manufacturer's 
    servicing manual approved in accordance with Sec. 160.151-35(b)(1), 
    including--
        (a) A set of plans, as specified in Sec. 160.151-35(b)(3), for each 
    inflatable liferaft to be serviced;
        (b) A current copy of this subpart;
        (c) A current copy of the manual approved in accordance with 
    Sec. 160.151-35(b)(1), including all revisions and bulletins in effect 
    as indicated on the annual list issued in accordance with Sec. 160.151-
    35(b)(2);
        (d) Hot presses (if applicable);
        (e) Safety-type glue pots or equivalents;
        (f) Abrasive devices;
        (g) A source of clean, dry, pressurized air; hoses; and attachments 
    for inflating liferafts;
        (h) A source of vacuum; hoses; and attachments for deflating 
    liferafts;
        (i) Mercury manometer, water manometer, or other pressure-
    measurement device or pressure gauge of equivalent accuracy and 
    sensitivity;
        (j) Thermometer;
        (k) Barometer, aneroid or mercury;
        (l) Calibrated torque-wrench for assembling the inflation system;
        (m) Accurate weighing scale;
        (n) Repair materials and equipment, and spare parts as specified in 
    the applicable manual, except that items of limited ``shelf life'' need 
    not be stocked if they are readily available;
        (o) A complete stock of the survival equipment required to be 
    stowed in the liferafts, except for items of equipment that are readily 
    available;
        (p) A means for load-testing davit-launched liferafts, unless the 
    facility services only non-davit-launched liferafts;
        (q) A supply of parts for all inflation components and valves 
    specified in the applicable manual; and
        (r) A tool board that clearly indicates where each small tool is 
    stored, or has an equivalent means to make sure that no tools are left 
    in the liferaft when repacked.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-47  Requirements for owners or operators of servicing 
    facilities.
    
        To maintain Coast Guard approval, the owner or operator of each 
    servicing facility approved by the Coast Guard must--
        (a) Ensure that servicing technicians have received sufficient 
    information and training to follow instructions for changes and for new 
    techniques related
    
    [[Page 25555]]
    
    to the inflatable liferafts serviced by the facility, and have 
    available at least one copy of each manufacturer's approved servicing 
    manual, revision, and bulletin;
        (b) Calibrate each pressure gauge, mechanically-operated barometer, 
    and weighing scale at intervals of not more than 1 year, or in 
    accordance with the equipment manufacturer's requirements;
        (c) Ensure that each liferaft serviced under the facility's Coast 
    Guard approval is serviced by or under the direct supervision of a 
    servicing technician who has completed the requirements of either 
    Sec. 160.151-39(a) or (b);
        (d) Ensure that each liferaft serviced under the facility's Coast 
    Guard approval is serviced in accordance with the approved manual;
        (e) Specify which makes of liferafts the facility is approved to 
    service when representing that the facility is approved by the Coast 
    Guard; and
        (f) Ensure that the facility does not service any make of liferaft 
    for an inspected vessel of the U.S. or any other U.S.-flag vessel 
    required to carry approved liferafts, unless the facility is approved 
    by the Coast Guard to service that make of liferafts.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-49  Approval of servicing facilities at remote sites.
    
        A servicing facility may be approved for servicing liferafts at a 
    remote site, provided that appropriate arrangements have been made to 
    ensure that each such site meets the requirements of Secs. 160.151-
    41(e), 160.151-43, and 160.151-45. The facility must have a portable 
    assortment of test equipment, spare parts, and replacement survival 
    equipment to accompany the technician doing the servicing. However, if 
    repair of liferafts will not be attempted at a remote site, equipment 
    needed for repair does not need to be available at that site. A 
    facility must be specifically authorized in its letter of approval to 
    conduct servicing at a remote site.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-51  Notice of approval.
    
        If the cognizant OCMI determines that the servicing facility meets 
    the applicable requirements of Secs. 160.151-39 through 160.151-47, the 
    OCMI notifies the facility that it is approved and notifies the 
    Commandant. The Commandant issues an approval letter to the servicing 
    facility with copies to the OCMI and to the manufacturer(s) whose 
    liferafts the facility is approved to service. The letter will specify 
    any limits on the approval, and will assign the facility's approval 
    code for use on the inspection sticker required by Sec. 160.151-
    57(m)(3). The Commandant will maintain a current list of approved 
    facilities.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-53  Notice to OCMI of servicing.
    
