164.107................  Structural Insulation    FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          (A-60) (SOLAS).          Part 1 for components
                                                   and Part 3 for the
                                                   entire bulkhead.
164.108................  Bulkhead Panels (B-0     FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          And B-15) (SOLAS).       Part 1 for components
                                                   and Part 3 for the
                                                   entire bulkhead.
164.109................  Non-combustible          FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          Materials (SOLAS).       Part 1.
164.110................  Continuous Ceilings (B-  FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          0 and B-15) (SOLAS).     Part 1.
164.111................  Draperies, Curtains and  FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          Other Suspended          Part 7.
                          Textiles (SOLAS).
164.112................  Interior Finishes        FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          (SOLAS).                 parts 2 and 5.
164.117................  Floor Finishes (SOLAS).  FTP Code, Annex 1,
                                                   Parts 2 and 5.
164.136................  Fire Doors (SOLAS).....  FTP Code, Annex 1 Part
                                                   5 for components and
                                                   Part 3 for the total
                                                   door.
164.137................  Windows................  FTP Code, Annex 1,
                                                   Part 3, Appendix 1 of
                                                   Part 3 and hose
                                                   stream test in IMO
                                                   Resolution A.754(18).
164.138................  Fire Stops (Penetration  FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          Seals) (SOLAS).          Part 3 and Appendix
                                                   A.III and A.IV of IMO
                                                   Resolution A.754(18).
164.139................  Dampers (SOLAS)........  FTP Code, Annex 1,
                                                   Part 3 and Appendix
                                                   A.II of Resolution.
                                                   A.754 (18).
164.142................  Bedding Components       FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          (SOLAS).                 Part 9.
164.144................  Upholstered Furniture    FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          (SOLAS).                 Part 8.
164.146................  Fire Door Control        FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          Systems (SOLAS).         Part 4.
164.201................  Fire Restricting         FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          Materials For High-      Part 10.
                          Speed Craft.
164.207................  Fire-Resisting           FTP Code, Annex 1,
                          Divisions For High-      Part 11.
                          Speed Craft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard also proposes to codify an existing SOLAS standard
into a new approval series under new subpart 46 CFR 162.163, titled
``Portable Foam Applicators,'' in order to detail the approval
requirements for portable foam applicators. Portable foam applicator
units are a combination of portable foam nozzles and a supply of foam
liquid concentrate, and are required in certain applications by SOLAS.
Under the proposed rule, to receive Coast Guard approval of a portable
foam applicator, the nozzle and the foam concentrate would have to be
tested together for compliance with applicable sections of UL 162, Foam
Equipment and Liquid Concentrates, Seventh Edition. UL 162 details the
construction and performance requirements for equipment and liquid
concentrates used in firefighting foam systems.
    We also propose adding new subpart 46 CFR 164.141 for non-metallic
piping systems. As discussed previously, we propose changes to 46 CFR
56.60-25 to require that plastic pipe be Coast Guard-approved.
Currently, plastic pipes that comply with the fire and material

strength standards identified in Sec.  56.60-25, but do not have a COA,
may be used on inspected vessels, which is inconsistent with other
subchapters that specifically indicate that a product must have a Coast
Guard approval. This means vessel owners, builders, or outfitters must
provide documentation to the Coast Guard verifying that, for each
installation of plastic pipe, the pipes meet the requirements of Sec.
56.60-25. In connection with the proposed change to Sec.  56.60-25,
requiring plastic pipe be Coast Guard approved, we are proposing this
new subpart to add the approval series detailing plastic pipe
requirements. This new approval series would eliminate the burden on
vessel owners, builders, and outfitters of providing case-by-case
documentation to the Coast Guard, and instead there would be plastic
pipe available in the market place that is already tested and marked as
Coast Guard approved. Manufacturers are already testing to these
standards. This proposed change allows industry to use the pipe without
further documentation.
    Proposed new subpart 164.141 codifies the testing guidance in
current Coast Guard Policy File Memorandum (PFM) 1-98 (available in the
docket as described under ADDRESSES above), Policy File Memorandum on
the Fire Performance Requirements for Plastic Pipe per IMO Resolution
A.753(18). The Coast Guard created an approval series for plastic pipes
based on PFM 1-98 to make the selection of pipes easier for designers,
and so that manufacturers could have their pipes reviewed and type-
approved by the Coast Guard for use on vessels required to meet the
requirements of Sec.  56.60-25. PFM 1-98 has been used to successfully
establish approval, testing, and acceptance procedures for 37 different
plastic pipe systems, each having a range of approved sizes. The
proposed rule would supersede PFM 1-98 which would no longer be
necessary in light of the proposed new approval series for plastic
pipes.
    We propose to amend the existing approval series at 46 CFR subpart
162.027 for fire hose nozzles used on domestic vessels. This proposed
change would explicitly require fire hose nozzles to be of brass or
bronze, except for hardware and other incidental parts, which may be of
rubber, plastic, or stainless steel. Although, we currently do not
specify the materials for construction of fire hose nozzles in the
subpart for the fire hose nozzles approval series, we have historically
established policy to only approve fire hose nozzles which are made
from brass or bronze because of these materials' proven durability in
marine environments. We would also add NFPA 1964, Standard for Spray
Nozzles, 2008 as an alternative standard to which fire hose nozzles may
be approved. Currently, this approval series only permits fire hose
nozzles approved by the Coast Guard in accordance with ASTM F 1546.
Approved manufacturers have indicated that NFPA 1964, which details
construction requirements and performance and testing procedures of
firefighting nozzles, is more commonly used in the fire protection
equipment industry to certify nozzles.
    NFPA 1964 also requires a follow-up (production quality control)
program to ensure that manufacturers produce nozzles as designed,
tested, and approved, but does not specify such program. Typically,
follow-up programs for Coast Guard-approved equipment are administered
by the independent laboratory that conducted initial testing for
product approval as discussed in NVIC 2-06, Follow up Programs for Fire
Safety Type-Approved Products (available online at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2006/NVIC%2002-06.pdf). The focus of a follow-up
program is to ensure that manufacturers making fire protective
materials such as fire retardant carpets continue to make products to
the same standards as those that were tested for approval. Follow-up
programs include testing of random product samples to ensure
manufacturing precision. Follow-up programs are important for the types
of products covered in NVIC 2-06, since minor changes in production can
affect the fire protective qualities of the finished product. For
example, the under-application of a fire retardant chemical into a
textile would reduce the fire protective qualities of carpet. However,
for fire hose nozzles, performance of the final product is much less
dependent on small production changes; therefore, the use of a
certified quality-control procedure such as the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 configuration control,
which is focused on ensuring the manufacturer consistently follows
internal and external policies in production, is also appropriate. We
propose in subpart 162.027 to allow the use of ISO 9000 configuration
control as an alternative to a follow-up program administered by an
independent laboratory. In the past, we have allowed the less
restrictive use of ISO 9000 for specific and appropriate situations.
    We have determined that the SOLAS standards for these materials
provide an equivalent level of safety to our requirements. Therefore,
in addition to the proposed new and updated approval series, we propose
amending our regulations to indicate that certain fire protection
equipment and materials approved under approval series that use
international standards for SOLAS ships can be used in the place of the
products approved under the U.S. requirements, without restriction. See
proposed 46 CFR 164.006-6, 164.007-10, 164.008-8, 164.009-26, and
164.012-16. These proposed changes would allow products approved to
meet the international standards to be considered equivalent to those
products approved as meeting the U.S. requirements. The proposed
changes, however, do not allow products meeting the domestic standards
to be used in place of those requiring international approvals.
3. FTP Code Test Laboratories ISO/IEC 17025 Certified
    On July 1, 2012, the 2010 FTP Code entered into force
internationally. The 2010 FTP Code requires that laboratories use a
quality control program based on ISO/IEC 17025. This standard is used
throughout the world, including by our currently accepted and
recognized laboratories, as a means to ensure that the testing of
products is conducted in a consistent, appropriate, repeatable, and
professional manner.
    We propose to amend 46 CFR 159.010-3, titled ``Independent
Laboratory: Standards for Acceptance'' to require that all Coast Guard
accepted independent laboratories testing products to the FTP Code be
accredited to ISO/IEC 17025: 2005, which specifies the general
requirements for the competence of testing and calibration
laboratories. This proposed requirement would fulfill U.S. obligations
as a signatory to SOLAS. The FTP Code, which details the technical
requirements necessary to satisfy SOLAS requirements and must be
adhered to by SOLAS signatories, specifically requires that independent
laboratories be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025: 2005.

E. Administrative Changes

1. Correcting Metric Conversions
    In 46 CFR subchapter K (Sec.  118.410) and T (Sec.  181.410), we
propose to correct the metric volume factors used for calculating the
required quantity of CO2 for a fixed fire extinguishing
system. The existing regulations provide volume factors for systems
protecting enclosed ventilation systems for rotating electrical
propulsion equipment and cargo spaces. The values for imperial
calculations are correct. The metric values, however, are incorrect,
and

