[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33026-33054]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 149

46 CFR Parts 2, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 56, 76, 77, 95, 96, 105, 107,
108, 109, 115, 116, 118, 132, 147, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164,
167, 169, 181, 195, and 199

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0519]
RIN 1625-AC76

Marine Equipment on Board Vessels and Offshore Units or
Facilities

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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 These proposed revisions would eliminate outdated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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Lieutenant Jon Taylor, Lifesaving and Fire Safety
Division (CG-ENG-4), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. To do so, go
to www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2020-0519 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit
your material by using www.regulations.gov, email the person in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web
page. That web page also explains how to subscribe for email alerts
that will notify you when comments are posted or if a final rule is
published. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in
response to this document, see the Department of Homeland Security's
eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting but we will
consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a meeting
would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to
announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

II. Abbreviations

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG-BSX Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety
CG-ENG Coast Guard Office of Design and Engineering Standards
COMDTINST Commandant Instruction
COSPAS Space System for the Search of Vessels in Distress
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EPIRB Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FR Federal Register
IBR Incorporation by reference
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LSA Life-Saving Appliances
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit
MSC Marine Safety Committee
MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NRTL Nationally recognized testing laboratory
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PHS Public Health Service
RTCM Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services
SARSAT Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking
SCBA Self-contained breathing apparatus
Sec.  Section
SME Subject matter expert
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Basis and Purpose

    The statutory authority for these regulations can be found in Title
46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 3306 and 3703. The
authority to issue regulations, pursuant to these sections, is
delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard under Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3,
paragraph (II)(92).
    Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, the Secretary of DHS is required to prescribe
necessary regulations to ensure safety of individuals and property on
board vessels subject to inspection. This proposed rule would ensure
the proper design, construction, alteration, repair, and operation of
vessels subject to inspection.
    Under 46 U.S.C. 3703, the Secretary is required to prescribe
regulations for the design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning
of tank and cargo vessels that may be necessary for increased
protection against hazards to life and property, navigation and vessel
safety, and enhanced protection of the marine environment.
    This proposed rule would revise titles 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), chapter I, subchapters NN, and 46 CFR, chapter I,
subchapters A, D, F, H, I, I-A, K, L, N, Q, R, T, U, and W. These
subchapters are associated with approving, carrying, and maintaining
certain safety equipment required on board vessels and offshore units
or facilities. The proposed revisions in this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) would eliminate outdated requirements, reduce
inspection and testing requirements, modify submission requirements for
equipment approval to allow materials to be submitted electronically,
and update standards incorporated by reference. Additionally, this
proposed rule would remove numerous obsolete sections and update
sections to bring them into compliance with the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and related
regulations.

IV. Background

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

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In general, this proposed rule would make the following changes to
various subchapters in titles 33 and 46 of the CFR:
    (1) Modify equipment approval submission requirements to allow for
materials to be submitted electronically to [email protected],
instead of the existing requirement of paper submissions in triplicate;
    (2) Remove obsolete regulations for pilot hoists that are no longer
allowed on U.S.-flagged vessels;
    (3) Allow vessel owners and operators to use a third party to test
the properties and quality of their firefighting foam;
    (4) Revise the requirements for pressure vacuum relief valves to
align with international consensus standards;
    (5) Update requirements for lifeboat and rescue boat releasing
mechanisms on board mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) and Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities to allow for lifeboats that serve as
rescue boats to carry lifeboat releasing mechanisms;
    (6) Remove prescriptive design requirements for lifeboat, rescue
boat, and liferaft winch limit switches and align requirements with the
Life-Saving Appliances (LSA) Code;
    (7) Remove a redundant flame-spread testing requirement for
nonmetallic piping used in certain vessels;
    (8) Revise the ``end-for-ending'' requirement for launching
appliance falls (wire ropes) to align with SOLAS, which allows for a
fall replacement interval of 5 years without end-for-ending;
    (9) Change the interval for hydrostatic testing of all inert gas
firefighting extinguishing system bottles to align with the hydrostatic
testing intervals for carbon dioxide and Halon firefighting
extinguishing systems. The interval would change from at least once
every 5 or 10 years (depending on bottle size) to once every 12 years;
    (10) Remove the Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA)
approval requirement for self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs)
because MSHA no longer certifies this type of equipment for marine use;
    (11) Revise the standards of fire-resistant fiber-reinforced
plastic resin used to manufacture survival craft and rescue boats to
allow the use of additional international standards;
    (12) Remove the requirement for Coast Guard approval of Emergency
Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and codify the current
policy in which the Coast Guard reviews test data, instruction manuals,
drawings and specifications of the EPIRB and issues a letter to the
manufacturer stating whether the EPIRB satisfies all Radio Technical
Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) Recommended Standards. This
aligns with the requirements as set out in 47 CFR 80.1061.
    (13) Add an option for the use of fire detection systems as excess
equipment for MODUs, and a grandfathering clause for fire extinguishers
on board nautical school vessels;
    (14) Make editorial changes to clarify language, correct
typographical errors, and delete repetitive words;
    (15) Update incorporations by reference (IBRs), remove outdated
IBRs, and revise CFR cite references to the correct IBRs;
    (16) Correct errors in fire extinguisher quantities and ratings
from a previous rulemaking; and
    (17) Clarify structural fire protection requirements for means of
egress on 46 CFR subchapter K vessels.
    Table 1 provides a list of the types of changes, summaries of the
proposed changes, and the subparts affected by this proposed rule.
Further explanation for each of these categories can be found after the
table.

   Table 1--Summary of Proposed Changes and CFR Subparts and Sections
                                Affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Equipment involved or type of                     Affected CFR subparts
            change               Proposed changes       and sections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR References and Changes to   1. Deletes         46 CFR 115.810(b)(1),
 IBRs.                           references to      46 CFR 118.500(d),
                                 outdated IBRs      46 CFR 160.171-3, 46
                                 and corrects       CFR 160.174-3, 46
                                 improper IBRs in   CFR 161.002-
                                 regulation text.   18(a)(3), 46 CFR
                                2. Corrects         161.002-19(a)(3), 46
                                 improper CFR       CFR 161.002-
                                 references..       19(b)(3), 46 CFR
                                                    162.017-0, 46 CFR
                                                    164.106-3(a), 46 CFR
                                                    164.137-2(b)(2), 46
                                                    CFR 164.137-3(a), 46
                                                    CFR 164.138-2(a), 46
                                                    CFR 164.138-2(b)(2),
                                                    46 CFR 164.138-3(a),
                                                    46 CFR 164.139-2(a),
                                                    46 CFR 164.139-
                                                    2(b)(2), 46 CFR
                                                    164.139-3(a).
Editorial.....................  1. Clarifies       33 CFR 149.410, 46
                                 language.          CFR 56.60-25(a)(4),
                                2. Corrects         46 CFR 108.495, 46
                                 typographical      CFR 162.017, 46 CFR
                                 errors..           181.500(b)
                                3. Deletes
                                 repetitive words
                                 and wording..
Electronic Submissions........  1. Adds option to  46 CFR 2.75-10(b), 46
                                 submit equipment   CFR 159.001-5, 46
                                 approval           CFR 160.115-9(b), 46
                                 materials          CFR 160.115-
                                 electronically..   13(g)(2), 46 CFR
                                2. Removes          160.132-9(b), 46 CFR
                                 requirement for    160.132-13(g)(2), 46
                                 multiple copies    CFR 160.133-9(b), 46
                                 of submissions     CFR 160.133-
                                 for equipment      13(g)(2), 46 CFR
                                 approval, if       160.135-9(b), 46 CFR
                                 submitted          160.135-13(g)(2), 46
                                 electronically..   CFR 160.156-9(b), 46
                                                    CFR 160.156-
                                                    13(g)(2), 46 CFR
                                                    160.170-9(b), 46 CFR
                                                    160.170-13(g)(2), 46
                                                    CFR 161.002-18(a),
                                                    46 CFR 161.002-
                                                    19(a)(2), 46 CFR
                                                    161.012-5(a), 46 CFR
                                                    161.012-5(b)(2), 46
                                                    CFR 161.013-
                                                    11(c)(1), 46 CFR
                                                    161.013-17, 46 CFR
                                                    162.050-15(a), 46
                                                    CFR 162.060-40(b),
                                                    46 CFR 164.009-9(a),
                                                    46 CFR 164.018-7(a),
                                                    46 CFR 164.018-
                                                    7(b)(2).
End-for-Ending Launching        1. Removes         46 CFR 109.301(j), 46
 Appliance Falls.                requirement for    CFR 199.190(j).
                                 ``end-for-
                                 ending'' for
                                 launching
                                 appliance falls,
                                 to align with
                                 SOLAS.
                                2. Revises
                                 interval for
                                 launching
                                 appliance falls
                                 replacement to 5
                                 years.
EPIRB.........................  Aligns Coast       46 CFR 161.011-1, 46
                                 Guard acceptance   CFR 161.011-5, 46
                                 of EPIRBs in 46    CFR 161.011-10.
                                 CFR with Federal
                                 Communications
                                 Commission (FCC)
                                 requirements in
                                 47 CFR and
                                 standards
                                 established by
                                 the Space System
                                 for the Search
                                 of Vessels in
                                 Distress
                                 (COSPAS), Search
                                 and Rescue
                                 Satellite-Aided
                                 Tracking
                                 (SARSAT), and
                                 RTCM.