        (a) Before servicing an inflatable liferaft under the servicing 
    facility's Coast Guard approval, the owner or operator of the facility 
    must tell the cognizant OCMI for each liferaft to be serviced--
        (1) The make and size of the liferaft;
        (2) The age of the liferaft; and
        (3) Whether the liferaft is due for a five-year inflation test.
        (b) The OCMI will inform the servicing facility whether the 
    servicing of the liferaft must be witnessed by an inspector.
        (c) If the OCMI requires the servicing of the liferaft to be 
    witnessed by an inspector--
        (1) The servicing facility must arrange a schedule with the OCMI 
    that will allow a Coast Guard inspector to travel to the site where the 
    servicing is to occur;
        (2) The owner or operator of the servicing facility, by permission 
    of the OCMI, may arrange for the servicing to be witnessed instead by a 
    third-party inspector accepted by the OCMI if a Coast Guard marine 
    inspector is not available in a timely manner; and
        (3) The servicing facility must not begin servicing the liferaft 
    until the inspector arrives at the site.
        (d) No deviation from servicing-manual procedures may occur without 
    the prior approval of the OCMI. To request the approval of a deviation, 
    the owner or operator of the servicing facility shall notify the OCMI 
    of the proposed deviation from the procedures, and must explain to the 
    OCMI the need for the deviation.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-55  Withdrawal of approval.
    
        (a) The OCMI may withdraw the approval of the servicing facility, 
    or may suspend its approval pending correction of deficiencies, if the 
    Coast Guard inspector or accepted third-party inspector finds that--
        (1) The facility does not meet the requirements of Secs. 160.151-41 
    through 160.151-47, or
        (2) The servicing is not performed in accordance with Sec. 160.151-
    57.
        (b) A withdrawal of approval may be appealed in accordance with 
    part 1, subpart 1.03, of this chapter.
        (c) The OCMI may remove a suspension pending correction of 
    deficiencies if the servicing facility demonstrates that the 
    deficiencies have been corrected.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-57  Servicing procedure.
    
        (a) Each inflatable liferaft serviced by a servicing facility 
    approved by the Coast Guard must be inspected and tested in accordance 
    with paragraphs (b) through (r) of this section, and the manufacturer's 
    servicing manual approved in accordance with Sec. 160.151-35(b)(1).
        (b) The following procedures must be carried out at each servicing:
        (1) The working-pressure leakage test described in IMO Resolution 
    A.689(17), paragraph 2/5.1.5, must be conducted.
        (2) Inflation hoses must be pressurized and checked for damage and 
    leakage as part of the working-pressure leakage test, or in a separate 
    test.
        (3) An inflatable floor must be inflated until it is firm, and let 
    stand for one hour. The inflatable floor must still be firm at the end 
    of the hour.
        (4) The seams connecting the floor to the buoyancy tube must be 
    checked for slippage, rupture, and lifting of edges.
        (5) Each item of survival equipment must be examined, and--
        (i) Replaced if its expiration date has passed; and
        (ii) Otherwise, repaired or replaced if it is damaged or 
    unserviceable.
        (6) Each battery must be replaced with a fresh one if--
        (i) Its expiration date has passed;
        (ii) It has no expiration date; or
        (iii) It is to return to service in an item of survival equipment, 
    but its measured voltage is less than its rated voltage.
        (7) Each power cell for the top and inside canopy lights must be 
    inspected and tested as prescribed in the servicing manual unless it is 
    a battery serviced in accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 
    Each cell that is tested and found satisfactory may be reinstalled. 
    Each cell that is outdated, is not tested, or fails the test must be 
    replaced.
        (8) If the liferaft is equipped with an Emergency Position-
    Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) or a Search and Rescue Transponder 
    (SART), the EPIRB or SART must be inspected and tested in accordance 
    with the manufacturer's instructions. An EPIRB must be tested using the 
    integrated test circuit and output indicator to determine whether it is 
    operative. Each EPIRB or SART not operative must be repaired or 
    replaced.
        (9) The manual inflation-pump must be tested for proper operation.
        (10) Each damaged, faded, or incorrect instruction label or 
    identification label on the liferaft or its container must be replaced.
        (11) Each liferaft must be examined to ensure that it is properly 
    marked with retroreflective material. The arrangement of the 
    retroreflective material must meet the requirements of IMO Resolution 
    A.658(16). Damaged or missing retroreflective material must be
    