using them results in a significantly smaller required volume of
CO2. The imperial values align with our other regulations
(See 46 CFR 95.15-5) as well as the industry standard for
CO2 extinguishing systems, NFPA 12: 2011, for similar hazard
locations. Because designs of these systems are reviewed by the Marine
Safety Center or local Officer-in-Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI),
plans for vessels built in the U.S. are nearly always drawn using
imperial numbers, and because the use of the metric values would yield
inappropriately small amounts of required agent that any experienced
system designer would recognize as faulty, we are confident that any
incorrect use of the metric values would have been corrected during
plan review. Therefore, we do not believe there are existing vessels'
systems that have been designed and installed with incorrect amounts of
extinguishing agent.
    Similarly, in 46 CFR subchapter K (Sec.  114.400) and subchapter T
(Sec.  175.400), we propose to adjust the definition of ``open to the
atmosphere,'' in both subchapters to correct an improper conversion
from imperial to metric units. The definition includes metric
equivalents for the requirements that indicate that a space open to the
atmosphere is one that has at least 15 square inches of open area
exposed to the atmosphere for every cubic foot of volume of the space.
This is the desired ratio and matches the definition of ``open to the
atmosphere'' that the Coast Guard uses in 33 CFR 183.605. However, the
metric equivalent given in the regulations is incorrect and produces a
result that is smaller than it should be. Because designs for vessels
built to these regulations are reviewed by the Marine Safety Center or
local OCMI, and plans for vessels built in the U.S. are nearly always
drawn using imperial numbers, we are confident that any incorrect use
of the metric values would have been corrected during plan review,
therefore, we do not believe that any existing vessels were constructed
and outfitted based on these erroneous values and thus no existing
vessels would need to be retrofitted.
2. Moving Regulations From 46 CFR 181.400 to 181.405
    The existing regulations at Sec.  181.400 contain the requirements
for both fire extinguishing systems and fire detection systems on small
passenger vessels regulated under 46 CFR subchapter T. We propose to
separate, for clarity, these requirements by removing the regulations
for fire detection systems in Sec.  181.400(c) through (g) and moving
these regulations to proposed new Sec.  181.405(a) through (e).
Further, we propose to amend the title of Sec.  181.400 to ``Spaces
required to have fixed fire extinguishing systems,'' in order to
clarify that this section would contain the requirements for fire
extinguishing systems only.
3. Addition of Omitted Statutory Authority Citation
    Section 1509 of Title 33, U.S.C. authorizes regulations for safety
equipment relating to the promotion of safety of life and property in
deepwater ports. Subchapter NN of Title 33 CFR contains regulations
establishing warning devices and safety equipment requirements, as well
as other matters that relate to the promotion of safety of life and
property. However, the list of authorities for these regulations does
not contain this statutory authority. For clarity, we propose adding 33
U.S.C. 1509 to the list of authorities contained in 33 CFR Subchapter
NN, part 148.
4. Editorial and General Clarifying Changes
    Lastly, we propose making corrections and editorial,
organizational, and clarifying amendments. These proposed changes will
have no substantive effect on the public.

F. Preemption of State and Local Law

    The Coast Guard conducted a federalism analysis as part of this
rulemaking in order to ensure compliance with Executive Order 13132.
Section VII.E., ``Federalism,'' discusses legal principles of
preemption and the federalism implications of the proposed rule that
have a substantial direct effect on the 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,
as required by Executive Order 13132. In addition to conducting the
federalism analysis, the Coast Guard must also comply with President
Obama's memorandum titled ``Preemption,'' issued on May 20, 2009, which
instructs the heads of executive departments and agencies to include
preemption language within the codified regulation if the regulation is
intended to preempt state law. The memorandum also orders heads of
executive departments and agencies to include the preemption provisions
only if the provisions were justified under legal principles, including
those discussed in Executive Order 13132.
    This rulemaking proposes to revise existing regulations and issue
new ones that preempt state and local regulation with regard to fire
protection, detection, and extinguishing equipment on several types of
vessels, including inspected vessels, uninspected vessels, uninspected
commercial fishing vessels, towing vessels, deepwater ports, MODUs, and
OCS facilities. The Coast Guard, therefore, proposes to add language to
the regulatory text indicating what specific regulations have
preemptive effect over State or local law within the same field. During
our federalism analysis, we analyzed whether preemptive principles
applied to each part, subpart, and section that is affected by this
rulemaking. The Coast Guard ultimately determined, however, that
uniformity and clarity of the preemptive effect of our regulations over
State or local law could be achieved if the preemption language was
inserted for other sections not affected by this rulemaking, but that
do indeed preempt State or local laws or regulations within other
fields. Therefore, if preemptive principles applied to the regulations
within the entire subchapter, even if those parts, subparts, or
sections were not affected by this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes
to add language indicating that the regulations found within the
subchapter have preemptive effect over State or local law or
regulation. If, however, preemptive principles did not apply to all
regulations within a subchapter, but only to the part, subpart, or
section amended by this rulemaking, the Coast Guard proposes to add
preemption language only to that particular part, subpart, or section.
The goal of this approach is to ensure uniformity and avoid any
confusion as to why a particular part or subpart may contain preemption
language when preemption principles apply to other parts, subparts, or
sections of a subchapter, if not the entire subchapter itself. If the
Coast Guard placed preemption language only within parts, subparts, or
sections amended by this rulemaking (even if preemption principles
applied to all parts within a subchapter), it would result in confusion
and would make implementation of the President's memorandum extremely
difficult. To avoid this situation, we propose to place preemption
language at the most appropriate location within the subchapter. Based
on the President's 2009 memo, and the analysis in our Federalism
section, the Coast Guard proposes the new preemption provisions within
the regulatory text in the areas specified in Table 5, below. Table 5
contains details regarding which subchapters, parts, subparts, or
sections contain proposed preemption language, the location of the
proposed preemption

language, and the specific language that would be inserted into the
regulatory text.
    The authority to promulgate regulations for different categories of
vessels is granted to the Coast Guard by Congress. With respect to
inspected vessels listed in 46 U.S.C. 3301, Congress granted to the
Coast Guard the exclusive authority to promulgate regulations in
several different categories, one of which includes required equipment
(See 46 U.S.C. 3306). Additionally, it is well settled that all of the
categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design,
construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping,
personnel qualification, and manning of vessels) are within fields
foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the
Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and
Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).)
Since this rulemaking would affect numerous subchapters containing
regulations for inspected vessels, we propose to include preemption
language for each specific subchapter in Title 46 of the CFR indicating
that the regulations found within the subchapter have preemptive effect
over State or local regulations within the same fields, specifically: D
(tank vessels), F (marine engineering), H (passenger vessels--general),
I (cargo & miscellaneous vessels), I-A (MODUs), K (small passengers
vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or with overnight
accommodations for more than 49 passengers), L (offshore supply
vessels), N (dangerous cargoes), Q (equipment, construction, and
materials: specifications and approval), R (nautical schools), T (small
passenger vessels (under 100 GT)), and U (oceanographic research
vessels).
    Similarly, we propose adding preemption language indicating that
the regulations found within subchapter N (outer continental shelf
activities) in 33 CFR have preemptive effect over State or local
regulations within the same fields. Congress granted the Coast Guard
the authority to promulgate regulations for ``lights and other warning
devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion
of safety of life and property on the artificial islands,
installations, and other devices'' on the OCS. (See 43 U.S.C.
1333(d)(1)). Subchapter N contains regulations establishing these
warning devices and safety equipment requirements, as well as other
matters that relate to the promotion of safety of life and property.
For this reason, we propose to add language signaling that the
regulations found within the entire subchapter have preemptive effect
over State or local regulations within the same fields.
    We also propose adding preemption language indicating that the
regulations contained within subchapter NN, concerning deepwater ports,
also have preemptive effect over State or local regulation within the
same fields. Section 1509(b) of 33 U.S.C. states that the Secretary of
Transportation, through delegation to the Coast Guard by operation of
law, ``shall issue and enforce regulations with respect to lights and
other warning devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to
the promotion of safety of life and property in any deepwater port and
the waters adjacent thereto.'' Subchapter NN contains regulations
establishing warning devices and safety equipment requirements, as well
as other matters that relate to the promotion of safety of life and
property. For this reason, we propose adding language signaling that
the regulations found within the entire subchapter have preemptive
effect over State or local regulation within the same fields.
    Unlike inspected vessels, Congress provided a restrictive grant of
regulatory authority to the Coast Guard with respect to uninspected
vessels. The Coast Guard, therefore, may only establish safety
standards in specific or limited areas where Congress intended the
Coast Guard to have exclusive regulatory authority. With regard to
uninspected vessels generally, as noted in 46 U.S.C. 4102(a), Congress
required the carriage of a certain number, type, and size of fire
extinguishers, which was permitted to be prescribed by regulation.
Although certain other portions of 46 CFR subchapter C (uninspected
vessels--generally) contain safety equipment regulations promulgated
under 46 U.S.C. 4102, several of the safety equipment requirements are
required to be located on or near equipment, or within certain spaces,
in which Coast Guard regulations do not preempt State or local
regulation. Therefore, the Coast Guard has already included preemption
language, as part of a separate rulemaking, in 46 CFR 25.30, Fire
Extinguishing Equipment, to indicate that only those regulations
involving fire extinguishing equipment have preemptive effect over
State or local regulation within the same field. See Carbon Dioxide
Fire Suppression Systems on Commercial Vessels; Final Rule, (77 FR
33871, June 7, 2012).
    This analysis for uninspected vessels generally also applies to
uninspected commercial fishing vessels. Similar to the statute for
uninspected vessels generally, 46 U.S.C. 4502 establishes safety
standards in various different equipment categories, although some of
those standards or equipment requirements are located on or near
equipment, or within certain spaces, in which Coast Guard regulation
does not preempt State or local regulation. For this reason, the Coast
Guard proposes to insert language signaling preemptive effect over
State or local regulation within the sections affected by this
rulemaking only. In doing so, the Coast Guard hopes to avoid any
confusion that may arise from a misreading of the regulation if
language asserting preemptive effect seemed to apply to various
equipment or spaces where Coast Guard regulations does not preempt
State or local regulation.
    Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to add language signaling
preemptive effect over State or local regulation concerning safety
equipment for towing vessels located in 46 CFR part 27. Although towing
vessels are listed as inspected vessels under 46 U.S.C. 3301, the Coast
Guard has only proposed comprehensive regulations for their inspection
and has not yet promulgated final, effective rules. See Inspection of
Towing Vessels; Notice of Proposed Rule, (76 FR 49976, August 11,
2011). This rulemaking, however, proposes regulations for towing
vessels that involve categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101,
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels),
and these regulations have preemptive effect over State and local
regulation within the same field. The subparts located within 46 CFR
part 27 contain general provisions and fire protection and suppression
equipment requirements and fall within a category in which the State or
local governments are precluded from regulating. Therefore, the Coast
Guard proposes to include language signaling the preemptive effect the
regulations found within 46 CFR part 27 have over State and local law
within the same fields.

