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: November 1, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 212)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55086-55092]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no01-7]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is requiring domestic manufacturers of vessels
to install only certified navigation lights on all newly manufactured
uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels. This rule
aligns the requirements for these lights with those for inspected
commercial vessels and with requirements 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: This final rule is effective November 1, 2002. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of November 1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-1999-6580 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
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: If you have questions on this rule,
call 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. If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation,
telephone 202-366-5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
establish requirements for approval, certification, installation, and
performance of navigation lights on vessels less than 20 meters in
length in the Federal Register on September 7, 1978 (43 FR 39946), and
a supplemental notice on December 29, 1980 (45 FR 85468). It published
a notice withdrawing the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on
January 7, 1982 (47 FR 826). The proposed rule was withdrawn because a
newly established voluntary standard and Coast Guard enforcement
policies were deemed sufficient.
On October 9, 1997, the Coast Guard published in the Federal
Register (62 FR 52673) a request for comments on whether navigation
lights on uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels need
to be regulated. We received 34 comments. On August 4, 2000, we
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Certification
of Navigation Lights for Uninspected Commercial Vessels and
Recreational Vessels in the Federal Register (65 FR 47936). We received
11 comments on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and
none was held.

Background and Purpose

The rule will direct manufacturers of uninspected commercial
vessels and recreational vessels to install only navigation lights
certified and labeled as meeting the technical requirements of the
Navigation Rules. It will standardize the navigation light requirement
for uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels with the
requirement for inspected commercial vessels. This action is consistent
with the treatment for all other items of safety equipment.
Previously, only lights specifically manufactured for inspected
commercial vessels were regulated. These regulations appear in Title 46
CFR subchapter J-Electrical Engineering, and they state in part 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 by the Coast Guard as bonafide and have been placed
on a list, which is available from G-MSE-3 at U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
Rulemakings to establish regulatory controls of navigation lights
on uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels were
proposed in September 1978 and December 1980. They were withdrawn in
January 1982 because a newly established voluntary standard and Coast
Guard enforcement policies were deemed sufficient to eliminate the need
for the regulation. However, by 1997, several entities concerned with
recreational boating safety were calling for regulations.
Before April 1997, a manufacturer of navigation lights for
uninspected commercial vessel and recreational vessels could
voluntarily apply for a ``Letter of Acceptance'' from the U.S. Coast
Guard for its light models. The Coast Guard would compare a laboratory
report for each model sent by the manufacturer with the technical
requirements of the International and Inland Navigation Rules (together
referred to as the ``Navigation Rules''). If the reported data
indicated that the light met the requirements of the Navigation Rules,
the Coast Guard would grant a ``Letter of Acceptance,'' allowing the
manufacturer to label the light as ``U.S. Coast Guard Accepted.'' The
public often interpreted the acceptance label as meaning that a light
was ``U.S. Coast Guard Approved.''
To eliminate the confusion, the Coast Guard stopped issuing Letters
of Acceptance in April 1997. Consequently, vessel manufacturers,
owners, surveyors, vessel inspectors, and boarding officials could rely
only on a statement from the navigation light manufacturer that a model
of light complied with the technical requirements of the Navigation
Rules.
In 1997 the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC)--
representing operators and manufacturers of recreational vessels, State
boating officials, and national boating organization--and the National
Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) passed
resolutions asking the Coast Guard to require that navigation lights
installed on recreational vessels offered for sale to the public be
certified. The Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC) passed a
similar resolution relating to uninspected commercial vessels. In the
report, ``Recreational Boat Collision Accident Research,'' UL
recommended that the Coast Guard take stronger measures to ensure that
navigation lights installed in recreational vessels meet the
requirements established by the Navigation Rules.

[[Page 55087]]