    [[Page 25556]]
    
    replaced with Type I material approved under part 164, subpart 164.018, 
    of this subchapter as complying with SOLAS.
        (12) Each inflation cylinder must be weighed. If its weight loss 
    exceeds five percent of the weight of the charge, it must be recharged.
        (c) When an inflation cylinder is recharged for any reason, the 
    following inflation-head components must be renewed:
        (1) The poppet-pin assembly, if any.
        (2) Each plastic or elastomeric seal, and each other part that 
    deteriorates with age.
        (d) Each recharged inflation cylinder must stand for at least two 
    weeks and be checked for leakage by weighing before being installed in 
    a liferaft. An alternative mechanical or chemical test for fast 
    detection of leakage may be used if the servicing manual approved by 
    the Commandant in accordance with Sec. 160.151-35(b)(1) provides for 
    it.
        (e) Each inflation cylinder that requires a hydrostatic test under 
    49 CFR 173.34 must be tested and marked in accordance with that 
    section.
        (f) At every second servicing of a davit-launched liferaft, the 
    launching-load test in paragraph 2/5.2 of IMO Resolution A.689(17) must 
    be conducted.
        (g) At every fifth annual servicing, before the conduct of the 
    tests and inspections required in paragraphs (b) through of this 
    section, each liferaft must be removed from its container and, while 
    still folded, inflated by the operation of its gas-inflation system.
        (h) Each liferaft showing minor leaks during the gas inflation test 
    conducted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, may be 
    repaired.
        (i) Each liferaft ten or more years past its date of manufacture 
    must be condemned if it leaks extensively, or shows fabric damage other 
    than minor porosity, during the gas inflation test conducted in 
    accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
        (j) After the gas inflation test conducted in accordance with 
    paragraph (g) of this section, the liferaft may be evacuated and 
    refilled with air for the tests in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this 
    section.
        (k) At each annual servicing of a liferaft ten or more years past 
    its date of manufacture during which the gas-inflation test in 
    paragraph (g) of this section is not conducted, a ``Necessary 
    Additional Pressure'' (NAP) test must be conducted. Before the tests 
    and inspections required in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section 
    are conducted, the NAP test must be completed, using the following 
    procedure:
        (1) Plug or otherwise disable the pressure-relief valves.
        (2) Gradually raise the pressure to the lesser of 2 times the 
    design working pressure, or that specified in the manufacturer's 
    servicing manual as sufficient to impose a tensile load on the tube 
    fabric of 20 percent of its minimum required tensile strength.
        (3) After 5 minutes, there should be no seam slippage, cracking, 
    other defects, or pressure drop greater than 5 percent. If cracking in 
    the buoyancy tubes is audible, accompanied by pressure loss, condemn 
    the liferaft. If it is not, reduce the pressure in all buoyancy 
    chambers simultaneously by enabling the pressure-relief valves.
        (l) At each annual servicing of a liferaft 10 or more years past 
    its date of manufacture, the integrity of the seams connecting the 
    floor to the buoyancy tube must be checked by the following procedure, 
    or an equivalent procedure specified in the manufacturer's approved 
    servicing manual:
        (1) With the buoyancy tube supported a sufficient distance above 
    the floor of the servicing facility to maintain clearance during the 
    test, a person weighing not less than 75 kg (165 lb) shall walk or 
    crawl around the entire perimeter of the floor of the liferaft.