    Table 5--Proposed Preemption Language by Subject and Affected CFR
                                Sections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subject                  Location             Language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outer Continental Shelf         Amend 33 CFR       The regulations in
 Facilities.                     140.3.             this subchapter
                                                    (parts 140 through
                                                    147) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Deepwater Ports...............  Amend 33 CFR       The regulations in
                                 148.1.             this subchapter
                                                    (parts 148 through
                                                    150) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Uninspected--General..........  46 CFR 25.30-1...  This section already
                                                    contains language
                                                    indicating that the
                                                    regulations in this
                                                    subpart have
                                                    preemptive effect
                                                    over State or local
                                                    regulation in the
                                                    same field.
Uninspected--Towing...........  Create 46 CFR      The regulations in
                                 27.103.            this part have
                                                    preemptive effect
                                                    over State or local
                                                    regulation in the
                                                    same field.
Uninspected--Commercial         Create 46 CFR      The regulations in
 Fishing Vessels.                28.155(b).         this section have
                                                    preemptive effect
                                                    over State or local
                                                    regulation in the
                                                    same field.
Uninspected--Commercial         Create 46 CFR      The regulations in
 Fishing Vessels.                28.160(e).         this section have
                                                    preemptive effect
                                                    over State or local
                                                    regulation in the
                                                    same field.
Uninspected--Commercial         Create 46 CFR      The regulations in
 Fishing Vessels.                28.325(c).         this section have
                                                    preemptive effect
                                                    over State or local
                                                    regulation in the
                                                    same field.
Uninspected--Commercial         Create 46 CFR      The regulations in
 Fishing Vessels.                28.830(c).         this section have
                                                    preemptive effect
                                                    over State or local
                                                    regulation in the
                                                    same field.
Tank Vessels..................  Amend 46 CFR       The regulations in
                                 30.01-1(a).        this subchapter
                                                    (parts 30, 31, 32,
                                                    34, 35, 36, 38, and
                                                    39) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Marine Engineering............  Create 46 CFR      The regulations in
                                 50.01-15(c).       this subchapter
                                                    (parts 50, 52, 53,
                                                    54, 56, 57, 58, 59,
                                                    and 61 through 64)
                                                    have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Passenger Vessels--General....  Amend: 46 CFR      The regulations in
                                 70.01-1.           this subchapter
                                                    (parts 70, 71, 72,
                                                    76, 77, 78, and 80)
                                                    have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Cargo & Miscellaneous Vessels.  Amend 46 CFR       The regulations in
                                 90.01-1.           this subchapter
                                                    (parts 90, 91, 92,
                                                    93, 95, 96, 97, 98,
                                                    and 105) have
                                                    preemptive effect
                                                    over State or local
                                                    regulation in the
                                                    same field.
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit   Amend 46 CFR       The regulations in
 (MODU).                         107.01.            this subchapter
                                                    (parts 107 through
                                                    109) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Small Passenger Vessels <100    Amend 46 CFR       The regulations in
 GT.                             114.100.           this subchapter
                                                    (parts 114 through
                                                    122) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs)  Create 46 CFR      The regulations in
                                 125.100(f).        this subchapter
                                                    (parts 125 through
                                                    134) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Dangerous Cargoes.............  Create 46 CFR      The regulations in
                                 147.1(d).          this subchapter
                                                    (parts 147, 147A,
                                                    and 148) have
                                                    preemptive effect
                                                    over State or local
                                                    regulation in the
                                                    same field.
Equipment, Construction, etc    Amend 46 CFR       The regulations in
 \2\.                            159.001-1(b).      this subchapter
                                                    (parts 159 through
                                                    164) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Nautical Schools..............  Amend 46 CFR       The regulations in
                                 167.01-5(a).       this subchapter
                                                    (parts 166 through
                                                    169) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Small Passenger Vessels >100    Amend 46 CFR       The regulations in
 GT.                             175.100.           this subchapter
                                                    (parts 175 through
                                                    185) have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
Oceanic Research Vessels......  Amend 46 CFR       The regulations in
                                 188.01-3.          this subchapter
                                                    (parts 188, 189, 190
                                                    and 193 through 196)
                                                    have preemptive
                                                    effect over State or
                                                    local regulation in
                                                    the same field.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \2\ Note: We propose to remove existing preemption language
found within 46 CFR 160.900 and 164.900, as the proposed preemption
language in 46 CFR 159.001-1(b) would apply to all parts within
subchapter Q.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in 33 CFR
140.7 and 149.3, and 46 CFR 25.01-3, 27.102, 28.40, 31.01-2, 34.01-15,
56.01-2, 71.25-3, 76.01-2, 91.25-7, 95.01-2, 107.115, 108.101, 114.600,
125.180, 147.7, 161.002-1, 162.027-2, 162.028-1, 162.039-1, 162.163-2,
164.105-2, 164.106-2, 164.107-2, 164.108-2, 164.109-2, 164.110-2,
164.111-2, 164.112-2, 164.117-2, 164.136-2, 164.137-2, 164.138-2,
164.139-2, 164.141-2, 164.142-2, 164.144-2, 164.146-2, 164.201-2,
164.207-2, 169.115, 175.600, 188.01-5, and 193.01-3. You may inspect
this material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed
in 33 CFR 140.7 and 149.3, and 46 CFR 25.01-3, 27.102, 28.40, 31.01-2,
34.01-15, 56.01-2, 71.25-3, 76.01-2, 91.25-7, 95.01-2, 107.115,
108.101, 114.600, 125.180, 147.7, 161.002-1, 162.027-2, 162.028-1,
162.039-1, 162.163-2, 164.105-2, 164.106-2, 164.107-2, 164.108-2,
164.109-2, 164.110-2, 164.111-2,

164.112-2, 164.117-2, 164.136-2, 164.137-2, 164.138-2, 164.139-2,
164.141-2, 164.142-2, 164.144-2, 164.146-2, 164.201-2, 164.207-2,
169.115, 175.600, 188.01-5, and 193.01-3.
    Before publishing a binding rule, we will submit this material to
the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation
by reference.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering
numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we
summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders (EO) 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). EO 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
    This proposed rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the
costs and benefits of the proposed rule to ascertain its probable
impacts on industry. We consider all estimates and analysis in this
preliminary Regulatory Analysis (RA) to be draft and subject to change
in consideration of public comments. A draft preliminary Regulatory
Assessment follows:
    The RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated
with this proposed rule. The table which follows provides a summary of
the proposed rule costs and benefits.

               Table 6--Summary of the Proposal's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population....................  Affected population varies by
                                          CFR title and subchapter, see
                                          Table 7 below.
Total and Annualized Costs ($, 7%        $1.08 Million total costs;
 discount rate).                          $154,217 annualized costs.
Unquantified Benefits..................   Harmonization and
                                          compliance with international
                                          standards;
                                          Harmonization with
                                          industry consensus standards;
                                          Increased compliance
                                          choices, reducing regulatory
                                          compliance burdens;
                                          Reduction in risk from
                                          potentially toxic or flammable
                                          gases no longer being routed
                                          into human-occupied spaces;
                                          and,
                                          Increased safety
                                          through the ready availability
                                          of tools and equipment during
                                          emergency situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule contains provisions to amend the CFR requirements
for fire protection equipment, materials and systems. Section V.
Discussion of Proposed Rule, lays out the proposed changes and the
rationale for those changes. For the purposes of the RA, we note that
the proposed provisions fall into two broad categories: (1) Provisions
that harmonize Coast Guard regulations with national and international
industry consensus standards; and (2) Provisions that correct or adjust
existing regulations referring to specific issues or equipment. Most of
the proposed provisions, both harmonizing and non-harmonizing, are not
expected to impose additional costs upon the industry.
    As indicated in the IV. Background and Purpose section, this
proposed rule continues the Coast Guard's response to the Presidential
Regulatory Reform Initiative of March 4, 1995 and directives including
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 that are intended to improve
regulation and the regulatory process. The provisions of this proposed
rule would: Remove obsolete regulations and language from the CFR;
substitute performance-based options for regulatory compliance as
opposed to conventional prescriptive solutions; and employ appropriate
current national and international industry consensus standards. The
Coast Guard recognizes the significant technological advances in fire
detection and suppression systems that have been made for shoreside
facilities and would, through this proposed rule, encourage the use of
newer equipment and modern standards in maritime operations.
    The impacts of the proposed changes are discussed in the RA
according to the same outline of items covered in section V. Discussion
of Proposed Rule. The five organizational categories are:
    A. Fire Alarm and Detection Systems;
    B. Fire Extinguishers;
    C. Other Fire Protection Equipment Requirements;
    D. Updates to Approval Process and Guidance for Equipment and
Materials; and,
    E. Administrative Changes.
    The five categories listed above are either: (1) Provisions that
harmonize Coast Guard regulations with national and international
standards; or (2) Provisions that correct or adjust existing
regulations referring to specific issues or equipment. There are
several subcategories within each that are discussed in turn. As
previously stated, we expect the majority of these provisions will not
impose any additional costs on industry. However, those provisions
which may result in additional costs are marked as such and discussed
as appropriate.
    Table 7 shows the total affected population and the numbers of
vessels, facilities, and MODUs organized by CFR subchapter. For each
subcategory of provisions we identified the affected population and the
respective economic impacts.

                                          Table 7--Affected Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CFR title                     Sub- chapter                       Topic                  Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33...............................  N.........................  Outer Continental Shelf                     9,247
                                                                Facilities.
33...............................  NN........................  Deepwater Ports..................              79
46...............................  C.........................  Uninspected Vessels..............      11,362,556
                                                                 Towing Vessels.................           7,848
                                                                 Uninspected Vessels............          93,850
                                                                 Fishing Vessels................          34,590
                                                                 Recreational Vessels*..........      11,226,268
46...............................  D.........................  Tank Vessels.....................           5,866
46...............................  F.........................  Marine Engineering...............             n/a
46...............................  H.........................  Passenger Vessels................             290
46...............................  I.........................  Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels..           1,760
46...............................  I-A.......................  Mobile Offshore Drilling Units                120
                                                                (MODU).
46...............................  J.........................  Electrical Engineering...........             n/a
46...............................  K.........................  Small Passenger Vessels Carrying              446
                                                                more than 150 Passengers or with
                                                                Overnight Accommodations for
                                                                more than 49 Passengers.
46...............................  L.........................  Offshore Supply Vessels..........           1,377
46...............................  N.........................  Dangerous Cargoes................              46
46...............................  Q.........................  Equipment, Construction and                   n/a
                                                                Material Specifications and
                                                                Approval.
46...............................  R.........................  Nautical Schools.................              37
46...............................  T.........................  Small Passenger Vessels (Under             10,169
                                                                100 Gross Tons).
46...............................  U.........................  Oceanographic Research Vessels...             602
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mechanically propelled recreational vessels.
Source: USCG MISLE database for all non-recreational populations. Recreational vessel population is from
  COMDTPUB P16754.26--2012 Recreational Boating Statistics, Table 37, available at http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/705.PDF.