A request for comments on the proposed rulemaking was published in
the Federal Register on October 9, 1997. State law-enforcement
personnel, vessel owners, marine professionals (manufacturers and
marine surveyors), standard-setting organizations, manufacturers of
navigation lights, and a laboratory testing navigation lights submitted
comments. Of the 34 respondents, 28 favored the rule. Some expressed
concern about installing lights in vessels with bow-high cruising trim
angles that tend to obstruct sidelight visibility. While it would not
require certification of navigation light installations, the rule will
require that the installed lights be certified as compliant with the
visibility requirements established by the Navigation Rules. A complete
discussion of these comments was included in the NPRM, which may be
found in the docket at the locations listed under ADDRESSES.
In its response to the October 1997 request for comments, UL stated
that during the past 20 years compliance with the Navigation Rules for
navigation lights has steadily declined. UL stated that about half of
the lights tested have failed to meet minimum performance requirements.
To address this decline in compliance, the rule requires that
vessel manufacturers install only lights that are certified. The new
requirement will provide evidence of compliance to vessel
manufacturers, surveyors, owners, inspectors, and boarding officials.
It includes the same requirements as those for navigation lights for
inspected commercial vessels; however, the light test requirements are
less stringent. It also aligns with the International Navigation Rule
requirement (COLREGS) for ``Approval'' (33 CFR, subchapter D, Annex I.)
The rule does not apply to the replacement of existing navigation
lights on vessels completed before the designated effective date.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

Respondents to the NPRM published August 4, 2000, included State
law-enforcement officials, a marine safety service, a tug operator,
several tug and tow operation companies, and two waterways associations
representing the towing industry. Of the nine respondents, four favored
the rulemaking.
All opposing comments came from representatives of the towing
industry. Some cited the expense of certifying barge mooring lights;
however, barge mooring lights are outside the scope of this rule
because they are not generally installed by the builder.
Other comments requested that commercial vessel lights be
grandfathered. Although the NPRM did not specify that this rulemaking
applied to only newly manufactured vessels, that was the original
intent. This has been clarified in the final rule by adding an
applicability section to the new subpart 25.10 in 46 CFR. We also added
a definition section to the new subpart 25.10. Furthermore, only
uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels are within the
rule's scope, as inspected commercial vessels are covered in other
regulations.
Another comment recommended that when non-certified lights need to
be replaced that they be replaced with certified lights. The Coast
Guard disagrees with this comment. A planned amendment to Navigation
Rule 38 will grandfather all existing lights, whether installed or on
the shelf, implying that original equipment may be replaced in kind.
Comments also expressed concern about bulb ``monopolies'' resulting
from this rulemaking. The labeling requirements call for
``identification of the bulb used in the compliance test.'' Although
``identification'' will include bulb make along with specifications
regarding wattage, rated voltage, and filament configuration, this rule
does not preclude the use of any make bulb that allows the performance
requirements of the light to be satisfied.
One towing company cited lack of enforcement of the Navigation
Rules as the crux of the problem while another objected to using ``pre-
focus lamps'' (lamps with screened lenses designed to meet the sector
requirements) rather than ``incandescent rough service lamps.'' Neither
of these comments are within the scope of this rule. However, the
intent of this rulemaking is to discourage the use of non-compliant
lights on uninspected commercial vessels and recreational vessels as a
step in enforcing the Navigation Rules. A requirement for ``approval,''
or third-party certification, has always existed in the International
Navigation Rules. The intent to establish a similar requirement in the
Inland Rules is evidenced by Inland Rule, Annex I, 84.25 Approval,
currently marked ``reserved.'' This rule satisfies that intent.
Additionally, the need for this rule is reflected in a memo from
Marine Safety Office, New Orleans to the Executive Director, Navigation
Safety Advisory Committee that details problems associated with lights
noncompliant with the International Navigation Rules and the Inland
Rules and includes accident examples implicating improper navigation
lights. This memo has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking as
supplemental information and may be viewed at the locations listed on
the ADDRESSES section of this document.
Of those favoring the rulemaking, a comment from a State law-
enforcement agency reported that a significant number of collisions
occur during the hours of darkness or reduced visibility, and that not
seeing the other vessel's navigation lights is commonly cited as the
cause. The U.S. Coast Guard agrees with this comment and has placed a
letter from the City of Fort Lauderdale and the U.S. Coast Guard's
response in the docket for this rulemaking as supplemental information.
The letter refers to a horrendous nighttime collision in November 1997,
which prompted an accident record review that caused city officials to
question the adequacy of the navigation lights.
One comment recommended a more stringent labeling requirement. The
Coast Guard agrees and has amended the labeling requirement to read
that the label must be permanent and indelible and that it be visible
without removing or disassembling the light. Another comment favoring
the rulemaking stated that UL 1104 is too stringent as a testing
standard. The Coast Guard also agrees with this comment. ABYC A-16, the
most basic standard, has been substituted for UL 1104.
The aforementioned comments, combined with those received from UL
in response to our original request for comments on October 9, 1997,
indicate substantial support for the rulemaking. The UL comments state
that more than half of the lights for small craft, which are not
regulated, do not comply with minimum Navigation Rule requirements, but
most regulated lights, that is, those for commercial vessels, do.
The new rule will be placed in Title 33 CFR, Part 183, subpart M,
and not subpart I. We noticed after publication of the NPRM that
subpart I applies only to gasoline-powered vessels. To ensure that the
regulation properly applies to all uninspected commercial and
recreational vessels, as originally stated in the preamble to the NPRM
(65 FR 47938), we are recodifying the regulation in a new subpart. This
has required that we draft new applicability and definitions sections
to be placed in subpart M. These additions do not change the rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a `significant regulatory action' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs

[[Page 55088]]

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. Since we expect the economic effect of this rule to be very
minimal, a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is not necessary.

Costs of the Rule

(1) Manufacturers of navigation lights will incur initial costs for
laboratory tests to certify that their lights comply with Navigation
Rules. This may result in a minor increase in the market price for
certified lights. Navigation light manufacturers will pass these costs
on to vessel manufacturers. In turn, the vessel manufacturers will
charge consumers more. We conclude that these increases should be so
small that their effect on vessel manufacturers and consumers will be
negligible.
Most recreational vessel manufacturers install navigation lights on
their vessels. We have discovered that eight types of lights are now on
the market, and each light manufacturer may make multiple models of
each type. Our survey of available lights determined that each
manufacturer produces an average of 10 models for each type and
introduces 3 new models a year. Certification will require that a
representative light of each model pass a performance test before it is
marketed. Specifically, we identified nine domestic manufacturers of
lights that this rule might affect. To conduct a cost analysis
involving these nine manufacturers we must allow a one-year delay in
the effective date of this rule. The one-year delay will allow the
navigation light manufacturers time to alter their products and
procedures to meet certification requirements. Consequently, initial
costs will not begin to incur until the year 2002, when the rule
becomes effective. Given that 3 new models are introduced each year, we
will set a period of 15 years over which the analysis of the impacts of
this rule will span. For the first year, 2002, we have analyzed the
cost of certifying currently available models. For the remaining
fourteen years, 2003-2016, we analyze the cost of certifying new
models.
An e-mail exchange between the Office of Boating Safety and a
navigation light manufacturer regarding costs associated with this rule
can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conversations with UL and Imanna Laboratory, testing
laboratories approved by the Coast Guard, we developed an estimate of
$500 for a performance test of each model. Volume discounts for
multiple model tests from these laboratories will decrease the cost of
each model to $400. We can therefore calculate a partial cost of the
rule as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of models of No. of Cost per test
Types of light x lights x manufacturers x for each model = Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 10 9 $400 $288,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To account for the current value of benefits and costs in the
future, we determined the present value of this cost to 2001 through
discounting. The present value represents the expected value of any
benefits or costs-one-time or recurring-discounted by the interest rate
compounded over the period of analysis. The Office of Management and
Budget requires that all Federal Agencies, including the Department of
Transportation, use a standard discount rate of 7 percent, which we
incorporate into our cost analysis. A partial calculation of the total
cost of the rule is therefore the following:
($288,000)/(1.07)1 = $269,158.88 = Partial Cost 1
This figure is the one-time testing cost for the total of all
existing models of lights occurring during the first year of the
regulation. If a manufacturer decides to introduce a new model of
light, that model will also have to be tested by an independent
laboratory approved by the Coast Guard before it can be marketed. When
calculating costs, we must also account for the three new models of
lights that each manufacturer sends yearly to the market. In order to
perform this calculation we sum the cost over the remaining 14 years
using a discount rate of 7 percent through the following formula:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR01NO01.000

We know that the nine manufacturers of navigation lights introduce
three new models each year with a testing cost of $400 per model. We
can say that the cost associated with testing three new models each
year can be calculated by inserting the number of manufacturers, number
of models, and testing costs into the above equation,
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR01NO01.001

The present value of the total testing over 15 years is therefore:
$269,158.88 + $88,272.00 = $357,430.88
(2) New labeling requirements for the certified lights will add to
the cost of the regulation. Much of the verification will be printable
on an insert with the package, or on a sticker (described in Title 33
CFR 183.810). This rule will not involve modification of the package to
accommodate the labeling. Using estimates from labeling companies, we
have determined that manufacturers will pay about $240 for 1,000
labels. Since the Notice of Proposal for Rulemaking, we have obtained a
more accurate cost for labels and have revised our analysis to include
$240 for labeling costs in the formula. When computing labeling costs,
we make the following assumptions: each model will need 1000 labels,
each of 9 manufacturers produces 10 models of each of 6 light