        (2) The seams connecting the floor to the buoyancy tube must then 
    be inspected for slippage, rupture, and lifting of edges.
        (m) The servicing facility must complete the following for each 
    liferaft that passes these inspections and tests:
        (1) Permanently mark the liferaft on its outside canopy, or on a 
    servicing-record panel on an interior portion of one of its buoyancy 
    tubes near an entrance, with--
        (i) The date of the servicing;
        (ii) The identification and location of the servicing facility; and
        (iii) If applicable, an indication that the special fifth-year 
    servicing was performed.
        (2) On or before July 1, 1998, permanently and legibly mark on the 
    identification device provided in accordance with Sec. 160.151-17(c), 
    or on the outside canopy of the liferaft, the name, if known, of the 
    vessel on which the raft will be installed or the name, if known, of 
    the vessel owner.
        (3) On or before November 10, 1997, affix an inspection sticker to 
    the liferaft container or valise. The sticker must be of a type that 
    will remain legible for at least 2 years when exposed to a marine 
    environment, and that cannot be removed without being destroyed. The 
    sticker must be about 100 mm x 150 mm (4 by 6 inches), with the last 
    digit of the year of expiration superimposed over a background color 
    that corresponds to the colors specified for the validation stickers 
    for recreational-boat numbers in 33 CFR 174.15(c), and be marked with 
    the Coast Guard identifying insignia in accordance with the 
    requirements of 33 CFR 23.12. The sticker must also contain the 
    following:
        (i) The name of the manufacturer of the liferaft.
        (ii) The year and month of expiration determined in accordance with 
    paragraph (n) of this section.
        (iii) Identification of the servicing facility, printed on the 
    sticker or indicated on the sticker by punch using an approval code 
    issued by the Commandant.
        (n) The expiration date of the servicing sticker is 12 months after 
    the date the liferaft was repacked, except that:
        (1) For a new liferaft, the expiration date may be not more than 
    two years after the date the liferaft was first packed, if--
        (i) Dated survival equipment in the liferaft will not expire before 
    the sticker expiration date; and
        (ii) The liferaft will not be installed on a vessel certificated 
    under SOLAS.
        (2) For a liferaft stored indoors, under controlled temperatures 
    (between 0  deg.C (32  deg.F) and 45  deg.C (113  deg.F)), for not more 
    than 6 months from the date it was serviced or first packed, the 
    expiration date may be extended up to the length of time the liferaft 
    remained in storage.
        (3) For a liferaft stored indoors, under controlled temperatures 
    (between 0  deg.C (32  deg.F) and 45  deg.C (113  deg.F)), for not more 
    than 12 months from the date it was serviced or first packed, the 
    expiration date may be extended up to the length of time the liferaft 
    remained in storage, if the liferaft is opened, inspected, and repacked 
    in a servicing facility approved in accordance with Secs. 160.151-49 
    and 160.151-51. When the liferaft is opened--
        (i) The condition of the liferaft must be visually checked and 
    found to be satisfactory;
        (ii) The inflation cylinders must be checked and weighed in 
    accordance with paragraph (b)(12) of this section;
        (iii) All survival equipment whose expiration date has passed must 
    be replaced; and
        (iv) All undated batteries must be replaced.
        (o) The servicing facility must remove and destroy the markings of 
    Coast Guard approval on each liferaft condemned in the course of any 
    servicing test or inspection.
        (p) The servicing facility must issue a certificate to the liferaft 
    owner or
    