Costs
    In the following discussion, we describe the cost impacts for each
category of provisions in the proposed rule. Within each subcategory,
we provide a discussion of the provisions and their expected impacts on
the industry.

A. Fire Alarm and Detection Systems

1. Harmonization With International and National Consensus Standards
    These provisions would allow for the use of fire detection and
alarm systems under the provisions of SOLAS and FSS Code or the CFR,
and would update Coast Guard requirements to reflect modern practices
in fire detection and alarm systems. Incorporation by reference is an
administrative provision that is used to incorporate the international
standards established for fire detection and alarm systems by SOLAS,
the FSS Code, and other industry standards as discussed in V.
Discussion of Proposed Rule.
    These provisions remove outdated Coast Guard-specific installation
requirements and incorporate by reference more up-to-date national and
international consensus standards. These provisions do not require
replacement or relocation of existing equipment, and therefore should
impose no costs on existing or new vessels as discussions with industry
show that their practice is to use the latest standards. Therefore,
these provisions are not expected to result in any additional costs to
industry.
2. Optional Use of Detection and Alarm System Requirements of SOLAS and
the FSS Code
    These incorporations provide references for other provisions that
would provide non-SOLAS vessels with the option to use fire detection
and alarm systems meeting either standards established by SOLAS, the
FSS code and ICAI, or the standards for these systems established by
the Coast Guard regulations.
    SOLAS ships are currently in compliance with these provisions, so
they would impose no new requirements and are not expected to incur any
additional costs to the SOLAS ships population. These provisions would
allow non-SOLAS vessels increased flexibility when selecting fire
detection and alarm systems, by allowing fire detection and alarm
systems design, manufacture, installation, and operation to comply with
either Coast Guard standards or with SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 7.
We do not anticipate additional costs to non-SOLAS vessels since we are
only giving these vessel owners the option of choosing between SOLAS
and Coast Guard standards. Non-SOLAS vessels are currently using the
Coast Guard standard and we believe that vessel owners and operators
will only use the SOLAS standard if this will be cost-beneficial to
their operations or they plan on changing their vessel status (in the
future) to SOLAS.
3. Consolidation and Revision of Operation and Installation
Requirements
    As discussed in section V. (A) Fire Alarm and Detection Systems,
these provisions would consolidate fire alarm and fire detection system
requirements and better reflect current industry advancements and
adoption of seamless technologies. These proposed changes would also
affect subchapters C, I, K, and T for the requirements that refer the
reader to subchapter H. Advancements in marine fire detection and alarm
systems include the incorporation of standards articulated in SOLAS,
the FSS Code, the development of digital technology with advanced
features, and development of technology for the much larger shoreside
market. The consolidation of these requirements would make it easier
for industry to locate and meet these requirements. As such, these
administrative changes would impose no new burden on industry and are
not expected to result in additional costs.
4. Grandfathering, and 2\1/2\-Year Compliance Period
    The provisions relating to all types of fire detection systems
would be updated to reflect current technology with existing
regulations retained for vessels contracted before the current
provisions take effect. Vessels contracted prior to the effective date
of the proposed rule

would not be required to retrofit to the newer SOLAS standards; as
such, these provisions are not expected to impose any additional cost
to industry. These provisions update outdated Coast Guard-specific
requirements and incorporate by reference more up-to-date and more
commonly used national and international consensus standards. With one
exception, as discussed below, these provisions do not require
replacement or relocation of existing equipment and so are not expected
to have any additional costs to industry.
5. Sample Extraction Type Smoke Detection Systems
    This provision would require changes regarding the ventilation of
potentially toxic or flammable gases. Our current regulations allow
systems to route these potentially toxic or flammable gases or smoke
from the cargo hold to the bridge so that a watchstander can detect a
problem by smell. International consensus standards consider this
unacceptably dangerous, and SOLAS has required routing of sampled gases
out of manned spaces since the 1978 protocol which went into effect May
25, 1980. The proposed new provisions, found in 46 CFR 76.33, would
require that all existing vessels using sample extraction fire
detection methods route the gases outside the vessel and install a
sensing device that will trigger a visual and audible alarm in the
bridge. Existing vessels will have 5 years in which to comply with this
provision. Currently, all U.S. vessels that are SOLAS certificated and
built after May 25, 1980, are in compliance with this provision.
According to the Coast Guard MISLE database which documents the types
of fire detection systems installed onboard vessels, the affected
population for this provision includes four vessels--two active SOLAS
vessels built before May 25, 1980, and two active non-SOLAS vessels.
    Information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
indicates that the loaded mean hourly labor cost (wages and benefits)
is $27.15 for Sailors and Marine Oilers (BLS occupation code 53-5011
\3\). This loaded wage rate includes the hourly base wage rates of
$19.11 multiplied by a load factor of 1.42 (rounded).\4\ We estimate
the cost per vessel to comply with this provision at $1,238 which
involves the installation of a ventilation fan (average catalogue price
$375) and a fixed gas detector (average price $700) and the cost of
installation (6 hours at the equivalent wage of a crewmember $27.15 per
hour x 6 hours = $163.91). We assume that one of the affected vessels
will comply each year (given 5 years to meet compliance) beginning in
the second year after publication of the final rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes535011.htm.
    \4\ Load factor is determined by dividing the reported total
average compensation for all private industries of $28.80 per hour
worked in Second Quarter, 2012 by the wages and salaries per hour
worked of $20.27.
    \5\ We anticipate that vessel owners will use the first year,
after this rule goes into effect, for planning purposes to schedule
for upgrading to the new requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the total present
value costs of this proposal to be about $3,919 and $4,467 discounted
at 7 and 3 percent, respectively. We estimate the annualized costs to
be approximately $956 and $975 discounted at 7 and 3 percent,
respectively. Table 8 summarizes the costs of this proposal to
industry.

                 Table 8--Requirement for Routing Potentially Toxic or Flammable Gases or Smoke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost all vessels
                                                Affected     Average   -----------------------------------------
                   Year(s)                      vessels      cost per                    7 Percent    3 Percent
                                                              vessel     Undiscounted     discount     discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................            0       $1,238              $0           $0           $0
2...........................................            1        1,238           1,238        1,081        1,167
3...........................................            1        1,238           1,238        1,011        1,133
4...........................................            1        1,238           1,238          944        1,100
5...........................................            1        1,238           1,238          883        1,068
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals*.................................            4  ...........           4,952        3,919        4,467
Annualized..................................  ...........  ...........  ..............          956          975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

6. Changes to Approval Processes for Detection and Alarm Systems
    These provisions would make approval processes easier for
manufacturers by allowing some approval tests to be completed by an
(NRTL) that is recognized by OSHA as meeting OSHA standards set forth
in Subpart S of CFR Part 1910. Coast Guard approval would require that
these devices be tested to the general construction, material and
reliability standards found in the new consensus standards, including
the previously listed US standards, which are incorporated by various
provisions of the proposed rule. These new consensus standards are
accepted practice within the shoreside and marine industry. Since
shoreside practices drive the state of art for firefighting, these
incorporations will increase flexibility for the maritime industry and
are not expected to result in additional costs.
    As the Coast Guard also requires environmental testing for approval
of these systems, these provisions would use the standards identified
in Table 1 of the (IEC) 60092-504. The IEC standards are compatible
with current Coast Guard approval requirements which allow users the
choice between the ABS Rules Table 4/11-1 (1996 version); or Category
ENV3 tests of the Lloyd's Register Type Approval System, Test
Specification 1 (1990 version). We would retain the requirement that
testing for marine environmental standards be performed by a Coast
Guard-approved laboratory, since these laboratories have the experience
and expertise in conducting these tests, and no additional burden is
anticipated as a result.
    These provisions also allow manufacturers of fire alarm and
detection equipment two different approval options: Either the current
method of approval for an entire system or a new approval method for
individual devices (i.e., smoke detectors) within a system. This change
would allow for easier replacement of individual system devices and
open the marine market to small manufacturers or those dedicated to
making components but not producing all

components necessary for a complete detection system.
    These provisions do not require replacement or relocation of
existing equipment and do not add restrictions to the approval process,
and so are not expected to have any additional costs to industry.
7. Revised Requirements Using Guidance Found in Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circular (NVIC) 7-80 for Excess Detection Systems
    These provisions allow the use of non-Coast Guard-approved fire
detection systems as excess equipment, provided that: The components
are listed by an NRTL; they are designed, installed, tested, and
maintained in accordance with an appropriate industry standard and the
manufacturer's specific guidance; the installation conforms to the
requirements of 46 CFR subchapter J (Electrical Engineering), with
specific regard to the hazardous location installation regulations; the
Coast Guard has completed its review of the wiring plans and approved
them; and the system and units remain functional as intended.
    As previously discussed in V. Discussion of Proposed Rule, these
provisions codify NVIC 7-80, issued April 2, 1980. These provisions
codify existing practice and do not require replacement or relocation
of existing equipment and so are not expected to have any additional
costs to industry.