Equipment Deletion............  Deletes pilot      46 CFR 32.90-1(h), 46
                                 hoist approval     CFR 77.40-1(h), 46
                                 series, Sec.       CFR 96.40-1(h), 46
                                 163.002, and       CFR 108.719(h), 46
                                 associated         CFR 163.002, 46 CFR
                                 references in      195.40-1(h).
                                 various
                                 subchapters.
Fire Protection and Other       1. Corrects fire   46 CFR 34.10-
 Conforming Amendments.          extinguisher       90(a)(3), 46 CFR
                                 ratings.           34.50-10(a), 46 CFR
                                2. Clarifies fire   76.50-10(a), 46 CFR
                                 extinguisher       95.50-10(a), 46 CFR
                                 quantities..       105.14(a), 46 CFR
                                3. Adds option to   108.103, 46 CFR
                                 allow use of       108.489(a)(3), 46
                                 nationally         CFR 118.500(c), 46
                                 recognized         CFR 167.45-40, 46
                                 testing            CFR 167.45-65, 46
                                 laboratory         CFR 167.45-70, 46
                                 (NRTL) listed      CFR 167.45-71, 46
                                 and labeled fire   CFR 167.45-75, 46
                                 detection          CFR 169.567(a), 46
                                 systems as         CFR 169.568.
                                 excess equipment
                                 for MODUs.
                                4. Adds
                                 grandfathering
                                 provision for
                                 fire
                                 extinguishers
                                 for public
                                 nautical school
                                 ships and
                                 sailing school
                                 ships.
Foam Testing..................  1. Adds option     46 CFR 31.10-18(c),
                                 for third-party    46 CFR
                                 testing for foam   107.235(b)(4).
                                 concentrates.
                                2. Aligns testing
                                 processes with
                                 requirements in
                                 SOLAS and Coast
                                 Guard Office of
                                 Design and
                                 Engineering
                                 Standards (CG-
                                 ENG) Policy
                                 Letter 01-20,
                                 Third Party Foam
                                 Concentration
                                 Analysis.
Hydrostatic Testing for Inert   Revises            46 CFR 147.66(a), 46
 Gas Cylinders.                  hydrostatic        CFR 147.66(c).
                                 testing
                                 requirements for
                                 inert gas
                                 bottles to every
                                 12 years.
MODU Lifesaving Appliance       1. Adds an option  46 CFR 108.570(c)(3).
 Release Mechanism.              in 46 CFR
                                 subchapter I-A
                                 to allow
                                 lifeboats also
                                 serving as a
                                 rescue boat to
                                 have lifeboat
                                 release
                                 mechanisms
                                 instead of
                                 rescue boat
                                 release
                                 mechanisms.
                                2. Aligns this
                                 regulation with
                                 a similar
                                 regulation in 46
                                 CFR subchapter W.
Nonmetallic Piping............  Removes redundant  46 CFR 116.405(f).
                                 fire testing
                                 requirements for
                                 nonmetallic
                                 piping in 46 CFR
                                 subchapter K.
Pressure-Vacuum Relief Valves.  1. Revises         46 CFR 39.1005, 46
                                 requirements for   CFR 39.2011(b)(1),
                                 approving          46 CFR 162.017-1, 46
                                 pressure-vacuum    CFR 162.017-2, 46
                                 relief valves.     CFR 162.017-3(n), 46
                                2. Updates IBR      CFR 162.017-3(r), 46
                                 edition..          CFR 162.017-6.
Resins for Lifeboats and        Removes approval   46 CFR 160.135-5(d),
 Rescue Boats.                   series for fire-   46 CFR 160.135-
                                 retardant resins   7(b)(3)(iv)(A), 46
                                 and incorporates   CFR 160.156-5(d), 46
                                 approval of        CFR 160.156-
                                 these resins       7(b)(3)(iv)(A), 46
                                 into approvals     CFR 164.120.
                                 for lifeboats
                                 and rescue boats.
Self-Contained Breathing        Removes obsolete   46 CFR 35.30-
 Apparatus.                      requirement for    20(c)(1), 46 CFR
                                 MSHA approval      77.35-5(b), 46 CFR
                                 for SCBAs.         96.35-5(b), 46 CFR
                                                    108.497(a), 46 CFR
                                                    132.365(b)(1), 46
                                                    CFR 167.45-60(a), 46
                                                    CFR 169.717(a)(1).
Stairwell Structural Fire       Clarifies the      46 CFR 116.400(c).
 Protection and Means of         stairwell
 Egress.                         structural fire
                                 protection and
                                 means of egress
                                 requirements for
                                 46 CFR
                                 subchapter K
                                 vessels.
Winches and Davits............  1. Removes         46 CFR 160.115-
                                 prescriptive       7(b)(6)(vi).
                                 design
                                 requirements for
                                 winch and davit
                                 safety devices
                                 under the LSA
                                 Code.
                                2. Aligns the
                                 safety device
                                 requirement with
                                 the LSA Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFR References and Changes to IBRs

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

Editorial

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

Electronic Submissions

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

End-for-Ending Launching Appliance Falls

    Currently, 46 CFR 109.301(j) and 199.190(j) require that falls for
launching appliances be replaced when necessary due to deterioration or
at least

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

    \1\ U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Manual Volume II: Materiel
Inspection, ``CH-2 to Marine Safety Manual Volume II, COMDINST
M16000.7B,'' https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CSNCOE/USCG%20Marine%20Safety%20Manual%20Volume%20II%20-%20Material%20Inspection.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPIRB

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

Equipment Deletion

    This rule proposes to delete references to pilot hoists as approved
equipment in 46 CFR subpart 163.002 by removing this subpart from the
CFR. In 2010, an International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution
of the Marine Safety Committee (MSC), Resolution MSC.308(88),\2\ banned
the use of pilot hoists on SOLAS vessels and updated SOLAS Chapter V
requirements accordingly. Further, pilots in the United States do not
use pilot hoists to embark a vessel. There are currently no Coast
Guard-approved pilot hoists and there has not been a Coast Guard-
approved pilot hoist since 2000. This proposed rule would also remove
references to pilot hoists in 46 CFR subchapters D, H, I, I-A, and U.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Resolution MSC.308(88), ``Amendments to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended,''
adopted December 3, 2010, https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MSCResolutions/MSC.308(88).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire Protection and Other Conforming Amendments

    Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 7-80, Use of Fire
Detection Systems Which are Not Approved Under 46 CFR 161.002,\3\
allows the use of non-approved fire detection systems as excess
equipment on board vessels if the system is listed and labeled by an
NRTL. This proposed rule would add the allowance for a fire detection
system listed and labeled by an NRTL to be used as excess equipment for
46 CFR subchapter I-A aligned with the guidance set forth in NVIC 7-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Department of Transportation and U.S. Coast Guard, NVIC 7-
80, ``Use of Fire Detection Systems Which are Not Approved Under 46
CFR 161.002,'' https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCODocuments/5p/5ps/NVIC/1980/n7-80.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the 2016 final rule, ``Harmonization of Standards for Fire
Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment'' (81 FR 48219, July
22, 2016), updated the design and approval standards for fire
extinguishing equipment by changing the portable fire extinguisher
ratings system from a weight-based rating system to the Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL) performance-based rating system. That 2016 rule
added a grandfathering clause to several sections in titles 33 and 46
of the CFR; \4\ however, this clause was mistakenly left out for public
nautical school ships and sailing school ships in 46 CFR subchapter R.
This proposed rule would correct the oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 2016 final rule applied the grandfathering clause for
vessels identified in 33 CFR 145.15 and 149.410, and 46 CFR 25.30-
80, 34.50-80, 76.50-80, 95.50-80, 108.491(b), 132.250, and 193.50-
90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Foam Testing

    Tank vessels and MODUs fitted with deck foam systems are required
by 46 CFR 31.10-18(c) and 46 CFR 107.235(b)(4) to submit a
representative sample of foam concentrate to the foam manufacturer to
test foam gravity, pH, percentage of water dilution, and solid content.
There are numerous laboratories other than those owned by foam
manufacturers that can test firefighting foam concentrates. This
proposed rule would add an option to allow third-party testing for
firefighting foam concentrate. Allowing third parties that are accepted
by the Coast Guard to test firefighting foam concentrates could be less
burdensome to the vessel owners and operators and provide a level of
safety similar to the current requirements that the manufacturer of the
firefighting foam be the sole tester. Additionally, using a third party
to test the properties of firefighting foam would increase the number
of companies available to test firefighting foam properties. This
proposed rule would also align with SOLAS requirements and codify CG-
ENG Policy Letter 01-20, Third Party Foam Concentration Analysis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. Coast Guard, CG-ENG Policy Letter 01-20 Third Party
Foam Concentration Analysis, June 23, 2020, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/Design%20and%20Engineering%20Standards/Life%20Saving%20and%20Fire%20Safety/Docs/CG-ENG%20PL%2001-20%20Foam%20Testing.pdf?ver=2020-07-09-142932-267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrostatic Testing for Inert Gas Cylinders

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

MODU Lifesaving Appliance Release Mechanism

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

Nonmetallic Piping

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

Pressure-Vacuum Relief Valves

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

Resins for Lifeboats and Rescue Boats

    Manufacturers of fiber-reinforced plastic survival craft and rescue
boats who seek Coast Guard equipment approval are required to use resin
accepted in 46 CFR subpart 164.120. This rule proposes to revise the
regulations for survival craft and rescue boats (46 CFR subparts
160.135 and 160.156) to incorporate by reference MSC/Circular 1006,
``Guidelines on Fire Test Procedures for Acceptance of Fire-Retardant
Materials for the Construction of Lifeboats,'' \6\ an international
standard for fire retardant resins that is already incorporated by
reference in 46 CFR subpart 164.120. This proposed rule would delete 46
CFR subpart 164.120 and add a review of fire-retardant resins in 46 CFR
subparts 160.135 and 160.156. The Coast Guard would no longer maintain
a list of accepted resins. Currently, there are 15 standards (4 ISO and
11 ASTM) incorporated by reference in subpart 164.120 that are out of
date. There is no indication that using the standards for resins
specified in the regulations, instead of other standards, is necessary
for safely constructing fiberglass-reinforced plastic survival craft
and rescue boats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ MSC/Circular 1006, ``Guidelines on Fire Test Procedures for
Acceptance of Fire-Retardant Materials for the Construction of
Lifeboats'' is available to view in the docket (USCG-2020-0519).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus

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

Stairwell Structural Fire Protection and Means of Egress

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

Winches and Davits

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

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for IBR appears in 46 CFR 39.1005, 39.2011,
160.135-5, 160.135-7, 160.156-5, and 160.156-7. The standards are
summarized in section VIII. L. Technical Standards, of this preamble.
For information about how to view this material, see the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. Copies of the material are reasonably
available from the sources listed in

Sec. Sec.  39.1005, 160.135-5, and 160.156-5. The following standards
have already been approved for the locations where they appear in the
proposed amendatory text and no change to the incorporation by
reference is proposed: SOLAS, Chapter II-2, NFPA 2001, and FTP Code.
Before publishing a final rule, we will submit this material to the
Director of the Federal Register for approval of the IBR.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this proposed
rule. The Coast Guard estimates this proposed rule would have no
additional costs. The Coast Guard estimates this proposed rule would
result in additional cost savings to industry with no reduction or
change in safety benefits. Details on the estimated cost savings of
this proposed rule can be found in the regulatory analysis that
follows.
    The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the requirements in 33 CFR
subchapter NN, and 46 CFR subchapters A, D, F, H, I, I-A, K, L, N, Q,
R, T, U, and W. These subchapters are associated with approving,
carrying, and maintaining certain safety equipment required on board
vessels, offshore units, deepwater ports, and recreational vessels.
These proposed revisions would eliminate outdated requirements, update
standards incorporated by reference, and reduce the frequency of
inspection and testing requirements for foam fire-extinguishing
systems, inert gas cylinders, and lifeboat wire falls. Additionally,
this proposed rule would remove obsolete sections and align conflicting
sections with codes associated with the SOLAS of 1974 and the SOLAS
Protocol of 1978: articles, annexes, and certificates. We expect the
cost savings of this proposed rule to be associated with three items:
hydrostatic testing of inert gas bottles, testing firefighting foam
concentrates for fixed foam fire extinguishing systems, and replacing
the fall wire ropes associated with lifeboats. Table 2 provides a
summary of the impacts of the proposed rule.