[[Page 55089]]

types, and each manufacturer introduces 3 new models per year. We first
compute the one-time cost of labeling for the 10 models of each type of
light.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of models of No. of Labeling costs Partial labeling
Types of light x lights x manufacturers x for each model = cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 10 9 $240 $172,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In computing the cost of labeling we must also include a one-time
$45 plate charge for each model. This means that 10 x 9 x 8 x 45
= $32,400 must be added to $172,800 for obtaining $205,500 as the
labeling cost for the existing ten models. The present value of this
cost is $205,500/1.07 or $192,056.
The cost of labeling for the three new models of lights introduced
can be computed as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR01NO01.002

Calculating labeling costs for the three new models would again
require us to add the one-time cost of the plate.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR01NO01.003

The total cost of labeling would therefore be $192,056 + 52,963 +
695.14 or $245,714.14. This represents Partial Cost 3. Finally we can
say that the present value of the total cost of the rule is:
Partial Cost 1 + Partial Cost 2 + Partial Cost 3 = $269,158.88 +
$88,272.00 + $245,714.14 = $60,3145.02

Benefits of the Rule

(1) Certification will place navigation lights under regulatory
control comparable to that affecting all other items of mandatory
safety equipment. This will result in a general improvement in
reliability, quality, and effectiveness of domestic and imported lights
available to domestic manufacturers of vessels.
(2) This rule will discourage the practice of installing lights,
custom-made or other, that are not compliant with the Navigation Rules.
Navigation lights are safety equipment with the designated purpose of
preventing collisions. According to the 2000 Boating Accident Reporting
Database (BARD) statistics collected by the U.S. Coast Guard, accidents
due to collisions with another vessel account for 35 percent of all
reported boating accidents occurring over the year. These collisions
lead to fatalities and injuries as well as property damage.
Consequently, fatalities and injuries due to a collision with another
vessel comprise around 10 percent of all reported fatalities and 32
percent of all reported injuries arising from recreational boating
accidents. These BARD statistics also indicate that accidents involving
a collision with another vessel result in property damages amounting to
$8,735,300. The intent of this regulation is to reduce these numbers
and lessen the costs society pays in terms of property damage, lives
lost, or injuries when collisions occur.
(3) Lack of compliance with rules for navigation lights has also
led to recalls of certain recreational vessels. Under the Federal Boat
Safety Act of 1971, the U.S. Coast Guard can declare non-complaint
lights as ``defective'' once they are installed. Recreational boats
with defective items are subject to recall completely at the vessel
manufacturers' expense. According to U.S Coast Guard data on recalls,
recreational vessels of 13 different makes have been recalled as a
result of the navigation lights failing to comply with the Navigation
Rules since 1990. This regulation would therefore minimize the recall
cost burden placed on vessel manufacturers by assuring them that a
light meets the Navigation Rules requirements before they begin
installation.
(4) Certification will also facilitate exports to countries
enforcing the requirement of the COLREGS for approval of navigation
lights.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations independently
owned and operated and not dominant in their fields, and governmental
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. We identified nine
manufacturers who could be affected by this rule. Four out of the nine
manufacturers qualify as small businesses by the size standards of the
Small Business Association (SBA). However, we observed that the four
businesses we identified as small entities offer fewer models of each
type of light than their larger competitors. These 4 manufacturers
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 will
bear a disproportionate amount of the burden of this rule. We have
found that these four manufacturers have annual revenues of $2.5m-
$5.0m; $5.0m-$10m; $10m-$20m; and $20m-$50m. The greatest possible cost
for testing and labeling incurred by these four light manufacturers
would be $18,000, or $685 (testing + labeling costs) x 6 light types
x 5 models per type. In addition to this, if they each test at least
two new models per year then they will have to bear an extra $1,280, or
$685 x 2. A total of $19,200 is well below 5 percent of the revenue
of even the smallest company, indicating that this regulation will have
a negligible

[[Page 55090]]

effect on revenues to these small businesses. We expect prices in the
industry will remain stable allowing companies to competitively enter
the industry. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

This 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 rule will 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

The 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 nine 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 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 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.
35)7(d), we have submitted a copy of this rule to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of
information. OMB has approved the collection. The section numbers are
33 CFR part 183 and 46 CFR 25. The corresponding approval number from
OMB is OMB Control Number 2115-0645, which expires on September 9,
2003. You are not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled,
now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101,
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels),
as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89,
120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) Because the States may not regulate
within this category, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an
issue.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to

[[Page 55091]]

health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

We have considered the environmental impact of this 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

Incorporation by reference, 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 amends
33 CFR parts 84 and 183, and 46 CFR part 25, as follows:

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 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, U.S. Coast
Guard.