B. Fire Extinguishers

    This proposed rule would make parallel changes in each of the
subchapters which require vessels, offshore facilities, and deepwater
ports to carry Coast Guard approved portable or semi-portable fire
extinguishers.
1. Ratings: UL 711 and NFPA 10:2010
    These provisions would apply to all the affected population
carrying portable and semi-portable fire extinguishers listed in Table
5, including recreational vessels. The provisions would eliminate the
current Coast Guard specific rating system for fire extinguisher
classifications, relying instead on the relevant national industry
standards. The Coast Guard rating system relies on a weight-based
standard for the retardant, while the modern industry standards UL 711
and NFPA 10 are performance-based. Currently, all Coast Guard-approved
fire extinguishers are rated by their testing laboratories using both
the Coast Guard and the NFPA 10 and UL 711 rating systems. Sections
162.028-4 and 162.039-4 require labeling of approved extinguishers with
a specified language which includes the Coast Guard rating of the
extinguisher. As a result, the Coast Guard rating system is a
duplicative and potentially confusing requirement that is inconsistent
with current industry standards.
    Under this provision, manufacturers of fire extinguishers would no
longer have to label their extinguishers with the Coast Guard rating.
Extinguisher labeling would remain consistent with current industry
formats and styles, and manufacturers would not need to redesign their
current labels. This would simplify labeling requirements for
manufacturers and limit confusion on the purchases of fire
extinguishers for marine use. Currently, all fire extinguishers with
Coast Guard approval are also marked with a Coast Guard and UL rating.
Therefore, sections 162.028-4 and 162.039-4 requiring labeling of
approved extinguishers with Coast Guard rating language would no longer
be required. The removal of these requirements would eliminate
confusion and have no impact on the approval procedure. We anticipate
that manufacturers would continue using their current supply of labels
and would only remove the Coast Guard identifier when they order new
labels. Industry would not incur any additional expense from this
requirement.
    The proposed changes would also include adjusting the current
carriage requirements found in each subchapter that are currently based
on the Coast Guard ratings (example: B-II) to an equivalent requirement
that is based on the NFPA 10 and UL 711 ratings (example: 20-B).
However, as noted in section V. Discussion of Proposed Rule, we found
correlations between Coast Guard ratings and the NFPA 10 and UL 711
ratings, so that the number and relative size of extinguishers would
not change. In some cases, however, a slightly larger or smaller
extinguisher may be required under the new provisions.
    For fire extinguishers on recreational and other vessels
categorized under different subchapters, the Coast Guard would not
require existing vessels to replace serviceable portable and semi-
portable fire extinguishers as long as the equipment is properly
maintained. When equipment is replaced, the replacement fire
extinguisher would have to meet the requirements of the proposed
provisions. New vessels, constructed after the publication of the final
rule, would be required to be equipped with extinguishers that conform
to the new requirements.
    At the end of their serviceable life, all portable and semi-
portable fire extinguishers for recreational and other vessels
categorized under the different subchapters would require replacement
with UL rated extinguishers. The examination of marine casualty reports
from the MISLE database found positive correlations in extinguisher
performance between the Coast Guard weight-based standard and the UL
performance standard. The prices of extinguishers obtained from
industry catalogues indicate there is no differential in prices for
extinguishers rated acceptable under the current Coast Guard standards
and those of the UL standards. For this reason, we do not expect these
provisions relating to fire extinguishers in non-machinery spaces to
result in any additional cost to industry.
    The proposed provisions requiring UL class fire extinguishers would
affect vessels using large semi-portable CO2 extinguishers
(class B-IV and B-V). Extinguishers of this size are currently required
in machinery spaces of vessels described under the different
subchapters as shown in Table 7. Currently, the Coast Guard's weight-
based rating system allows CO2 extinguishers to be used
where larger semi-portable extinguishers are required. However,
CO2 extinguishers cannot meet the UL performance standards
to receive a rating large enough to be considered equivalent to UL B-IV
and B-V extinguishers, therefore semi-portable CO2
extinguishers could not be used under this provision of the proposed
rule. However, as with all other extinguishers, existing vessels would
not have to replace their currently operational extinguishers and would
be able to continue to use these extinguishers in machinery spaces
until the end of their serviceable life, when they would have to be
replaced with extinguishers of comparable classification under the UL
rating scale. Vessels using CO2 based extinguishers would be
required to replace their semi-portable CO2 extinguisher
with an extinguisher that uses another extinguishing agent.
    To determine if there is a cost differential between the current
Coast Guard-approved CO2 semi-portable fire extinguishers
and the comparable UL rated fire extinguishers, the Coast Guard
Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4) examined the catalogue
pricing of B-V extinguishers that use other fire-retardant agents. The
average price of the CO2 based B-V extinguisher was
approximately $5,000, whereas the B-V extinguishers using other agents
ranged

in price from $1,200 to $2,000. This cost differential would result in
a net savings \6\ for all vessels that replace these larger
CO2 extinguishers as we would not require replacement ahead
of the normal replacement schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We are unable to provide a cost estimate for the savings
that vessels may incur from replacing CO2 extinguishers,
because there is no way of knowing the exact number of
CO2 extinguishers being carried on vessels or the rate of
future replacements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Maintenance: NFPA 10: 2010
    These provisions of the proposed rule would require that
individuals performing the annual inspection, maintenance, and
necessary recharging of fire extinguishers be certified in accordance
with the standards of NFPA 10. Currently, all Coast Guard approved
portable fire extinguishers have language on the label stating that the
extinguisher is to be inspected and maintained in accordance with NFPA
10. The NFPA 10 requirements are consistent with long-standing industry
standard practices in the U.S., both shoreside and marine, and refer to
the inspection and maintenance of fire extinguishers. We do not know
who is currently NFPA 10 certified so we estimate compliance costs
below based on our best available information.
    Non-rechargeable (non-refillable) fire extinguishers are
replaceable units that are expected to require little or no
maintenance; after one use or a maximum service life of 12 years, they
are replaced. For these extinguishers, all inspections (monthly and
annual) and maintenance could continue to be done by owners, operators
or designated crewmembers. Uninspected vessels, including recreational
vessels, generally carry these types of extinguishers and are therefore
not expected to be subject to any additional costs due to these
provisions.
    Currently, the Coast Guard permits both the monthly inspections and
annual maintenance of rechargeable fire extinguishers to be performed
by vessel owners, operators or by a designated crewmember. NFPA 10
requires that a ``certified'' person perform all annual maintenance of
rechargeable extinguishers. Monthly inspections could continue to be
performed by the owner, operator or a designated crewmember. In
addition, the Coast Guard would accept the certification or licensing
of a fire extinguisher servicing agency granted by an appropriate state
or local authority having jurisdiction for servicing and maintenance.
    The Coast Guard's MISLE database contains records on approximately
113,851 fire extinguishers onboard 17,132 U.S.-flagged vessels which
could be affected by these provisions. We do not have information as to
which of these extinguishers are disposable and which are rechargeable;
for the cost analysis we assume that all of the extinguishers would be
rechargeable. We also estimate that more than 90 percent \7\ of
inspected vessels currently use private servicing companies (which are
already in compliance with NFPA 10) in lieu of doing their own annual
maintenance, and are therefore not expected to incur any additional
costs due to these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 90 percent is an estimate provided by CG-Engineering-1
based on input from field marine inspectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs associated with these provisions would be the
certification costs for owner/operators who wish to continue performing
annual maintenance according to NFPA 10 specifications. We estimate
that 10 percent or 1,714 vessels currently are not using a private
servicing company to maintain their extinguishers. We, therefore assume
that a designated individual from each of these vessels would continue
to perform annual maintenance on their extinguishers and would
therefore require certification. Table 9 summarizes the population of
vessels and fire extinguishers, as well as the average extinguisher
count per vessel.

                         Table 9--Affected Population for Vessels Choosing Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Existing population           Affected population (10
                                 --------------------------------      percent of existing)          Avg. per
  Vessel inspection subchapter                                   --------------------------------     vessel
                                      Vessels      Extinguishers      Vessels      Extinguishers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D--Tank Vessels.................           3,367          13,746             337           1,375            4.08
H--Passenger Vessels............             290           8,489              29             849           29.27
I--Cargo and misc. Vessels......           1,716          32,540             172           3,254           18.96
IA--MODU........................              82           3,594               8             359           43.83
K--Small Passenger Carrying 150+             446           3,536              45             354            7.93
 PAX or 49+ Overnight...........
L--Offshore Supply Vessels......             520           9,530              52             953           18.33
N--Dangerous Cargoes (Dry Bulk).              46             470               5              47           10.22
R--Nautical Schools.............              37             836               4              84           22.59
T--Small Passenger Vessels (<             10,169          37,725           1,017           3,773            3.71
 100 Gross Tons)................
U--Oceanographic Vessels........              64           1,581               6             158           24.70
UNSPECIFIED.....................             395           1,804              40             180            4.57
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTALS *....................          17,132         113,851           1,713          11,385            6.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    NFPA 10 certification can be obtained by either taking an online
examination that lasts 2.5 hours or by attending an 8-hour seminar
concluding with an examination. Upon successful completion of the
examination, a certificate is awarded which will be valid for three
years. We assume that individuals currently servicing fire
extinguishers are familiar with proper maintenance methods and any
necessary training prior to the exam can be accomplished through on the
job training. We also assume that owners and operators would choose the
least cost and time consuming means of obtaining certification.
Therefore, we estimate the cost of this provision using the online
method of certification to be $139 per course.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://train.fpcltd.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, information from the BLS indicates that
the loaded mean hourly labor cost (wages and benefits) is $27.15 for
crew members (BLS occupation code 53-5011--Sailors and Marine Oilers).
This loaded wage rate includes the hourly base wage rates of $19.11
multiplied by a load factor of 1.42. We assume one crew member per
vessel would be certified. We also

anticipate that in the initial year of this proposed rule, all vessels
would be required to have a crewmember certified. Thereafter, we
anticipate that \1/3\ of the affected population would have one
crewmember certified each year.\9\ Certification through online
examination would cost approximately $207 per mariner ($139 + (2.5 hrs
x $27.15/hr)). The annual cost of online examination for 10% of the
affected population is approximately $354,000 (undiscounted) for the
first year and approximately $118,000 (undiscounted) for the recurring
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The \1/3\ certification estimate is based on vessels having
employee turnover and/or crewmember needing to re-certify every
three years. In this analysis we assume that for years 2 and 3, \1/
3\ of the affected population will be required to get certified due
to an equal number of crew turnover or change in job statue that
would require new certification of another crewmember. Thereafter,
we assume that the number of crewmember turnover, change of job
status and re-certification would equate to \1/3\ of the affected
population per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we anticipate that industry will incur a cost burden
for recordkeeping of crew members' certifications. Vessel owners and
operators must have crew members' certificates available when asked by
inspector to verify crew member training. We assume that a person in
charge of the vessel would spend 2 minutes filing the certificate and 2
minutes to produce the certificate upon request. Based on information
from the BLS, we estimate a loaded wage rate \10\ of $50.38 and an
estimated annual cost of this requirement to be $3.36 per vessel
($50.38 x 4 minutes / 60 min/hr). We have included a detailed Paperwork
Reduction Analysis in the collection of information section of the RA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Mean hourly wage of $35.46 for BLS occupation code 53-5021,
Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes535021.htm), multiplied by a load factor of 1.42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the 10-year period of analysis, we estimate total present
value cost at approximately $1.07 million discounted at 7 percent with
an annualized cost of approximately $152,000 discounted at 7 percent.
Table 10 summarizes the costs impact of this proposal rule on industry.