            Table 2--Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability.....................  Update 33 CFR, chapter I, subchapter
                                     NN, and 46 CFR, chapter I,
                                     subchapters A, D, F, H, I, I-A, K,
                                     L, N, Q, R, T, U, and W.
Affected Population...............  581 U.S.-flagged vessels:
                                     132 carrying foam fire
                                     systems,
                                     14 carrying inert gas
                                     bottles, and
                                     435 carrying lifeboats.
Costs.............................  There would be no costs to industry
                                     or the Federal Government because
                                     this proposed rule would reduce
                                     burden and instead generate cost
                                     savings.
Benefits..........................  Provide flexibility by offering
                                     third-party testing options for
                                     certain safety equipment.
                                    Reduce confusion and administrative
                                     burdens by (1) removing obsolete
                                     regulations and IBRs, and outdated
                                     references, and (2) updating
                                     standards to align with SOLAS,
                                     related regulations, and current
                                     industry practice.
Cost savings (7% discount rate) *.  Cost savings to industry:
                                    10-year: $2,493,189.
                                    Annualized: $354,974.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

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

                  Table 3--Regulatory Changes of the Proposed Rule by CFR Subparts and Sections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Equipment involved or type of                              Affected CFR subparts and
               change                   Proposed changes               sections               Economic impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR References and Changes to IBRs.  1. Deletes references   46 CFR 115.810(b)(1), 46     No impact; editorial.
                                      to outdated IBRs and    CFR 118.500(d), 46 CFR
                                      corrects improper       160.171-3, 46 CFR 160.174-
                                      IBRs in regulation      3, 46 CFR 161.002-
                                      text.                   18(a)(3), 46 CFR 161.002-
                                     2. Corrects improper     19(a)(3), 46 CFR 161.002-
                                      CFR references.         19(b)(3), 46 CFR 162.017-
                                                              0, 46 CFR 164.106-3(a), 46
                                                              CFR 164.137-2(b)(2), 46
                                                              CFR 164.137-3(a), 46 CFR
                                                              164.138-2(a), 46 CFR
                                                              164.138-2(b)(2), 46 CFR
                                                              164.138-3(a), 46 CFR
                                                              164.139-2(a), 46 CFR
                                                              164.139-2(b)(2), 46 CFR
                                                              164.139-3(a).
Editorial..........................  1. Clarifies language.  33 CFR 149.410, 46 CFR       No impact; editorial.
                                     2. Corrects              56.60-25(a)(4), 46 CFR
                                      typographical errors.   108.495, 46 CFR 162.017,
                                     3. Deletes repetitive    46 CFR 181.500(b).
                                      words and wording.

Electronic Submissions.............  1. Adds option to       46 CFR 2.75-10(b), 46 CFR    No impact; aligns with
                                      submit equipment        159.001-5, 46 CFR 160.115-   current industry
                                      approval materials      9(b), 46 CFR 160.115-        practice. Over the
                                      electronically.         13(g)(2), 46 CFR 160.132-    past 5 years, the
                                     2. Removes requirement   9(b), 46 CFR 160.132-        Coast Guard has
                                      for multiple copies     13(g)(2), 46 CFR 160.133-    received 99.2 percent
                                      of submissions for      9(b), 46 CFR 160.133-        of the submissions
                                      equipment approval,     13(g)(2), 46 CFR 160.135-    electronically. So,
                                      if submitted            9(b), 46 CFR 160.135-        this proposed rule
                                      electronically.         13(g)(2), 46 CFR 160.156-    would codify the use
                                                              9(b), 46 CFR 160.156-        of electronic
                                                              13(g)(2), 46 CFR 160.170-    submission.
                                                              9(b), 46 CFR 160.170-
                                                              13(g)(2), 46 CFR 161.002-
                                                              18(a), 46 CFR 161.002-
                                                              19(a)(2), 46 CFR 161.012-
                                                              5(a), 46 CFR 161.012-
                                                              5(b)(2), 46 CFR 161.013-
                                                              11(c)(1), 46 CFR 161.013-
                                                              17, 46 CFR 162.050-15(a),
                                                              46 CFR 162.060-40(b), 46
                                                              CFR 164.009-9(a), 46 CFR
                                                              164.018-7(a), 46 CFR
                                                              164.018-7(b)(2).
End-for-Ending Launching Appliance   1. Removes requirement  46 CFR 109.301(j), 46 CFR    Cost savings; reduces
 Falls.                               for ``end-for-          199.190(j).                  testing burdens by
                                      ending'' for                                         allowing owners and
                                      launching appliance                                  operators to replace
                                      falls, to align with                                 the falls every 5
                                      SOLAS.                                               years without the end-
                                     2. Revises interval                                   for-ending
                                      for launching                                        requirement.
                                      appliance falls
                                      replacement to 5
                                      years.
EPIRB..............................  Aligns Coast Guard      46 CFR 161.011-1, 46 CFR     No impact; aligns with
                                      acceptance of EPIRBs    161.011-5, 46 CFR 161.011-   current industry
                                      in 46 CFR with          10.                          practice.
                                      Federal
                                      Communications
                                      Commission (FCC)
                                      requirements in 47
                                      CFR and standards
                                      established by the
                                      Space System for the
                                      Search of Vessels in
                                      Distress (COSPAS),
                                      Search and Rescue
                                      Satellite-Aided
                                      Tracking (SARSAT),
                                      and RTCM.
Equipment Deletion.................  Deletes pilot hoist     46 CFR 32.90-1(h), 46 CFR    No impact; aligns with
                                      approval series, Sec.   77.40-1(h), 46 CFR 96.40-    current industry
                                        163.002, and          1(h), 46 CFR 108.719(h),     practice.
                                      associated references   46 CFR 163.002, 46 CFR
                                      in various              195.40-1(h).
                                      subchapters.
Fire Protection and Other            1. Corrects fire        46 CFR 34.10-90(a)(3), 46    No impact; editorial
 Conforming Amendments.               extinguisher ratings.   CFR 34.50-10(a), 46 CFR      and aligns with
                                     2. Clarifies fire        76.50-10(a), 46 CFR 95.50-   current industry
                                      extinguisher            10(a), 46 CFR 105.14(a),     practice.
                                      quantities.             46 CFR 108.103, 46 CFR
                                     3. Adds option to        108.489(a)(3), 46 CFR
                                      allow use of            118.500(c), 46 CFR 167.45-
                                      nationally recognized   40, 46 CFR 167.45-65, 46
                                      testing laboratory      CFR 167.45-70, 46 CFR
                                      (NRTL) listed and       167.45-71, 46 CFR 167.45-
                                      labeled fire            75, 46 CFR 169.567(a), 46
                                      detection systems as    CFR 169.568.
                                      excess equipment for
                                      MODUs.
                                     4. Adds grandfathering
                                      provision for fire
                                      extinguishers for
                                      public nautical
                                      school ships and
                                      sailing school ships.
Foam Testing.......................  1. Adds option for      46 CFR 31.10-18(c), 46 CFR   Cost savings; reduces
                                      third-party testing     107.235(b)(4).               testing burdens via
                                      for foam concentrates.                               the use of other test
                                     2. Aligns testing                                     alternatives from the
                                      processes with                                       third party.
                                      requirements in SOLAS
                                      and Coast Guard
                                      Office of Design and
                                      Engineering Standards
                                      (CG-ENG) Policy
                                      Letter 01-20, Third
                                      Party Foam
                                      Concentration
                                      Analysis.
Hydrostatic Testing for Inert Gas    Revises hydrostatic     46 CFR 147.66(a), 46 CFR     Cost savings; changes
 Cylinders.                           testing requirements    147.66(c).                   the interval for
                                      for inert gas bottles                                hydrostatic testing
                                      to every 12 years.                                   for all vessels with
                                                                                inert gas bottles for
                                                                                fire protection
                                                                                systems from at least
                                                                                once in every 5 years
                                                                                for large bottles and
                                                                                10 years for small
                                                                                bottles to once in
                                                                                every 12 years for
                                                                                all bottle types.
MODU Lifesaving Appliance Release    1. Adds an option in    46 CFR 108.570(c)(3).......  No impact; editorial.
 Mechanism.                           46 CFR subchapter I-A
                                      to allow lifeboats
                                      also serving as a
                                      rescue boat to have
                                      lifeboat release
                                      mechanisms instead of
                                      rescue boat release
                                      mechanisms.
                                     2. Aligns this
                                      regulation with a
                                      similar regulation in
                                      46 CFR subchapter W.
Nonmetallic Piping.................  Removes redundant fire  46 CFR 116.405(f)..........  No impact; editorial.
                                      testing requirements
                                      for nonmetallic
                                      piping in 46 CFR
                                      subchapter K.

