[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48219-48304]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15229]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 141

July 22, 2016

Part III

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

33 CFR Parts 140, 145, 148, et al.

46 CFR Parts 25, 27, 28, et al.

Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and
Extinguishing Equipment; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 140, 145, 148, and 149

46 CFR Parts 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 50, 56, 70, 71, 72, 76,
78, 90, 91, 92, 95, 107, 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 122, 125,
132, 147, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 167, 169, 175, 176, 177, 181,
182, 185, 188, 189, 190, and 193

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0196]
RIN 1625-AB59

Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and
Extinguishing Equipment

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a final rule for certain design and
approval standards for fire protection, detection, extinguishing
equipment, and materials on inspected and uninspected vessels, outer
continental shelf facilities, deepwater ports, and mobile offshore
drilling units. This rule harmonizes Coast Guard approval processes for
fire detection and alarm systems, and revises Coast Guard regulations
for other types of equipment, materials, and components, such as
spanner wrenches, non-metallic pipes, and sprinkler systems. This rule
ensures Coast Guard regulations remain current and addresses advances
in technology.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 22, 2016. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register on August 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2012-0196. You may find this docket on the
Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-
0196 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Laurence E. Fisher, Office of Design and Engineering
Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Final Rule
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions
III. Regulatory History
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
    A. Comments Concerning Fire Alarm and Detection Systems
    B. Comments Concerning Fire Extinguishers
    C. Comments Concerning Other Fire Protection Equipment
    D. General Comments
V. Summary of Changes from NPRM
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards and 1 CFR part 51
    M. Coast Guard Authorization Act
    N. Environment

I. Abbreviations

AHJ Authority having jurisdiction
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EC European Community
E.O. Executive Order
FM FM Global
FR Federal Register
GT Gross Tons
FSS Code International Code for Fire Safety Systems
IMO International Maritime Organization
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MRA Mutual Recognition Agreement
MSC Marine Safety Committee
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NRTL Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
RA Regulatory Analysis
Sec.  Section Symbol
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
UL Underwriters Laboratory
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Final Rule

    This final rule updates Coast Guard regulations pertaining to
certain design and approval standards for fire detection and alarm
systems, fire extinguishers, and other fire prevention equipment used
on inspected and uninspected vessels, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
facilities, deepwater ports, and mobile offshore drilling units
(MODUs). These updates harmonize our regulations with national and
international industry consensus standards, and incorporate other
advances in fire protection technologies and standards.
    The basis of this regulatory action is the Secretary of Homeland
Security's regulatory authority under the following statutes: Section
1333 of Title 43, United States Code (U.S.C), mandates the issuance of
safety equipment regulations for OCS facilities; 46 U.S.C. 3306
mandates the issuance of fire fighting material and equipment
regulations for Coast Guard-inspected vessels and the issuance of
structural fire protection and equipment regulations for small
passenger vessels; 46 U.S.C. 3703 mandates fire fighting equipment and
material regulations for vessels carrying liquid bulk dangerous
cargoes; 46 U.S.C. 4102 authorizes marine safety equipment regulations
for fire extinguishers, life preservers, engine flame arrestors, engine
ventilation, and emergency locating equipment on uninspected vessels,
and authorizes regulations, after consultation with the Towing Safety
Advisory Committee, for fire protection and suppression measures on
towing vessels; 46 U.S.C. 4302 authorizes safety equipment such as fire
fighting equipment regulations for recreational vessels; and 46 U.S.C.
4502 mandates fire extinguisher regulations for some uninspected
commercial fishing vessels and authorizes safety equipment regulations
for certain other uninspected commercial fishing vessels. Section 1509
of Title 33, U.S.C., authorizes the Coast Guard to promulgate
regulations for safety equipment relating to the promotion of safety of
life and property in deepwater ports. The Secretary of Homeland
Security has delegated these statutory authorities to the Coast Guard
through Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Under the statutory authorities listed above, the Coast Guard is
authorized to develop and maintain standards for fire protection,
detection, extinguishing equipment, and materials on inspected and
uninspected vessels, OCS facilities, deepwater ports, and MODUs. The
Coast Guard implements these authorities through regulations specified
in Table 1. Table 1 lists the subchapters in Titles 33 and 46 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) affected by this regulatory action
(collectively referred to as ``affected subchapters''), and provides a
breakdown of each subchapter by subject matter.

                                          Table 1--Affected Subchapters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             CFR title                      Subchapter                 Parts                     Topic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.................................  N                        140-147...............  Outer Continental Shelf
                                                                                Activities.
33.................................  NN                       148-150...............  Deepwater Ports.
46.................................  C                        24-28.................  Uninspected Vessels.
46.................................  D                        30-39.................  Tank Vessels.
46.................................  F                        50-64.................  Marine Engineering.
46.................................  H                        70-89.................  Passenger Vessels.
46.................................  I                        90-105................  Cargo and Miscellaneous
                                                                                Vessels.
46.................................  I-A                      107-109...............  Mobile Offshore Drilling
                                                                                Units.
46.................................  J                        110-113...............  Electrical Engineering.
46.................................  K                        114-124...............  Small Passenger Vessels
                                                                                Carrying more than 150
                                                                                Passengers or Vessels
                                                                                with Overnight
                                                                                Accommodations for more
                                                                                than 49 Passengers.
46.................................  L                        125-139...............  Offshore Supply Vessels.
46.................................  N                        140-149...............  Dangerous Cargoes.
46.................................  Q                        159-165...............  Equipment, Construction
                                                                                and Material
                                                                                Specifications and
                                                                                Approval.
46.................................  R                        166-169...............  Nautical Schools.
46.................................  T                        175-187...............  Small Passenger Vessels
                                                                                (Under 100 Gross Tons
                                                                                (GT)).
46.................................  U                        188-196...............  Oceanographic Research
                                                                                Vessels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the Major Provisions