    [[Page 25557]]
    
    owner's agent for each liferaft it services. The certificate must 
    include--
        (1) The name of the manufacturer of the liferaft;
        (2) The serial number of the liferaft;
        (3) The date of servicing and repacking;
        (4) A record of the fifth-year gas-inflation test required in 
    paragraph (g) of this section, whenever that test is performed;
        (5) A record of the hydrostatic test of each inflation cylinder 
    required in paragraph (e) of this section, whenever that test is 
    performed;
        (6) A record of any deviation from the procedures of the 
    manufacturer's servicing manual authorized by the OCMI in accordance 
    with Sec. 160.151-53(d);
        (7) The identification of the servicing facility, including its 
    name, address, and the approval code assigned by the Commandant in 
    accordance with Sec. 160.151-51;
        (8) The name, if known, of the vessel or vessel owner receiving the 
    liferaft; and
        (9) The date the liferaft is returned to the owner or owner's 
    agent.
        (q) The servicing facility must keep a record of each liferaft 
    approved by the Coast Guard that it services for at least five years, 
    and must make those records available to the Coast Guard upon request. 
    Those records must include--
        (1) The serial number of the liferaft;
        (2) The date of servicing and repacking;
        (3) The identification of any Coast Guard or third-party inspector 
    present;
        (4) The name, if known, of the vessel or vessel owner receiving the 
    liferaft; and
        (5) The date the liferaft is returned to the owner or owner's 
    agent.
        (r) The servicing facility must prepare and transmit to the OCMI, 
    at least annually, statistics showing the nature and extent of damage 
    to and defects found in liferafts during servicing and repair. The 
    facility must notify the OCMI immediately of any critical defects it 
    finds that may affect other liferafts.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-59  Operating instructions and information for the ship's 
    training manual.
    
        (a) The liferaft manufacturer shall make operating instructions and 
    information for the ship's training manual available in English to 
    purchasers of inflatable liferafts approved by the Coast Guard, to 
    enable vessel operators to meet regulations III/18.2, 19.3, 51, and 52 
    of SOLAS.
        (b) The instructions and information required by paragraph (a) of 
    this section may be combined with similar material for hydrostatic 
    releases or launching equipment, and must explain--
        (1) Release of the inflatable liferaft from its stowage position;
        (2) Launching of the liferaft;
        (3) Survival procedures, including instructions for use of survival 
    equipment aboard; and
        (4) Shipboard installations of the liferaft.
        (c) The operating instructions required by paragraphs (a) and (b) 
    of this section must also be made available in the form of an 
    instruction placard. The placard must be not greater than 36 cm (14 
    in.) by 51 cm (20 in.), made of durable material and suitable for 
    display near installations of liferafts on vessels, providing simple 
    procedures and illustrations for launching, inflating, and boarding the 
    liferaft.
    
    
    Sec. 160.151-61 Maintenance instructions.
    
        (a) The liferaft manufacturer shall make maintenance instructions 
    available in English to purchasers of inflatable liferafts approved by 
    the Coast Guard, to enable vessel operators to meet regulations III/
    19.3 and III/52 of SOLAS.
        (b) The maintenance instructions required by paragraph (a) of this 
    section must include--
        (1) A checklist for use in monthly, external, visual inspections of 
    the packed liferaft;
        (2) An explanation of the requirements for periodic servicing of 
    the liferaft by an approved servicing facility; and
        (3) A log for maintaining records of inspections and maintenance.
    
    PART 199--LIFESAVING SYSTEMS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTED VESSELS
    
        11. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 46 CFR 1.46.
    
        12. In Sec. 199.190, revise paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text and 
    (g)(3)(i) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 199.190  Operational readiness, maintenance, and inspection of 
    lifesaving equipment
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Servicing of inflatable lifesaving appliances, inflated rescue 
    boats, and marine evacuation systems. * * *
        (3) Each inflatable liferaft and inflatable buoyant apparatus must 
    be serviced--
        (i) In accordance with servicing procedures meeting the 
    requirements of part 160, subpart 160.151 of this chapter; and
    * * * * *
        Dated: May 2, 1997.
    Joseph Angelo,
    Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental 
    Protection.
    [FR Doc. 97-11897 Filed 5-8-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-14-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
6/9/1997
Published:
05/09/1997
Department:
Coast Guard
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
97-11897
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.
Pages:
25525-25557 (33 pages)
Docket Numbers:
CGD 85-205
RINs:
2115-AC51: Revision to Inflatable Life Raft Approval: SOLAS 74/83 (CGD 85-205)
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2115-AC51/revision-to-inflatable-life-raft-approval-solas-74-83-cgd-85-205-
PDF File:
97-11897.pdf
CFR: (61)
46 CFR 160.151-17(a)
47 CFR 160.010-3(a)(16)
47 CFR 160.151-27(a)
46 CFR 160.151-27(a)
46 CFR 159.005-5(a)(2)
More ...