Pressure-Vacuum Relief Valves......  1. Revises              46 CFR 39.1005, 46 CFR       No impact; editorial
                                      requirements for        39.2011(b)(1), 46 CFR        and aligns with
                                      approving pressure-     162.017-1, 46 CFR 162.017-   current industry
                                      vacuum relief valves.   2, 46 CFR 162.017-3(n), 46   practice.
                                     2. Updates IBR           CFR 162.017-3(r), 46 CFR
                                      edition..               162.017-6.
Resins for Lifeboats and Rescue      Removes approval        46 CFR 160.135-5(d), 46 CFR  No impact; editorial.
 Boats.                               series for fire-        160.135-7(b)(3)(iv)(A), 46
                                      retardant resins and    CFR 160.156-5(d), 46 CFR
                                      incorporates approval   160.156-7(b)(3)(iv)(A), 46
                                      of these resins into    CFR 164.120.
                                      approvals for
                                      lifeboats and rescue
                                      boats.
Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus.  Removes obsolete        46 CFR 35.30-20(c)(1), 46    No impact; editorial.
                                      requirement for MSHA    CFR 77.35-5(b), 46 CFR
                                      approval for SCBAs.     96.35-5(b), 46 CFR
                                                              108.497(a), 46 CFR
                                                              132.365(b)(1), 46 CFR
                                                              167.45-60(a), 46 CFR
                                                              169.717(a)(1).
Stairwell Structural Fire            Clarifies the           46 CFR 116.400(c)..........  No impact; editorial.
 Protection and Means of Egress.      stairwell structural
                                      fire protection and
                                      means of egress
                                      requirements for 46
                                      CFR subchapter K
                                      vessels.
Winches and Davits.................  1. Removes              46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(6)(vi).  No impact; editorial.
                                      prescriptive design
                                      requirements for
                                      winch and davit
                                      safety devices under
                                      the LSA Code.
                                     2. Aligns the safety
                                      device requirement
                                      with the LSA Code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
    For this proposed rule, we obtained the affected population of
vessels and the items they carry primarily from our Marine Information
for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database and from supplemental
information provided to us by subject matter experts (SMEs) in CG-ENG.
The affected population is the total number of U.S.-flagged vessels
carrying foam fire extinguishing systems, lifeboat wire falls, and
inert gas bottles for extinguishing fires. We estimate the total number
of affected vessels as 581, made up of 132 vessels carrying foam fire
systems, 14 vessels carrying inert gas bottles, and 435 vessels
carrying lifeboats. Vessels can be carrying more than one type of
equipment at a time, so there is some overlap in the number of vessels
that, for example, carry a foam fire extinguishing system and
lifeboats. For the purposes of our cost analysis, however, we assume
there is no overlap.
Cost Analysis
    This proposed rule would have a cost savings associated with
reducing the maintenance intervals for hydrostatic testing of inert gas
bottles and lifeboat wire falls, and expanding testing parties for
fixed-foam fire extinguishing systems.
Regulatory Baseline
    To obtain the cost savings associated with this proposed rule, we
first calculated the current costs to mariners for firefighting foam
testing, hydrostatic testing of inert gas bottles, and lifeboat wire
falls. Then, we compared the current and the proposed costs to obtain
the cost savings. The baseline costs for these items are as follows:
Foam Testing
    Owners and operators of vessels that carry foam fire extinguishing
systems are required in 46 CFR 31.10-18(c) and 46 CFR 107.235(b)(4) to
submit a representative sample of firefighting foam concentrate, if
carried, to the manufacturer to test for specific properties such as
gravity, pH, percentage of water dilution, and solid content.
Currently, the frequency of this testing is twice in a 5-year period.
From information obtained in MISLE and discussions with SMEs, there are
a total of 132 vessels carrying foam fire systems in our affected
population because each vessel carries 1 foam fire extinguishing system
on board.
    Based on information we obtained from a Coast Guard-approved third-
party company that tests foam fire extinguishing systems and from
consultations with SMEs, the cost to perform the test is about $150,
which includes the cost for a vessel owner or operator to submit a foam
sample to a manufacturer for testing. We estimate the total annual
undiscounted cost for foam testing to be approximately $7,920. We
calculate this by assuming that in any given year, 40 percent (or 2
divided by 5 to represent the testing interval of 2 tests every 5
years) of the 132 foam systems require testing. We then multiply the
result (132 x 0.40) by the cost per test ($150). Table 4 presents the
baseline total undiscounted cost for fire extinguishing foam testing.

                                     Table 4--Baseline Cost for Foam Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Foam testing
                            Period                               population for    Cost per test    Total cost
                                                                   each period
                                                                             (A)             (B)     (C) = (A) x
                                                                                (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................      132 x (0.40)            $150          $7,920
2.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920
3.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920
4.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920
5.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920
6.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920
7.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920
8.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920

9.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920
10............................................................      132 x (0.40)             150           7,920
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ................  ..............          79,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* This test occurs twice in a 5-year period.

Hydrostatic Testing for Inert Gas Cylinders
    Under 46 CFR subpart 147.66, vessel owners or operators for vessels
that carry inert gas fire extinguishing bottles must have the bottles
hydrostatically tested at least once every 10 years for bottles with an
equivalent water capacity of 125 pounds or less, or 5 years for larger
bottles with an equivalent water capacity of greater than 125 pounds
(the water capacity of a bottle is used to obtain the volumetric size
of the bottle for testing purposes because testing cannot be performed
when the bottle contains an inert gas). This is necessary to ensure the
integrity of the bottles. The Coast Guard contacted a company that
hydrostatically tests inert gas bottles to obtain the costs associated
with testing and discharging these bottles, recharging the bottles with
an inert gas, and delivering the bottles to a vessel when the testing
is completed.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An inert gas is a gas that has low chemical reactivity under
certain conditions, which makes it suitable for firefighting
purposes either alone or with other gases. Inert gases extinguish
fires by displacing oxygen in the air. The field of chemistry
generally recognizes that six (naturally occurring) gases make up
the list of inert gases: helium, argon, neon, krypton, xenon, and
radon. See https://www.Britannica.com/science/noble-gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost to discharge and test the bottle, rebuild the valve on the
bottle, and recharge the bottle with an inert gas is about $1,220-a
lump-sum amount provided to us by the testing company. The pickup and
delivery costs are about $600. The company we contacted for this cost
estimate provided a lump-sum figure, which includes the time it takes
to drive to a vessel, disconnect the bottles, load the bottles onto the
delivery vehicle, and transport the bottles to the testing facility and
back to the vessel.
    Therefore, the total cost a testing company charges a vessel owner
or operator is about $1,820 ($1,220 + $600) to hydrostatically test
inert gas bottles. Based on MISLE data and discussions with SMEs, the
total number of inert gas bottles for the 14 vessels that have inert
gas bottles on board is approximately 169, or approximately 12 bottles
per vessel. As a result, the testing cost once in a 10-year period is
about $307,580 (169 bottles x $1,820). We estimate the total annual
undiscounted cost for inert gas testing to be approximately $30,758. We
calculate this by assuming that 10 percent (or 1 divided by 10 to
represent the testing interval of 1 test every 10 years) of the 169
inert gas cylinders require testing over a 10-year period. We then
multiply the result (169 x 0.10) by the cost per test ($1,820). Table 5
presents the baseline total undiscounted cost for inert gas cylinders.