                                                        Table 10--Certification Costs for NFPA 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Undiscounted costs                Total discounted costs
                                                                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Year                                Certifications                     Total costs with       Online            Online
                                                                    per year       Cost of online     recordkeeping    examination (7    examination (3
                                                                                examination          costs           percent)          percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................             1,713          $354,425          $360,181          $336,618          $349,690
2.............................................................               571           118,128           120,046           104,853           113,155
3.............................................................               570           117,921           119,836            97,822           109,667
4.............................................................               571           118,128           120,046            91,583           106,660
5.............................................................               570           117,921           119,836            85,441           103,372
6.............................................................               571           118,128           120,046            79,992           100,537
7.............................................................               570           117,921           119,836            74,628            97,438
8.............................................................               571           118,128           120,046            69,868            94,766
9.............................................................               570           117,921           119,836            65,183            91,844
10............................................................               571           118,128           120,046            61,025            89,326
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals *..................................................                           1,416,747         1,439,757         1,067,013         1,256,454
Annualized....................................................                                                                 151,919           147,295
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Totals may not sum due to rounding.

3. Testing: UL 8, UL 154, UL 299, UL 626, UL 2129
    These provisions amend the approval requirements for portable and
semi-portable fire extinguishers to reference the appropriate UL
standards. We would require the use of UL standards for each type of
extinguisher and remove the current Coast Guard specific requirements.
Currently all extinguishers receiving Coast Guard approvals are also
tested to UL standards and listed by a Coast Guard-recognized
laboratory; therefore, we do not expect this change to add any
additional costs to industry.
    We are proposing to delete the existing sections Sec. Sec.
162.028-1 and Sec. Sec.  162.039-1 which are informational provisions
and add new sections that incorporate by reference the NFPA 10 and the
applicable UL standards for the different types of fire extinguishers
currently approved for marine use. The harmonization of these
provisions with a current Coast Guard requirement would not add any
costs to industry.
4. Approval Process
    These provisions change the location from the CFR to our Web site
(http://cgmix.uscg.mil) as the place to find the list of currently
recognized Coast Guard testing laboratories. These provisions also
amend the approval requirements for fire extinguisher manufacturers to
more clearly reflect current practice under the Memorandum of
Understanding as noted in section V. Discussion of Proposed Rule. These
are informational provisions that are not expected to result in costs
to industry.
5. Reducing and Relocating Portable Spare Extinguisher Requirements
    These provisions would amend the domestic vessel requirements for
spare fire extinguishers by reducing the number of required spare
portable fire extinguishers. We seek specific comments on the
appropriate percentage of spares necessary on domestic vessels.
Depending on comments received, we propose to reduce the number of
spares to somewhere in the range of the currently required 50 percent
down to as low as ten percent. Depending on comments received, we will
specify the percentage of spares necessary and add this number to the
existing tables in 46 CFR 34.50-10(a), 76.50-10(a), 95.50-10(a),
108.495, 169.567(a), and 181.500(b), and delete the existing references
in sections: 46 CFR 76.50-15, 95.50-15, 132.230 and 193.50-15. These
provisions would add no burden to domestic vessels.
    Requirements for vessels on international voyages subject to SOLAS
would not change. These vessels would still be required to comply with
SOLAS requirements, 100 percent spare charges for the first 10
extinguishers, then 50 percent for the remaining extinguishers (SOLAS
Chapter II-2, Regulation 10.3.3).

C. Other Fire Protection Equipment Requirements

1. Spanner Wrench Carriage Requirement for Small Passenger Vessels
    These provisions would impose a new requirement that all subchapter
T and K vessels carry a spanner wrench for each 1.5-inch diameter hose
installation. For existing vessels, these provisions would apply to
those that currently do not have spanner wrenches. According to the
Coast Guard's MISLE database, there are approximately 2,585 subchapter
T and K vessels with 1.5-inch diameter hose installations. The total
number of 1.5-inch diameter hose installations onboard the vessels is
6,538, for an average of approximately 2.5 hose installations per
vessel. The individual catalogue prices of spanner wrenches indicate a
cost of $15.00 to $25.00 per wrench.
    Table 11 summarizes the vessel population and the cost of the
potential distribution of spanner wrenches per vessel costs depending
on the number of 1.5-inch diameter hose installations. Coast Guard
marine inspectors report that over 90 percent of subchapter T and K
already have the necessary spanner wrenches. We therefore assume that
259 vessels, or 10 percent of vessels in the affected population, would
need to purchase spanner wrenches based on the number of 1.5-inch
diameter hose installations on board.

                      Table 11--Summary of Vessel Population and Potential per Vessel Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Costs per vessel
   Number of 1.5''-hose installations       Total vessel     10% of affected -----------------------------------
                                                count            vessels             Low              High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................               630                63            $15.00            $25.00
2.......................................             1,298               130             30.00             50.00
3.......................................               263                26             45.00             75.00
4.......................................               164                16             60.00            100.00
5.......................................               111                11             75.00            125.00
6-9.....................................                78                 8            90-135           150-225
10-20...................................                33                 3           150-300           250-500
>20.....................................                 8                 1           315-750          525-1250
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total *.............................             2,585               259
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 12 summarizes the total costs of this proposal to industry.
We expect the costs of this provision to be incurred in the first year.
We estimate costs for this provision using the average cost range of
spanner wrenches to be $20 per vessel. Based on information from MISLE,
there are approximately 6,538 1.5-inch diameter hose installations
onboard 2,585 vessels for an average of 2.5 (rounded) 1.5-inch diameter
hose installations per vessel. Based on an average of 2.5 hose
installations per vessel, (for cost calculation purposes in this
analysis we use an average cost for the wrench of $20.00) the average
per vessel costs is approximately $50 ($20.00 per unit x 2.5 units per
vessel).

                          Table 12--Total Costs of Spanner Wrench Carriage Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          10% of Count of
                                       Affected vessels        1.5''           Wrench costs         Total *
                                                           installations
                                                   (A)                (B)                  (C)            (B x C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanner wrench price................               259                654             $20.00            $13,076
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

2. Alternative Use of Two Small Firehoses in Place of a Single Hose
    This provision allows for two 1.5-inch diameter hoses to be used
instead of one 2.5-inch hose. This allowance would only be for hoses at
external locations. This provision does not preclude the use or
carriage of a 2.5-inch hose and allows the vessel owners and operators
to make the choice which best suit their specific need. This provision,
which is an option to owners and operators, is not expected to have any
additional costs on industry. We came to this conclusion, because we
believe that existing vessels would not exercise their option to
convert from a 2.5-inch diameter hose to two 1.5-inch diameter hoses
unless it will be beneficial to their operations.
3. Limited Use of Land-Based Fire Extinguishers
    We propose in 46 CFR 34.50-10 that portable fire extinguishers
brought onto unmanned barges during cargo transfer or operation of
barge machinery or boilers, as required by Table 34.50-10(a), need not
be Coast Guard-approved. As discussed in section V. Discussion of
Proposed Rule, this proposed change would codify the policy issued by
NVIC 13-86, which allows non-Coast Guard approved fire extinguishers,
but only those that are UL-approved, to be used on unmanned barges. We
have permitted the use of non-Coast Guard, UL-approved extinguishers on
unmanned barges because unmanned barges are not required to carry
portable fire extinguishers while in transit, and thus such
extinguishers need not be tested for marine environmental conditions,
which is the purpose of the Coast Guard approval.
    The use of extinguishers that are brought aboard an unmanned barge
during loading may reduce the operating costs for the barge owner
because barges would not be required to have fire extinguishers
permanently mounted onboard the barges, nor would they need to be
inspected monthly or serviced annually. This change codifies current
practice and provides industry with flexibility in providing fire
extinguishers for barges during cargo operations. As such, we do not
expect these proposed changes to result in any additional costs to the
industry.

