![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Certification of Navigation Lights for Uninspected Commercial Vessels and Recreational Vessels
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 4, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 151)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47936-47941]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04au00-22]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 84 and 183
46 CFR Part 25
[USCG 1999-6580]
RIN 2115-AF70
Certification of Navigation Lights for Uninspected Commercial
Vessels and Recreational Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to require that domestic
manufacturers of vessels install only certified navigation lights on
all uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels. This
change would align the standards for these lights with those for
inspected commercial vessels and with those for all other mandatory
safety equipment carried on board all vessels. The Coast Guard expects
the resulting reduction in the use of noncompliant lights to improve
safety on the water.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before October 3, 2000.
ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material (referred
[[Page 47937]]
to USCG 1999-6580) do not enter the docket more than once, please
submit them by only one of the following means:
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590-0001.
(2) By hand to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
(3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
(4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, at
the address listed above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this proposed rule,
contact Mr. Randolph J. Doubt, Project Manager, Office of Boating
Safety, Coast Guard, by telephone at 202-267-6810 or by e-mail at
rdoubt@comdt.uscg.mil. For questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, call Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief of Dockets, Department of
Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
You may obtain a copy of this notice by calling the U.S. Coast
Guard Infoline at 1-800-368-5647 or by accessing either the Web Site
for the Office of Boating Safety at http://www.uscgboating.org. or the
Web Site for the Docket Management Facility at http://dms.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG 1999-
6580), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material by mail, by hand, by fax, or electronically
to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or by
hand, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and want to know they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period. We may change
this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. You may ask for one by
submitting a request to the Docket Management Facility at the address
under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Regulatory History
The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking to
establish requirements for approval, certification, installation, and
performance of navigation lights on vessels of less than 20 meters in
length in the Federal Register of September 7, 1978 (43 FR 39946), and
a supplemental notice in that of December 29, 1980 (45 FR 85468). It
published a notice withdrawing the proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register of January 7, 1982 (47 FR 826). It published a request for
comments on regulatory control of navigation lights in the Federal
Register of October 9, 1997 (62 FR 52673).
Background and Purpose
Until April 1997, a manufacturer of navigation lights for
recreational vessels could voluntarily apply for a ``Letter of
Acceptance'' from the U.S. Coast Guard for each model of navigation
light marketed. Upon receipt of an application, the Coast Guard would
review a laboratory report for the given model, documenting compliance
with the technical requirements of the International and Inland
Navigation Rules (together, ``Navigation Rules''). Basing its judgement
solely on the comparison of the report with the rules, the Coast Guard,
if it did not object, would state that it did not object to the model
being offered for sale and would grant a ``Letter of Acceptance,''
which allowed the manufacturer to state ``U.S. Coast Guard Accepted''
on the package. This statement the public often confused with ``U.S.
Coast Guard Approved.'' Since April 1997, the Coast Guard no longer
issues Letters of Acceptance. Consequently, other than statements
provided by the manufacturer, there is no evidence of compliance with
the technical requirements of the Navigation Rules available to a
manufacturer, surveyor, owner, or inspector of a vessel, or to a
boarding official.
Regulatory controls now exist only for lights manufactured
specifically for inspected commercial vessels. These appear in 46 CFR
subchapter J, which, in part, states that each light must ``be
certified by an independent laboratory to the requirements of
[Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)] 1104 or an equivalent standard''
and be so labeled. The ``independent laboratory'' must be recognized as
bonafide and have been placed on a list by the Coast Guard (that list
is available from G-MSE-3 at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street SW., Washington, DC, 20593-0001). Although lights currently
certified for commercial inspected vessels are generally too large for
uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels, a manufacturer
may choose to install them; but none need install them.
The National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC), representing
operators and manufacturers of vessels, State boating officials, and
national boating organizations, and the National Association of State
Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) both passed resolutions asking that
the Coast Guard initiate a certification program for navigation lights
installed on recreational vessels offered for sale to the public. The
Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC) passed a similar resolution
relating to uninspected commercial vessels. UL recommends in the
report, ``Recreational Boat Collision Accident Research'', that the
Coast Guard take stronger measures to ensure that navigation lights
installed in recreational vessels meet the minimum requirements
established by the Navigation Rules.