                                 Table 5--Baseline Cost for Inert Gas Cylinders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Inert gas
                            Period                               population for    Cost per test    Total cost
                                                                   each period
                                                                             (A)             (B)     (C) = (A) x
                                                                                (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................      169 x (0.10)          $1,820         $30,758
2.............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
3.............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
4.............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
5.............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
6.............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
7.............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
8.............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
9.............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
10............................................................      169 x (0.10)           1,820          30,758
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ................  ..............         307,580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* This test occurs once every 10 years.

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

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

                                 Table 6--Baseline Cost for Lifeboat Wire Falls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Lifeboat wire
                            Period                              falls population     Cost per       Total cost
                                                                 for each period      turning
                                                                             (A)             (B)     (C) = (A) x
                                                                                (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................      870 x (0.20)          $2,000        $348,000
2.............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
3.............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
4.............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
5.............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
6.............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
7.............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
8.............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
9.............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
10............................................................      870 x (0.20)           2,000         348,000
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ................  ..............       3,480,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* This test occurs twice in a 5-year period.

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

                          Table 7--Summary of Baseline Costs Associated With Each Item
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Lifeboat wire     Inert gas     Undiscounted
                     Period                        Foam testing        falls          testing          cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................          $7,920        $348,000         $30,758        $386,678
2...............................................           7,920         348,000          30,758         386,678
3...............................................           7,920         348,000          30,758         386,678
4...............................................           7,920         348,000          30,758         386,678
5...............................................           7,920         348,000          30,758         386,678
6...............................................           7,920         348,000          30,758         386,678
7...............................................           7,920         348,000          30,758         386,678
8...............................................           7,920         348,000          30,758         386,678
9...............................................           7,920         348,000          30,758         386,678
10..............................................           7,920       3,348,000          30,758         386,678
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          79,200       3,480,000         307,580       3,866,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

    This proposed rule would generate cost savings as follows:
Cost Savings
    The cost savings would originate from eliminating outdated
requirements, reducing inspection and testing requirements, and
updating standards. The cost savings of this proposed rule are
associated with three items: testing concentrates for fixed foam fire
systems, hydrostatic testing for inert gas bottles, and eliminating the
end-for-ending requirement for launching appliance falls (wire ropes)
when replaced at an interval of 5 years.
Foam Testing
    There are numerous laboratories, other than those owned by foam
manufacturers, that can test foam concentrates used for firefighting.
Allowing a Coast Guard-accepted independent laboratory to test foam
concentrates provides a similar level of safety to the current
requirements and may be less burdensome to the vessel owners or
operators. Additionally, the use of a third party to test the
properties of the firefighting foam would allow for increased
availability in the number of companies who can test firefighting foam
systems.
    In this proposed rule, a Coast Guard-accepted independent
laboratory, in place of a manufacturer, would be permitted to perform
the foam firefighting concentrates test. We estimate a charge for this
service would be about $115 per system.\8\ This would result in a total
annual cost of $6,072. We calculate this by assuming that, in

any given year, 40 percent (or 2 divided by 5 to represent the testing
interval of 2 tests every 5 years) of the 132 foam systems require
testing. We then multiply the result (132 x 0.40) by the projected cost
per test ($115) (see table 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This price was obtained from the industry.

                                 Table 8--Proposed Cost Change for Foam Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Foam testing
                            Period                               population for    Cost per test    Total cost
                                                                   each period
                                                                             (A)             (B)     (C) = (A) x
                                                                                (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................      132 x (0.40)            $115          $6,072
2.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
3.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
4.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
5.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
6.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
7.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
8.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
9.............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
10............................................................      132 x (0.40)             115           6,072
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ................  ..............          60,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* This test occurs twice in a 5-year period.

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

                                   Table 9--Net Cost Savings for Foam Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Baseline cost   Proposed cost    Total cost
                             Period                                      *              **            savings
                                                                             (A)             (B)   (C) = (A)-(B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................          $7,920          $6,072          $1,848
2...............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
3...............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
4...............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
5...............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
6...............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
7...............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
8...............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
9...............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
10..............................................................           7,920           6,072           1,848
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          79,200          60,720          18,480
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* Table 4
** Table 8

Hydrostatic Testing for Inert Gas Cylinders
    We are proposing to change the hydrostatic testing interval of all
inert gas firefighting extinguishing system bottles from the current
requirement of once every 10 years to at least once every 12 years,
which aligns with the hydrostatic testing intervals for carbon dioxide
and halon firefighting extinguishing system bottles in 46 CFR 147.65.
    The cost savings would be from less-frequent testing of inert gas
bottles. For vessels with inert gas bottles less than 125 pounds, the
test interval would change from at least once in every 10 years to at
least once in every 12 years. For large bottles with inert gas bottles
equal or greater than 125 pounds, the test interval would change from
once in every 5 years to once in every 12 years. We found no bottles
that had a capacity of more than 125 pounds of equivalent water
capacity in our population; therefore, for the purpose of this
analysis, the relevant change in testing interval is from once every 10
to once every 12 years. We estimate the total annual cost of
hydrostatic testing for inert gas cylinders would be approximately
$25,632. We calculate this by assuming that in any given year 8.3
percent (or 1 divided by 12 to represent the testing interval of 1 test
every 12 years) of the 169 inert gas cylinders would require testing.
We then multiply the result (169 x 0.083) by the cost per test ($1,820)
(see table 10). As a result, vessel owners and operators would save
$51,260

($307,580-$256,320) in testing costs over a 10-year period (see table
11).

                             Table 10--Proposed Cost Change for Inert Gas Cylinders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Inert gas
                            Period                               population for    Cost per test    Total cost
                                                                   each period
                                                                             (A)             (B)     (C) = (A) x
                                                                                (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................     169 x (0.083)          $1,820         $25,632
2.............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
3.............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
4.............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
5.............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
6.............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
7.............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
8.............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
9.............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
10............................................................     169 x (0.083)           1,820          25,632
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................  ................  ..............         256,320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

           Table 11--Net Cost Savings for Inert Gas Cylinders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Baseline     Proposed     Total cost
            Period                 cost *      cost **        saving
                                        (A)          (B)   (C) = (A)-(B)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................      $30,758      $25,632          $5,126
2.............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
3.............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
4.............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
5.............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
6.............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
7.............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
8.............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
9.............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
10............................       30,758       25,632           5,126
                               -----------------------------------------
    Total.....................      307,580      256,320          51,260
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* Table 5.
** Table 10.

End-for-Ending Launching Appliance Falls
    The Coast Guard proposes to revise the ``end-for-ending''
requirement for lifeboat launching appliance falls to align with SOLAS,
which allows for a fall replacement interval of 5 years without turning
the wires end-for-end. Current regulations require that falls must be
replaced in 5-year intervals if they are serviced in accordance with
IMO Circular MSC.1/Circ.1206 (Rev.1) and MSC.402(96).
    The cost saving would be from eliminating the requirement to turn
the ropes end-for-end every 2.5 years over a 10-year period of
analysis. This would result in cost savings for vessel owners and
operators of about $3,480,000 for the 435 U.S.-flagged vessels that
have lifeboats on board. See table 12.