4. Amended Definitions for Small Passenger (Subchapter T) Vessels
    These provisions include explanatory language and clarification of
definitions. These provisions do not alter nor impose new requirements
on industry, but rather are informational and explanatory in nature.
Consequently, they would not impose any additional costs on the
industry.
5. Clarification on the Use of International Standards (SOLAS) in Lieu
of Domestic Standards
    These provisions would establish equivalency between the structural
fire protection requirements of SOLAS, Chapter II-2 and the
requirements of subparts affecting domestic vessel populations. The
purpose would be to allow certain types of domestic vessels to employ
the structural fire protection requirements established by SOLAS if it
is advantageous to do so.
    These provisions also allow the use of alternative materials in
products approved under each of the SOLAS Chapter II-2 approval
sections.
6. Use of Non-Metallic Pipe
    These provisions allow for the use on non-metallic piping for short
sections, 30 inches or less, in non-vital systems provided the pipe is
contained in one compartment. Current requirements state that all
piping in these situations meet flame spread requirements. The proposed
allowance of short runs of plastic pipe on non-vital systems within the
same compartment without any Coast Guard approval increases flexibility
for industry and may reduce costs. Also, plastic pipes are easier to
maintain and cheaper, and their use would not compromise the Coast
Guard's safety goals. We expect that the industry would choose to
employ plastic pipes for use in sanitary service areas, such as toilet,
sink and shower supply, and drain lines in accommodation spaces. As
such, we do not expect these proposed changes to result in any
additional costs to the industry.
7. Use of Non-Metallic Pipe on Small Passenger (Subchapter T) Vessels
    The Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) for Small
Passenger Vessel Inspection and Certification, (59 FR 1994, January 13,
1994) aligned the requirements for non-metallic piping with
requirements for other vessels at the time without directing users to
refer to 46 CFR part 56 to find the requirements for non-metallic pipe.
All other inspected vessels, including passenger vessels regulated by
46 CFR subchapters H and K, are required to use the requirements found
in Sec.  56.60-25 for nonmetallic pipe. The intent of the 1994 SNPRM
was to make the ``construction material requirements for vital system
piping consistent for all vessels regardless of size or passenger
capacity.'' However, the 1994 SNPRM did not include the reference to
Sec.  56.60-25 for Subchapter T vessels.
    Because subchapter T does not refer the reader to Sec.  56.60-25,
and was not updated to mirror the requirements in Sec.  56.60-25, the
current regulations in Subchapter T are more restrictive than those for
other classes of vessels. The proposed changes to Sec.  182.720 would
allow this class of small passenger vessels to use the requirements of
Sec.  56.60-25, including the proposed changes to this section
discussed above, as an alternative to those prescribed in subchapter T.
As such, we do not expect these proposed changes to result in any
additional costs to the industry.
8. Sprinkler Systems
    The proposed regulations would remove the Coast Guard-unique design
and installation requirements for sprinkler systems currently found in
46 CFR 76.25-5 through 76.25-35, erroneously left in place by a
previous rulemaking (Harmonization with International Safety Standards;
62 FR 51188, September 30, 1997). In that rulemaking, which adopted
NFPA 13 to replace the Coast Guard-unique requirements for sprinkler
systems, sections 76.25-5 through 76.25-35 should have been deleted,
but were not.
    The proposed regulations would also add clarifying language and
chapter specificity regarding NFPA 13. Updates in 2010 to NFPA 13
specify that performance for the designed sprinkler system should not
be reduced whether a vessel is upright or at an inclined angle.
Industry practice for marine systems already takes these incline angles
into account and therefore these proposed changes do not alter current
industry standards or practice and as such, are not expected to result
in any additional costs.
9. Alternatives for Halon Bottle Inspection
    Current requirements for cylinders storing Halon 1301 state that
they must be emptied and hydrostatically tested every 12 years. Also,
cylinders discharged more than 5 years after the previous testing must
be retested before refilling. However, due to the international ban on
the production of Halon 1301, emptying and refilling of a Halon 1301
cylinder is expensive and impractical for many vessel owners as it
requires carefully controlled reclamation and collection of Halon 1301.
    As discussed in V. Discussion of Proposed Rule, the proposed
changes to 46 CFR 147.65 would establish an alternative method of
periodic inspection and testing requirements for Halon 1301 fire
extinguishing systems by codifying NVIC 3-95, Periodic Inspection and
Testing of Fixed Halon Fire Fighting Equipment Aboard Merchant Ships,
and allow visual exams for Halon-storage bottles. We do not expect
these proposed changes to result in any additional costs to industry.

D. Updates to Approval Process and Guidance for Equipment and Materials

1. Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA)
    These provisions would explain the following with regard to MRAs:
Their purpose; the Coast Guard process for approval and acceptance of
equipment and materials; the numbering and labeling of approved
equipment and materials; and the location of the current listing of all
equipment approved under MRAs. These provisions may expand market
opportunities and reduce management and testing costs for manufacturers
as duplicative foreign nation approvals would not need to be sought.
These provisions further the goals of E.O. 13609, which states that
international regulatory cooperation can be an important means of
promoting the goals of E.O. 13563. E.O. 13609 further states that
differences between the U.S. and foreign counterparts might not be
necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export
and compete internationally. These provisions codify MRAs currently in
force, and do not impose new requirements on industry. Consequently,
they would not impose any additional costs on the industry.
2. Approval Series
    To accompany the changes made to the requirements for fire-
detection systems on board vessels, 46 CFR Subchapter Q would codify
changes to the approval requirements necessary to meet the changes as
discussed above. Also, we would replace outdated Coast Guard-specific
requirements, including standards for non-metallic piping systems and
fire hose nozzles, with suitable national and international consensus
standards, and codify new approval series for equipment and materials
approved for use on SOLAS ships, including portable foam applicator
units.

    The proposed changes would require that all Coast Guard-accepted
independent laboratories testing products for approval to the SOLAS
requirements adhere to the FTP Code. On July 1, 2012, the 2010 Fire
Test Procedures Code entered into force, and requires that laboratories
use a quality control program based on ISO/IEC 17025. This standard is
used throughout the world by our accepted laboratories as a means to
ensure that testing of products is conducted in a consistent,
appropriate, repeatable, and professional manner. Additionally, the
proposed subpart 162.027 allows the use of ISO 9000 configuration
control as an alternative to a follow-up program administered by an
independent laboratory. In the past, we have allowed the less
restrictive use of ISO 9000 for specific and appropriate situations.
    In addition to the proposed new and updated approval-series
requirements discussed above, the proposed changes would amend our
regulations to indicate that certain fire protection equipment and
materials approved under approval series that use international
standards for SOLAS vessels can be used without restriction in place of
the products approved under the U.S. requirements, such as fire doors.
These changes would allow products approved to meet the international
standards to be considered equivalent to those products approved as
meeting the U.S. requirements, because we have determined that the
SOLAS standards for these materials provide an equivalent level of
safety to our requirements.
    For the reasons discussed above, we do not expect these proposed
changes to result in any additional costs to industry.
3. FTP Code Test Laboratories ISO/IEC 17025 Certified
    These provisions require that all laboratories which test according
to the FTP Code be ISO/IEC 17025 certified. All currently approved FTP
Code laboratories have ISO/IEC certification. This provision would
codify international consensus standards and reflects currently
existing practice and is not expected to impose any additional costs on
industry.

E. Administrative Changes

    The proposed rule will also perform some administrative and
technical changes including: Correcting conversion calculations listed
in 46 CFR subchapter K (Sec.  118.410) and T (Sec.  181.410); moving
and separating, for clarity, certain requirements by removing the
regulations for fire detection systems in Sec.  181.400(c) through (g)
and moving these regulations to proposed new Sec.  181.405(a) through
(e); adding previously omitted statutory authority citation 33 U.S.C.
1509 to the list of authorities contained in 33 CFR Subchapter NN, part
148; and, making other corrections including editorial, organizational,
and clarifying amendments. These are administrative corrections and
would not impose any additional cost to the affected population.
Summary of Total Costs From All Provisions
    As discussed in the preamble and RA, total costs from this proposed
rule stem from three provisions: (1) The NFPA 10 certification costs
for owners and operators who wish to continue performing annual
maintenance themselves; (2) Installation of a sensing device for
vessels using sample extraction fire detection methods; and (3) The
spanner wrench carriage requirement. Table 13 summarizes the total
costs for these provisions and Table 16 presents the average total
discounted and annualized costs by inspected subchapter (7 percent
discount rate). Over the 10-year period of analysis, we estimate total
discounted costs of these provisions to be approximately $1.08 million
and the annualized cost at $154,217 using a discount rate of 7 percent.

                                                           Table 13--Estimate for Total Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              NFPA 10                   Undiscounted costs                       Discounted costs
                                                           certification -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                                  and           Sample          Spanner      Undiscounted   Total costs (7  Total costs (3
                                                           recordkeeping    extraction       wrenches       total costs      percent)        percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................        $360,181              $0         $13,076        $373,257        $348,838        $362,385
2.......................................................         120,046           1,238  ..............         121,284         105,934         114,322
3.......................................................         119,836           1,238  ..............         121,074          98,832         110,800
4.......................................................         120,046           1,238  ..............         121,284          92,527         107,759
5.......................................................         119,836           1,238  ..............         121,074          86,324         104,439
6.......................................................         120,046  ..............  ..............         120,046          79,992         100,537
7.......................................................         119,836  ..............  ..............         119,836          74,628          97,438
8.......................................................         120,046  ..............  ..............         120,046          69,868          94,766
9.......................................................         119,836  ..............  ..............         119,836          65,183          91,844
10......................................................         120,046  ..............  ..............         120,046          61,025          89,326
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals *............................................       1,439,757           4,944          13,076       1,457,784       1,083,152       1,273,617
Annualized..............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         154,217         149,307
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Total Costs by CFR Subchapter
    As this proposed rule affects a range of commercial vessels
regulated under a number of 46 CFR subchapters, we present a summary of
those affected vessels organized by inspection subchapter designation
in Table 14. This summary aggregates the per-vessel costs based on a
vessel's inspection subchapter designation. The summary in Table 12
presents the average 10-year and annualized costs, discounted at 7
percent. We also present the total number of affected vessels and the
average annualized discounted cost per vessel (7 percent). Over the 10-
year period of analysis, we estimate approximately 1,713 vessels will
incur an average annualized cost of $78 per vessel. Table 14 below
presents these results.