In response to the request for comments of October 9, 1997, State
law-enforcement personnel, vessels' owners, marine professionals
(manufacturers and marine surveyors), standard-setting organizations,
manufacturers of navigation lights, and a laboratory testing navigation
lights all submitted comments. Of the 34 respondents, 28 favored
rulemaking. Some expressed concern about installing navigation lights
in vessels with bow-high cruising trim angles that tend to obstruct
sidelights' visibility. While it would not
[[Page 47938]]
require certification of installations of navigation lights, this
proposed rule would require that certified lights be installed in
compliance with the visibility requirements established by the
Navigation Rules.
The rationale published in January 1982 for withdrawing the
proposed rulemakings of September 1978 and December 1980 to establish
regulatory controls, was that a newly established voluntary standard
and Coast Guard enforcement policies eliminated the need for
regulation. UL, in response to the request for comment October 9, 1997,
advised that, to the contrary, there has been a steady decline in
compliance over the past 20 years and that about half of the navigation
lights for recreational vessels submitted for evaluation have failed to
meet minimum performance requirements established by the Navigation
Rules.
In response to the decline in compliance with the technical
requirements for navigation lights established by the Navigation Rules,
the proposed requirement of certification by third parties would
curtail installations of noncompliant lights by providing evidence of
compliance for manufacturers, surveyors, owners, inspectors, and
boarding officials. The proposed requirement is similar to that for
inspected commercial vessels, though less stringent, and aligns with
the requirement of the International Navigation Rules (COLREGS) for
``Approval'' (33 CFR subchapter D, Annex I).
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule draws from rules in 46 CFR subchapter J,
Electrical Engineering, which require certification of navigation
lights for inspected commercial vessels. It would direct manufacturers
of all uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels to
install only lights certified and labeled as meeting the technical
requirements of the Navigation Rules. It would designate laboratories
listed by the Coast Guard the certifying authorities for navigation
lights. It would supply the section of the Inland Navigational Rules,
Annex I, ``Approval'' (33 CFR 84.25), currently reserved, by
establishing a requirement for certification of all navigation lights,
while a subsequent amendment to Inland Navigation Rule 38 (Exemptions)
would address requirements for owners and operators of existing vessels
to allow for lights installed before its effective date.
The proposed changes are as follows:
(1) Add 33 CFR 84.25 to require that the construction of lights and
shapes and the installation of lights meet requirements established by
the Commandant.
(2) Add 33 CFR 183.465 to set forth the performance standard for
certification of navigation lights for recreational vessels, adapting
the standard from existing rules in 46 CFR subchapter J, for inspected
commercial vessels.
(3) Add 46 CFR subpart 25.10, consisting solely of Sec. 25.10-1, to
set forth the performance standard for certification of navigation
lights for uninspected commercial vessels, again adapting from 46 CFR
subchapter J the standard for inspected commercial vessels.
To allow for the use of lights that may already be in stock, no
rule would become effective until one year after publication of a final
rule.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule 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. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed
this rule under that Order. We expect the economic effect of this
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary.
Costs of the Proposed Rule
(1) Manufacturers of navigation lights would incur initial costs
associated with laboratory testing of each model of light for
compliance with the Navigation Rules. This could result in minor
increases in market prices for certified lights. Those manufacturers
would pass increases on to manufacturers of boats and eventually on to
consumers. However, these increases should be so small that their
effect on manufacturers of boats and on consumers should be negligible.
Of the roughly 4,400 manufacturers of recreational boats in the United
States, 90% install navigation lights on their boats. There are 6
different types of lights on the market, and each of their
manufacturers may make multiple models of each type. Through a survey
of the lights now available, we have determined that each manufacturer
produces an average of 10 models for each type and introduces 3 new
models a year. Certification would entail that a representative light
of production quality, for each model, pass a performance test. We have
identified 9 domestic manufacturers of lights that this rule might
affect.
In conversations with the two testing laboratories approved by the
Coast Guard, UL and Imanna Laboratory, we developed an estimate of $500
for a performance test of each model. These laboratories do offer a
volume discount for multiple models tested, and this discount would
decrease the cost for a test of each model to about $400. We would
therefore calculate the cost of this rule as follows:
6 types of light x 10 models of light x 9 manufacturers x $400
per test of each model = $216,000.
To account for the one-year phase-in period, we had to determine
the present value of this cost. The Department of Transportation uses a
standard discount rate of 7%. The calculation is as follows:
($216,000)/(1.07) \1\ = $201,869.16.
This figure would be the one-time cost for existing models of
lights. However, if a manufacturer decided to introduce a new model of
light, the manufacturer would have to have that model tested by a
laboratory approved by the Coast Guard before the manufacturer could
send it to market.