                               Table 12--Net Cost Savings for Lifeboat Wire Falls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Baseline cost                    Total cost
                             Period                                      *         Proposed cost      saving
                                                                             (A)             (B)   (C) = (A)-(B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................        $348,000              $0        $348,000
2...............................................................         348,000               0         348,000
3...............................................................         348,000               0         348,000
4...............................................................         348,000               0         348,000
5...............................................................         348,000               0         348,000
6...............................................................         348,000               0         348,000
7...............................................................         348,000               0         348,000
8...............................................................         348,000               0         348,000
9...............................................................         348,000               0         348,000

10..............................................................         348,000               0         348,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       3,480,000               0       3,480,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* Table 6.

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

                  Table 13--Summary of Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule (10-Year Period of Analysis, 7- and 3-Percent Discount Rates)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Inert gas     Lifeboat wire   Undiscounted
                         Period                           Foam testing *    testing **       falls ***     cost savings     7% Discount     3% Discount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................          $1,848          $5,126        $348,000        $354,974        $331,751        $344,635
2.......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         310,048         334,597
3.......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         289,765         324,851
4.......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         270,808         315,390
5.......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         253,092         306,204
6.......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         236,534         297,285
7.......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         221,060         288,626
8.......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         206,598         280,220
9.......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         193,082         272,058
10......................................................           1,848           5,126         348,000         354,974         180,451         264,134
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          18,480          51,260       3,480,000       3,549,740       2,493,189       3,028,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized..........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         354,974         354,974
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
* Table 9.
** Table 11.
*** Table 12.

Electronic Submission
    Current regulations require manufacturers that produce marine
safety equipment needing approval to mail their paper application and
supporting documentation in triplicate. The requirement for submitting
paper plans in triplicate allows the office reviewing them to mark the
approved plans and return one copy to the submitter, retain one copy in
our files, and to forward the third copy to the cognizant OCMI. It is
current industry practice for manufacturers to submit their
applications electronically, get them stamped electronically and
distributed as described above. The Coast Guard is providing an option
for submitting plans electronically. There are several places in the
CFR where we are removing the ``in triplicate'' requirement for
submissions for equipment approval if the manufacturer wishes to submit
plans electronically (see the table 3 for the affected CFR sections).
It is current industry practice for manufacturers to submit their
applications electronically. According to data from the Coast Guard's
Work Management System, 99.2 percent of all submissions related to
applications for equipment approval were submitted electronically over
the last 5 years. So, this proposed rule would add an option for
manufacturers to submit their applications and type approval materials
electronically to codify the current industry practice. Therefore,
there would be no change in the hourly burden estimate and no impact to
the information collection request.
Benefits
    We expect this proposed rule would generate qualitative benefits.
The proposed rule would reduce confusion and provide flexibility to
industry by allowing third-party testing for certain safety equipment
required on board vessels and offshore units or facilities. It would
provide regulatory clarity by removing obsolete regulations, such as
the MSHA approval for SCBAs for firefighters, and through updating
standards to align with SOLAS.
Alternatives
Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative
    Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would retain the status quo
and would not incorporate by reference industry standards into the CFR.
This alternative would not align conflicting sections of the CFR with
SOLAS and related regulations. Furthermore, it would not reduce the
burden to industry. This alternative would not allow the Coast Guard to
perform retrospective review and updates to the regulations. We
rejected this alternative because it would not generate cost savings
for the marine industry, nor update standards in 33 CFR chapter I or 46
CFR chapter I.
Alternative 2: Policy Over Regulation
    Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would issue a NVIC or
policy

letter instead of proposing changes through an NPRM. As voluntary
documents, neither NVICs nor policy letters are legally enforceable by
the agency. A NVIC or a policy letter would not update the CFR, and the
process of obtaining an equivalency test still would be needed. The
Coast Guard rejected this alternative because industry would not
benefit from current references and the public would not be given the
opportunity to comment on current industry practice and standards.
Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative
    With this alternative, the Coast Guard would revise the regulations
associated with 33 CFR chapter I and 46 CFR chapter I. This is the
preferred alternative because it would update current references and
align conflicting sections of the CFR with SOLAS and related
regulations, eliminate outdated standards, and reduce inspection and
testing requirements. This alternative also allows the Coast Guard to
perform retrospective reviews and updates to the regulations.
    This alternative would also reduce the workload for vessel owners
and operators by extending testing or maintenance intervals or
expanding the range of allowable testers for three items: inert gas
bottles, foam fire systems, and lifeboat launching appliances falls
(wire ropes). In turn, this alternative would generate cost savings for
vessel owners and operators and manufacturers of marine equipment. We
presented the cost saving impacts of this alternative earlier in this
analysis.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    We expect this proposed rule to generate cost savings to vessel
owners and operators who own vessels that carry lifeboats, bottles of
inert gas, and foam fire systems for extinguishing fires. The cost
savings would be the result of reducing the maintenance intervals for
hydrostatic testing for inert gas bottles and testing and maintaining
lifeboat falls (wire ropes). The cost savings associated with vessel
owners and operators who own vessels that carry foam fire systems for
extinguishing fires would be from allowing a third party to test the
firefighting foam concentrates.
    Using the Coast Guard's MISLE database, we found this proposed rule
would affect 390 companies that own 531 distinct vessels. Of the 390
companies, 235 companies did not have company names in our MISLE
database; therefore, we assumed these 235 companies to be small
entities. We found the remaining 155 companies own 296 vessels. Based
on publicly available information from the online database
``ReferenceUSAgov'' and other online searches of companies,\9\ we found
revenue or employee information on 74 of the 155 companies. Using the
Small Business Administration's ``Table of Size Standards'' and the
North American Industry Classification System codes listed in the
table, we identified 51 of the 74 companies to be small entities. We
determined the other 23 companies were not small entities.\10\ We did
not find information on the remaining 81 companies; therefore, we
assumed these companies were small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition to individual online searches of companies, the
Coast Guard reviewed https://www.manta.com/mb to find revenue or
employee information for the 74 companies.
    \10\ https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards,
effective December 19, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, we assume there are a total of 132 small entities (51 +
81) out of 155 companies for which were named in the MISLE database, or
approximately 85 percent. If we add the number of small entities that
we could confirm are small based on revenue or employee information
(51) to the number of companies without company information (235 + 81),
we assume the total number of small entities to be 367 out of the 390
companies affected by this proposed rule.
    For cost savings purposes, we needed to differentiate the vessels
that have different combinations of the equipment on board. MISLE's
database offers data on company names, vessels, and equipment types.
From MISLE's data and our small entity analysis, we found that there
are six different combinations of equipment that would affect the
savings for each vessel (see table 14). As a result, the affected small
entities overlap and are not exclusive throughout this analysis.
    Based on MISLE's data and our small entity analysis discussed
earlier, we determined that the number of small entities would be 367.
Out of 367 small entities, we found that 68 small entities own vessels
that carry only foam fire systems. As described in the regulatory
analysis above, we estimate the cost savings for foam fire systems to
be about $35 for each vessel, and we assume the foam fire systems would
be tested four times during the analysis period. These small entities
would save about $952 annually per vessel (68 small entities x $35
savings per vessel x 0.4 systems tested per year), or about $14 per
entity ($952 / 68 small entities).
    Using MISLE's data and the small entity analysis, we identified 251
small entities that own vessels carrying lifeboats that have fall wire
ropes. Each small entity would save about $800 annually per vessel it
owns (0.2 turns per year x $2,000 cost per turn x 2 lifeboats per
vessel).
    Based on MISLE's database, we found that only eight small entities
own vessels carrying only inert gas bottles; there are 58 inert gas
bottles on these vessels.\11\ As presented in the regulatory analysis
above, the annual cost savings on inert gas tests would be $30 [($1,820
(cost savings per inert gas test) / 10 years-$1,820 (cost savings per
inert gas test) / 12 years) = $30], and the cost savings for the 8
entities that would be $1,740 [58 (number of inert gas bottles) x $30
(annual cost savings per inert gas bottle)]. These 8 small entities
would save, on average, about $218 ($1,740 / 8) annually per entity per
vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Please note that the number of inert gas bottles carried on
board vessels varies from one vessel to another depending on the
size of the space protected by the fire suppression system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using MISLE's data and the small entity analysis, we identified 36
small entities that own vessels carrying foam fire systems and
lifeboats. As presented in the previous paragraphs, the annual cost
savings per entity for the foam fire systems would be $14 and the
annual cost saving per entity for fall wire ropes would be $800.
Therefore, we estimate these 36 small entities would save about $814
($14 + $800) annually per entity per vessel.
    Using MISLE's data and the small entity analysis described earlier,
we identified two small entities that own vessels carrying inert gas
bottles and lifeboats that have fall wire ropes that need to be turned
periodically. As presented in the previous paragraphs, the annual cost
savings for these 2 entities that own vessels carrying inert gas
bottles would be $180 [6 (number of inert gas bottles carried on board
vessels for both entities) x $30 (annual cost savings per inert gas
bottle) = $180] and the annual cost savings for these 2 entities on
fall wire ropes would be $1,600 [2 (number of entities) x $800 (cost
saving per entity for fall wire ropes) = $1,600]. Therefore, the annual
cost savings for these 2 entities would be $1,780 ($180 + $1,600) and
these 2