                        Table 14--Average Discounted Total Costs by Inspection Subchapter
                                                   [7 percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Discounted      Annualized                      Annualized
  Inspection subchapter         Description       total costs (7     costs (7        Affected        costs per
       designation                                   percent)        percent)       population        vessel
                           .....................  ..............             (A)             (B)           (A/B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C........................  Uninspected Vessels..              $0              $0             n/a             n/a
D........................  Tank Vessels.........         212,875          30,309             338              90
H........................  Passenger Vessels              18,335           2,610              30              87
                            >100 GT.
I........................  Cargo Vessels........         108,492          15,447             174              89
IA.......................  MODU.................           5,184             738               8              90
K........................  Small Passenger                28,198           4,015              87              46
                            Vessels.
L........................  Offshore Supply                32,876           4,681              52              90
                            Vessels.
N........................  Dangerous Cargoes               2,908             414               5              90
                            (Dry Bulk).
R........................  Nautical Schools.....           2,339             333               4              90
T........................  Small Passenger               642,924          91,538           1,233              74
                            Vessels.
U........................  Oceanographic                   4,046             576               6              90
                            Research.
Unspecified..............  .....................          24,973           3,556              40              90
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals **............  .....................       1,083,152         154,217           1,976              78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Benefits
1. Harmonization with International and National Standards
    The benefits of the proposed rule include harmonization and
compliance with internationally enforced standards, and harmonization
with national industry consensus standards.
    For U.S. vessels to receive SOLAS certification, they must be
constructed and maintained to international standards in addition to
Coast Guard regulations. Therefore, harmonizing our regulations with
SOLAS requirements reduces the regulatory burden on vessel owners and
operators. Further, for SOLAS vessels, compliance with internationally
enforced standards is necessary to prevent a vessel from being subject
to detention by Port State Controls (PSC). Port State Controls can
detain a ship in a foreign port and require that any deficiencies be
rectified before the ship can depart. Delays of this type can be costly
to the owners and operators of vessels. Additionally, permitting non-
SOLAS vessels to use international standards instead of domestic
standards would give these vessels more options during the design,
installation and outfitting process of the vessel.
    For both SOLAS and non-SOLAS vessels, the harmonization with
national industry consensus standards allows vessels to take advantage
of modern technologies developed for shoreside use. The marine market
for fire safety equipment is much smaller than that for the shoreside
industry and, by incorporating the use of national industry consensus
standards, this proposed rule would allow vessels a wider choice of
equipment that still meets the standards required for vessel safety.
This increase in availability and selection of products and services
allows owners and operators to increase their purchasing power by
improving the product and pricing options available through greater
competition.
    Most of the harmonization provisions, whether international
standards or modern industry consensus standards, are not expected to
impose any additional costs on industry because they will not require
the immediate replacement of serviceable current equipment. Current
equipment will be replaced only at the end of its serviceable life, in
most cases. The cost of replacement equipment that meets the new
standards is expected to be less costly than its current counterpart in
the marine market. There are three exceptions to this, which have been
discussed in the Costs section. Additionally, these provisions provide
additional economic efficiencies through the expansion of markets,
particularly international markets.
2. NFPA 10 Certification
    The shoreside firefighting industry drives innovations and the
establishment of standards. NFPA 10 certification for individuals
maintaining fire extinguishers is an established shoreside standard and
practice helping to ensure that pressure vessels are properly handled
and maintained. Similarly, NFPA 10 certification for mariners servicing
fire extinguishers helps to ensure that those performing the
maintenance have been trained to industry standards. These
certifications help to preserve the margin of safety necessary when
handling pressure vessels such as portable fire extinguishers.
Additionally, national industry consensus standards, incorporated by
reference, help to ensure that maintenance is performed in a consistent
manner. This allows vessel owners and operators to take advantage of
improved methodologies and safe operating procedures as well as
removing barriers for the maintenance industry to service the maritime
sector, potentially expanding the market of service providers and
reducing costs.
3. Ventilation of Potentially Toxic or Flammable Gases for Systems
Using Sample Gas Extraction
    Sample gas extraction systems which route environmental samples
from the cargo holds to the bridge so a watchstander can detect a
problem by smell have been considered by international consensus
standards to be unacceptably dangerous. These potentially toxic or
flammable gases may create hazardous conditions and may present
unnecessary and avoidable risks to the watchstander. In recognition of
this, the 1978 SOLAS protocol, which went into effect May 25, 1980,
directed that the gases be vented to the exterior rather than to the
bridge. The need for a reduction of human exposure to potentially
hazardous environments is well recognized by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration as noted in their implementation of
ventilation standards, including exhaust ventilation systems (29 CFR
1910.94(a)(4)). These standards specify that potentially toxic gasses
should be routed away from human occupied spaces.

    Additionally, the installation of a detection system provides
increased warning capability as both a visual and audible alarm is
installed. As such, the detection system reduces detection time as the
sensitivity to gases which indicate potential problems is much more
attuned and consistent than an individual crew member's olfactory
sense. Finally, the environmental conditions are improved as
potentially toxic or flammable gases are no longer routed into human-
occupied spaces.
4. Spanner Wrench Carriage Requirement
    Spanner wrench requirements ensure that the safety equipment
installed onboard vessels is available for use. These requirements
ensure that a 1.5-inch hose can be used in the case of an emergency.
Additionally, requiring the placement of the wrench near the hose
installation may reduce response time as the necessary tool is readily
available.

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.
    In order to determine whether this proposed rule would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, we assume
the maximum potential impact any single vessel and entity would incur
when estimating costs. Table 15 illustrates this possibility should a
single entity choose to implement these requirements on the same vessel
during the first year. We anticipate that the estimated average
annualized discounted cost (7 percent) per vessel to be $78. Table 14
(above) discusses the distribution of costs by inspection subchapter
and we note that the annualized discounted costs (7 percent) range from
approximately $46 to $90.

                                                Table 15--Estimated Maximum Undiscounted First Year Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Totals (undiscounted)
    Inspection subchapter                                     NFPA 10         Sample      Spanner wrench -----------------------------------------------
         designation                  Description          certification    extraction         costs                                         Cost per
                                                               costs           costs                        Total costs    Vessel count       vessel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............................  Uninspected Vessels......  ..............  ..............  ..............              $0             n/a             n/a
D............................  Tank Vessels.............          70,787           1,238  ..............          72,025             337             214
H............................  Passenger Vessels >100 GT           6,097           1,238  ..............           7,335              29             253
I............................  Cargo Vessels............          36,077           2,476  ..............          38,553             172             225
IA...........................  MODU.....................           1,724  ..............  ..............           1,724               8             210
K............................  Small Passenger Vessels..           9,377  ..............             852          10,229              45             229
L............................  Offshore Supply Vessels..          10,932  ..............  ..............          10,932              52             210
N............................  Dangerous Cargoes (Dry                967  ..............  ..............             967               5             210
                                Bulk).
R............................  Nautical Schools.........             778  ..............  ..............             778               4             210
T............................  Small Passenger Vessels..         213,792  ..............           4,318         218,110           1,017             214
U............................  Oceanographic Research...           1,346  ..............  ..............           1,346               6             210
Unspecified..................  .........................           8,304  ..............  ..............           8,304              40             210
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We next calculate the expected impact on small entities using a 1
percent revenue impact as a threshold level. In order for a small
entity to incur this threshold value, their average annual revenue must
be less than approximately $22,000. Using information from several
industry sources which contain revenue and employee size information
(such as Manta, Cortera, and ReferenceUSA), the Coast Guard has
developed a database of entities in the maritime industry which
includes the vessels they own. Table 16 presents the distribution of
these entities which is broken down by the vessel inspection subchapter
designation, the estimated number of small entities, and the estimated
count of small entities with revenue under the threshold value based on
the cost impact presented in Table 15.

                                       Table 16--Estimated Distribution of Small Entities by Inspection Subchapter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Count of
         Inspection subchapter designation             Number of     Average revenue      Max revenue       Min revenue    Revenue for a  entities under
                                                    small entities                                                           1% impact     the threshold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.................................................           1,094     $1,380,864,403   $187,437,000,000         $15,000             n/a             n/a
D.................................................             146     21,494,060,774    187,437,000,000          62,000          21,392               0
H.................................................              45        100,290,000        500,000,000         500,000          25,293               0
I.................................................             142         86,252,652      1,070,988,000          70,000          22,467               0
IA................................................              16        242,016,333      1,767,445,000         390,000          21,024               0
K.................................................              48          5,915,538         50,000,000         110,000          22,934               0
L.................................................              18          4,532,613         20,000,000         150,000          21,024               0
N.................................................               3         27,075,000        100,000,000         500,000          21,024               0
R.................................................               6            849,996          1,549,979         200,000          21,024               0

T.................................................           1,015         12,532,100      1,000,000,000           9,000          21,448               4
U.................................................               8         27,500,000         50,000,000       5,000,000          21,024               0
Unspecified.......................................             347         46,920,905      1,390,835,000           2,000          21,024               5
Blank *...........................................              24         58,153,333        741,370,000         140,000             n/a             n/a
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals **.....................................           2,912
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Vessels with `BLANK' inspection subchapters are treated as `Uninspected'.
** Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    The Coast Guard assumes that entities will choose to minimize
revenue impacts for any given year; therefore, we estimate the revenue
impact would more closely resemble the discussion presented in Table
14. However, based on the analysis presented in Tables 15 and 16, at
most 9 out of 1,362 (1,015 + 347) entities may experience annual costs
exceeding the 1 percent threshold. As a result, the Coast Guard assumes
this proposed rule would not significantly impact revenues on a
substantial number of small entities (i.e., annual costs are expected
to be less than one percent of annual revenues), and therefore, do not
represent a significant economic impact on affected small entities.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that
your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as
a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic
impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility
at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think
it qualifies and how and to what degree this 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 want 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 consult LCDR John Miller,
Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety
Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard;<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this 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

    The proposed rule would call for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined
in 5 CFR 1310.3 (c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. The Title and description of the information collection, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection. This proposed rule would modify an existing collection as
discussed below.
    Title: Certificates of Compliance, Boiler/Pressure Vessel Repairs,
Cargo Gear Records, and Shipping Papers.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0037.
    Summary Of Collection Of Information: These requirements provide
the marine inspector with information regarding the condition of a
vessel and its equipment, a list of the type and amount of cargo that
has been or is being carried on a vessel, plus information about the
owner of the vessel. Each of these requirements relate to the promotion
of safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment.
    Need For Information: The certification requirement would provide
proof that the crewmember assigned to perform the annual fire
extinguisher maintenance for rechargeable fire extinguishers onboard a
vessel is trained and certified in accordance with NFPA 10 industry
standards. Vessel owners and operators must have crew members'
certificates available when asked by an inspector to verify crew member
training.
    Proposed Use Of Information: The certificate verifies that
crewmembers performing annual maintenance on rechargeable fire
extinguishers are current on NFPA 10 training and standards.
    Description Of The Respondent: We anticipate that a small number of
the affected population (1,713 vessel owner/operators) would perform
their own annual maintenance on rechargeable fire extinguishers. Vessel
owners and operators do have the option of hiring servicing companies
to perform the annual maintenance instead of performing the task
themselves. However, if a vessel owner or operator elects to perform
the annual maintenance on rechargeable fire extinguishers themselves,
the crewmember selected for the duty must be trained and certified in
NFPA 10 industry standards. We assume the vessel Master will maintain
the certificate on file.
    Number Of Responents: We estimate that a Master for each of 1,713
vessels would be affected by this proposed rule. See Table 7 for an