We must also account for the 3 new models of light that each
manufacturer sends to market each year. We will sum 15 years of cost
using a discount rate of 7%:
[(9 manufacturers x 3 new models x $400)/(1.07)\n\], n=2
* * * 15 = $80,663.80.
The total cost of labeling over 15 years would be:
$201,869.16 + $80,663.80 = $282,532.96.
(2) Manufacturers of navigation lights would have to offer new
labeling with the certified lights. Most of it would be printable on an
insert or on a sticker on a package (it is described in proposed 33 CFR
183.465). This proposed rule would not involve modification of the
package to accommodate the labeling. We have gathered estimates from
labeling companies, and we have determined that the manufacturer would
pay about $240 for 1,000 labels. We will assume that each model of
light needs 1,000 labels. Each of the 9 manufacturers produces an
average of 10 models for each of 6 types and expects to introduce 3 new
models a year. The calculations will be as follows:
[(9 manufacturers x 10 models for each type x 6 types x $200/
1,000 labels x 1,000 labels)/(1+0.7)\1\] + [(9
manufacturers x 3 new models x $200/1,000 labels x 1,000 labels)/
(1.07)\n\], n=2 * * * 15 = $145,072.04.
This rule would also require that each light be marked ``USCG''
followed by the tested range of visibility, such as ``2
[[Page 47939]]
nm'', to indicate compliance. We believe that manufacturers are already
marking their lights and own the necessary equipment for marking them,
so this requirement should not impose any added costs.
Benefits of the Proposed Rule
(1) Certification would place navigation lights under regulatory
control comparable to that affecting all other items of mandatory
safety equipment. This would result in a general improvement in
reliability, quality, and effectiveness of such lights, domestic and
imported, available to domestic manufacturers of vessels.
(2) Certification would discourage the practice of installing
lights that are custom-made by the manufacturer of a vessel but that
have proved to be basically noncompliant with the Navigation Rules.
(3) Certification markings would provide evidence for
manufacturers, surveyors, owners, and inspectors of vessels, or for
boarding officials, in assessing the legality of installed lights.
(4) Certification would facilitate exports to countries enforcing
the requirement of the COLREGS for approval of navigation lights (Annex
I, 14.)
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601-612], we
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set up size
standards for each SIC code based on the number of employees or annual
receipts. The only type of small entity that this rule would affect
would be small businesses. Four out of the nine manufacturers of
navigation lights qualify as small businesses by the size standards of
the SBA. However, we have observed that the four businesses we have
identified as small offer fewer models of each type of light than their
larger competitors. These four offer between 1 and 5 models of each
type, which is well below the average of 10 models each. Therefore, we
do not believe that they would bear a disproportionate amount of the
burden of this rule. They have annual revenues of $2.5m-$5.0m; $5.0m-
$10m; $10m-$20m; and $20m-$50m. Therefore, the greatest possible cost
of testing for one of these four ($400 x 6 light types x 5 models
per type = $12,000) would be only .05% of the annual revenues of even
the smallest company. This would not impose a significant burden on
these companies, and it would not create a barrier to entry for
companies that wish to enter the industry.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a significant economic effect on it,
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effect on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Randolph J. Doubt, Project
Manager, Office of Boating Safety, by telephone at (202) 267-6810 or by
e-mail at rdoubt@comdt.uscg.mil.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501-3520]. As
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other
similar actions. The title and description of the collections, a
description of those who perform them, and an estimate of the total
annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for submitting a new
model of light to the third-party certifier and for designing a label
for each model of light.
Summary of the Collection of Information
The proposed rule would impose a new burden of collection of
information on manufacturers of navigational lights for uninspected
commercial vessels and recreational vessels. Each manufacturer of the
lights would incur a one-time burden of submitting paperwork to the
third-party certifier and of designing labeling for each model of
light.
Need and Proposed Use for Information
This collection of information is necessary to accomplish the
third-party certification and the labeling. The third party certifier
would use the information to document and test the models of lights.
Once the model had passed performance testing, the manufacturer of the
light would design and provide a label for its product so the consumer
would know that the product was certified.
Description of Respondents
This collection of information would affect the current
manufacturers of navigational lights for recreational and uninspected
vessels. It would also affect any future manufacturers that may enter
the market.
Number of Respondents
There are 9 manufacturers of lights in the market. This collection
of information will affect them all.
Frequency of Response
This collection would take place only when a manufacturer undertook
to place a new light model on the market.