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. Amend Sec. 183.5 (b) by adding in alphabetical order the
following standard:

Sec. 183.5 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
(b) * * *

American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc., 3069 Solomons Island Road,
Edgewater, Maryland 21037-1416
ABYC A-16 Electric Navigation Lights-1997 Sec. 183.810

* * * * *

5. Add subpart M to part 183 to read as follows:

Subpart M--Navigation Lights

Sec.
183.801 Applicability.
183.803 Definitions.
183.810 Navigation light certification requirements.

Sec. 183.801 Applicability.

This subpart applies to recreational vessel manufacturers,
distributors, and dealers installing such equipment in new recreational
vessels constructed after November 1, 2002.

Sec. 183.803 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:
Dealer means any person who is engaged in the sale and distribution
of recreational vessels to purchasers who the seller in good faith
believes to be purchasing any such recreational vessel for purposes
other than resale.
Distributor means any person engaged in the sale and distribution
of recreational vessels for the purpose of resale.
Manufacturer means any person engaged in:
(1) The manufacture, construction, or assembly of recreational
vessels, or
(2) The importation of recreational vessels into the United States
for subsequent sale.
Navigation lights are those lights prescribed by the Navigation
Rules (Commandant Instruction 16672.2 series) to indicate a vessel's
presence, type, operation, and relative heading.

Sec. 183.810 Navigation light certification 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 ABYC A-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 183.5) or
equivalent, although portable battery-powered lights need only meet the
requirements of the standard applicable to them; and
(3) Bear a permanent and indelible label that is visible without
removing or disassembling the light and that states the following:
(i) ``USCG Approval 33 CFR 183.810.''
(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 and specifications 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 (nm), for example, ``USCG 2nm''. Once
installed, this mark must be visible without removing the light.

46 CFR PART 25--REQUIREMENTS

6. 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.

7. Amend Sec. 25.01-3(b) by adding the following standard in
numerical order to those listed under American Boat and Yacht Council
as follows:

[[Page 55092]]

Sec. 25.01-3 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
(b) * * *

Standard A-16-97, Electric Navigation Lights, July 1997.... Sec. 25.10
-3

* * * * *

8. Add subpart 25.10 to part 25 to read as follows:

Subpart 25.10--Navigation Lights

Sec.
25.10-1 Applicability.
25.10-2 Definitions.
25.10-3 Navigation light certification requirements.

Sec. 25.10-1 Applicability.

This subpart applies to vessel manufacturers, distributors, and
dealers installing navigation lights on all uninspected commercial
vessels, except those completed before November 7, 2002.

Sec. 25.10-2 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:
Dealer means any person who is engaged in the sale and distribution
of vessels to purchasers who the seller in good faith believes to be
purchasing any such vessel for purposes other than resale.
Distributor means any person engaged in the sale and distribution
of vessels for the purpose of resale.
Manufacturer means any person engaged in:
(1) The manufacture, construction, or assembly of vessels, or
(2) The importation of vessels into the United States for
subsequent sale.
Navigation lights are those lights prescribed by the Navigation
Rules (Commandant Instruction 16672.2 series) to indicate a vessel's
presence, type, operation, and relative heading.

Sec. 25.10-3 Navigation light certification 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 ABYC A-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 25.01-3),
or equivalent, although portable battery-powered lights need only meet
the requirements of the standard applicable to them; and
(3) Bear a permanent and indelible label stating the following:
(i) ``USCG Approval 33 CFR 183.810''
(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.
(v) Number of Model.
(vi) Visibility of the light in nautical miles (nm).
(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.'' Once
installed, this mark must be visible without removing the light.

Dated: October 4, 2001.
Kenneth T. Venuto,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for
Operations.
[FR Doc. 01-27385 Filed 10-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Certification of Navigation Lights for Uninspected Commercial Vessels and Recreational Vessels

Local Navigation