small entities would save each, on average, about $890 ($1,780 /2).
    Lastly, based on MISLE's data and the small entity analysis we
presented previously, we identified two small entities that carry all
three items. The annual cost savings for these 2 entities that own
vessels carrying inert gas bottles would be $3,000 [100 (number of
inert gas bottles carried on board vessels for both entities) x $30
(annual cost savings per inert gas bottle) = $3,000]; the annual cost
savings for these 2 entities for fall wire ropes would be $1,600 [2
(number of entities) x $800 (cost saving per fall wire ropes) =
$1,600]; and the annual cost savings for these 2 entities for foam fire
systems would be $28 [2 (number of entities) x $14 (cost savings per
foam fire systems) = $28]. Therefore, the annual cost savings for these
2 entities would be $4,628 ($3,000 + $1,600 + $28), and we estimate
these 2 small entities would save, on average, about $2,314 ($4,628 / 2
entities) annually per entity per vessel.
    Table 14 shows the cost savings for small entities with each of the
six different combinations of equipment described in the previous
paragraphs.

             Table 14--Summary of the Annual Cost Savings per Entity per Vessel of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost saving
                              Item                                   Number of    per entity per    Cost saving
                                                                  small entities      vessel        per vessel
                                                                             (A)             (B)     (C) = (A) x
                                                                                (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam Testing....................................................              68             $14            $952
Lifeboat Wire Falls.............................................             251             800         200,800
Inert Gas Testing...............................................               8             218           1,744
Foam Testing and Lifeboat Wire Falls............................              36             814          29,304
Lifeboat Wire Falls and Inert Gas Testing.......................               2             890           1,780
Foam Testing, Lifeboat Wire Falls, and Inert Gas Testing........               2           2,314           4,628
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             367  ..............         239,208
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                                        Table 15--Distribution of Revenue Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of revenue impact                                            Average annual impact per vessel                                     Small entities
                                                                                with known
                                                                                revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1%.............................  Foam Testing.......  Lifeboat Wire Falls  Inert Gas Testing..  Foam Testing and     Lifeboat Wire                   51
                                                                                Lifeboat Wire        Falls and Inert
                                                                                Falls.               Gas Testing.
Cost Savings per Vessel.........  $14................  $800...............  $218...............  $814...............  $890..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using MISLE's data, we found that 51 small entities, where we found
revenue and employee information, own 92 vessels. Therefore, each small
entity owns, on average, two vessels. Multiplying the cost savings per
entity per vessel (see table 15) by the number of vessels owned by each
entity or 2, yielded the following cost savings per entity: $28 for
foam testing ($14 x 2 vessels per entity = $28); $1,600 for lifeboat
wire falls ($800 x 2 vessels per entity = $1,600); $436 for inert gas
testing ($218 x 2 vessels per entity = $436); $1,628 for foam testing
and lifeboats wire falls ($814 x 2 vessels per entity = $1,628); and
$1,780 for lifeboat wire falls and inert gas testing ($890 x 2 vessels
per entity = $1,780). For each of the 51 small entities with known
revenue, the average annual cost savings per equipment type per small
entity would be less than 1 percent of annual revenue. Based on this
analysis, we found that 100 percent of the small entities with known
revenues that would be impacted by this proposed rule (all 51 entities)
would have a cost savings that is less than 1 percent of their annual
revenue. The Coast Guard's economic analysis concluded that these
changes would generate cost savings and would not impose a burden on
any entities affected by this proposed rule.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment, explain why you
think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would
economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

D. Collection of Information

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

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703 (involving
design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation,
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels) and any
other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the
sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed
from regulation by the States. See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89
(2000) (finding that the states are foreclosed from regulating tank
vessels); see also Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157
(1978) (State regulation is preempted where ``the scheme of federal
regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that
Congress left no room for the States to supplement it [or where] the
Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so
dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude
enforcement of state laws on the same subject'' (citations omitted)).
Because this proposed rule involves approving, carrying, and
maintaining certain safety equipment required on board vessels and
offshore units or facilities, it is part of a pervasive scheme of
Federal regulation that forecloses regulation by the States. Because
the States may not regulate within this field, this proposed rule is
consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption
requirements in Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the
rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have
implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this
preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

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

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule uses the following technical and voluntary
consensus standards: ASTM D975-14, IMO MSC Circ. 1006, and ISO 15364.
The proposed sections that reference these standards and the locations
where these standards are available are listed in Sec. Sec.  39.1005,
160.135-5, 160.156-5, 160.171-3, and 160.174-3.
    These standards provide internationally accepted and recognized
parameters that equipment, material, etc. must meet to ensure its
safety, proper usage, and preservation on the seas. The standards that
would be incorporated were developed by either the ASTM, IMO, or ISO,
which are voluntary consensus standard-setting organizations.

    One ASTM standard would be incorporated by reference in this
rulemaking: ASTM D975-14, ``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel
Oils'' (July 30, 2014). This ASTM specification classifies grades of
diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of diesel engines. As
incorporated, it would define the grade of fuel necessary to perform a
test for oil resistance.
    One IMO standard would be incorporated by reference in this
rulemaking: IMO MSC/Circular.1006 ``Guidelines on Fire Test Procedures
for Acceptance of Fire-Retardant Materials for the Construction of
Lifeboats'' (adopted on June 8, 2001). This test procedure is used for
the acceptance of fire-retardant and flame-resistant materials used for
the construction of lifeboats, which are required to be fire-retardant
by the International Life-saving Code.
    One ISO standard would be incorporated by reference in this
rulemaking: ISO 15364:2021(E) (February 2021)--``Ships and marine
technology--Pressure-vacuum valves for cargo tanks and devices to
prevent the passage of flame into cargo tanks.'' This international
standard specifies the minimum requirements for performance and testing
of pressure-vacuum relief valves, with emphasis on selection of
materials, internal finish, and surface requirements for pressure-