Burden of Response
We estimate that it would take one employee about one hour to
prepare the paperwork to submit a light for performance tests. He or
she would be an administrative assistant and, as such, would cost
around $24 an hour. If each of these manufacturers submitted three new
models of lights for testing each year, the burden for the submitted
would be 27 hours and $648.
We also estimate that it would take one employee about one hour to
update the labeling for each new model. He or she, too, would cost
around $24 an hour. The burden for the labeling requirement would
likewise be 27 hours and $648 if each of the nine manufacturers
submitted 3 new models for testing each year.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden
Using the above estimates, the total burden in hours would be 54
and the total cost would be $1,296.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of
information. We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of
information to help us determine how useful the information is; whether
it can help us
[[Page 47940]]
perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the
requirements for this collection of information become effective, we
will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision to
approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.
Federalism
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and have
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism
under that Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. 1531-1538]
governs the issuance of Federal rules that impose unfunded mandates. An
unfunded mandate is a rule that requires a State, local, or tribal
government or the private sector, to incur direct costs without the
Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those
costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Reform of Civil Justice
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is
not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Environment
We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. A requirement for certification of
navigation lights should not have any environmental impact. A
Determination of Categorical Exclusion is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 84
Navigation (water), Waterways.
33 CFR Part 183
Marine Safety.
46 CFR Part 25
Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR parts 84 and 183, and 46 CFR part 25, as follows:
33 CFR PART 84--ANNEX I: POSITIONING AND TECHNICAL DETAILS OF
LIGHTS AND SHAPES
1. The citation of authority for part 84 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2071; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Add text to Sec. 84.25 to read as follows:
Sec. 84.25 Approval.
The construction of lights and shapes and the installation of
lights on board the vessel must satisfy the Commandant.
33 CFR PART 183--BOATS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
3. The citation of authority for part 183 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 4302; 49 CFR 1.46.
4. Add Sec. 183.465 to read as follows:
Sec. 183.465 Navigation light: Standard.
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, each
navigation light must--
(1) Meet the technical standards of the applicable Navigation
Rules;
(2) Be certified by a laboratory listed by the Coast Guard to the
standards of UL 1104 or equivalent, although portable battery-powered
lights need only meet the requirements of the standard applicable to
them; and
(3) Bear a label stating the following:
(i) USCG Approval 183.465.
(ii) ``MEETS ____________.'' (Insert the identification name or
number of the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to which
the laboratory type-tested.)
(iii) ``TESTED BY ____________.'' (Insert the name or registered
certification-mark of the laboratory listed by the Coast Guard that
tested the fixture to the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.)
(iv) Name of manufacturer.
(v) Number of model.
(vi) Visibility of the light in nautical miles.
(vii) Date on which the light was type-tested.
(viii) Identification of the bulb used in the compliance test.
(b) If a light is too small to attach the required label--
(1) Place the information from the label in or on the package that
contains the light; and
(2) Mark each light ``USCG'' followed by the certified range of
visibility in nautical miles, for example, ``USCG 2nm''. This mark must
be visible, without removal of the light, once installed.
46 CFR PART 25--REQUIREMENTS
5. The citation of authority for part 25 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4302; 49 CFR 1.46.
6. Add subpart 25.10, consisting of Sec. 25.10-1, to read as
follows:
Subpart 25.10--Navigation Lights
Sec. 25.10-1 Requirements.
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, each
navigation light must--
(1) Meet the technical standards of the applicable Navigation
Rules;
(2) Be certified by a laboratory listed by the Coast Guard to the
standards of UL 1104 or equivalent, although portable battery-powered
lights need only meet the requirements of the standard applicable to
them; and
(3) Bear a label stating the following:
(i) USCG Approval 183.465
(ii) ``MEETS ____________.'' (Insert the identification name or
number of the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to which
the light was type-tested.)
(iii) ``TESTED BY ____________.'' (Insert the name or registered
certification-mark of the laboratory listed by the Coast Guard that
tested the fixture to the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.)
(iv) Name of Manufacturer.
[[Page 47941]]
(v) Number of Model.
(vi) Visibility of the light in nautical miles.
(vii) Date on which the light was type-tested.
(viii) Identification of bulb used in the compliance test.
(b) If a light is too small to attach the required label--
(1) Place the information from the label in or on the package that
contains the light; and
(2) Mark each light ``USCG'' followed by the certified range of
visibility in nautical miles, for example, ``USCG 2nm''. This mark must
be visible, without removal of the light, once installed.
Dated: July 25, 2000.
Terry M. Cross,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Operations.
[FR Doc. 00-19835 Filed 8-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U