    The major provisions of this regulatory action harmonize Coast
Guard regulations with national and international industry consensus
standards and update Coast Guard regulations to incorporate advances in
fire protection technology for specific types of fire protection,
detection, extinguishing equipment, and materials. These provisions are
discussed below and are grouped by equipment type or topic.
    Fire detection and alarm systems:
     Provides vessels with the option to meet either the
applicable International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
(SOLAS) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Fire Safety
Systems (FSS) Code requirements, or updated Coast Guard regulations for
the design and installation of fire detection and alarm systems. These
changes provide vessel owners and/or operators and designers greater
flexibility in fire detection and alarm system design for U.S. domestic
vessels.
     Consolidates and updates the fire detection and alarm
system requirements in 46 CFR subchapter H (passenger vessels). These
changes also affect 46 CFR subchapters C, I, K, and T vessels where the
regulations refer to subchapter H for fire detection and alarm system
requirements. The consolidation of these requirements makes it easier
for industry to locate and meet these requirements. These requirements
reflect advancements in the fire detection and alarm systems industry,
which include the development of digital technology and modern seamless
electronic technology for the much larger land-based market. The Coast
Guard does not require retrofitting of currently installed systems, but
does require any modifications to installed systems or new
installations to comply with the updated requirements after a 5-year
compliance period.
     Revises Coast Guard approval processes for fire detection
and alarm systems by allowing manufacturers of fire detection and alarm
systems equipment the option of seeking approval for an entire system
or an individual device; making approval processes easier for
manufacturers by allowing some approval tests to be completed by an
approved third party nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL);
and requiring the use of the most current and widely used national
consensus standards for approval of fire detection and alarm systems.
These revisions allow for an easier replacement of individual devices
and open the market to small manufacturers or to those dedicated to
making components but not producing all components necessary for a
complete detection system. They also provide manufacturers more
flexibility and options for choosing a laboratory; and align our
regulations with the most up-to-date national consensus standards that
are already widely used by the fire detection industry.
    Fire extinguishers:
     Replaces the Coast Guard's weight-based rating system for
fire extinguishers with the UL performance-based rating system.
Adopting the national industry standard rating system streamlines the
selection, inspection, and approval processes for marine fire
extinguishers.
     Revises inspection, maintenance and testing requirements
for fire extinguishers by adopting National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 10 ``Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers'' (2010 Edition).
NFPA 10 distinguishes between monthly inspections (a visual check) and
annual maintenance (a thorough inspection of materials and components,
and associated repairs). Vessel crewmembers can continue to perform
monthly inspections; however, a certified person is required to conduct
annual maintenance. This change aligns Coast Guard regulations with the
current industry practice of having annual maintenance performed by
certified persons as defined in NFPA 10.
     Codifies the use of UL standards for testing and labeling
of fire extinguishers. These standards provide detailed, technical
requirements for construction, performance, testing, packaging, and
marking of the specific type of extinguisher. This change aligns Coast
Guard regulations with current industry practice.
     Reduces the number of spare portable fire extinguishers
required on vessels traveling domestic routes. This change is
implemented due to the enhanced maintenance requirements that result in
more reliable spares, as well as making new spares easier to obtain.
    Other fire protection equipment:
     Requires small passenger vessels to carry spanner wrenches
for fire hydrants that use 1\1/2\ inch diameter hoses. This requirement
for small passenger vessels is consistent with spanner wrench carriage
requirements for other vessel types, and is necessary to ensure that
firehoses can be replaced and deployed as needed.
    Fire protection equipment approvals:

     Adds new specification subparts in 46 CFR subchapter Q to
address existing and new approval series for fire protection equipment,
materials, and components required for use on SOLAS ships. The new
approval series and associated subparts codify the standards and
procedures currently used by industry to obtain Coast Guard approval
for fire protection equipment, materials, and components required on
SOLAS ships, and set forth design, construction, testing, and
performance requirements satisfying SOLAS requirements for such
equipment, materials, and components.
     Codifies an alternative path to Coast Guard approval
through an established Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) to which the
U.S. is a party. The MRA allows for Coast Guard approvals of certain
fire protection equipment and materials issued by other nations that
are members of the European Community (EC). This change will reduce
manufacturer costs and burdens associated with duplicative testing and
evaluation for multiple national approvals.

III. Regulatory History

    On January 13, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) titled ``Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection,
Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment'' in the Federal Register (79 FR
2254). We received twelve letters consisting of 44 separate comments in
response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was
held.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received 44 comments in response to the NPRM. These
comments were from several maritime organizations, international
associations, private companies, and individuals. Eight comments
concerned fire alarm and detection systems, eighteen comments concerned
fire extinguishers, nine comments concerned other fire protection
equipment, and nine comments we classified as general comments. Each
comment is discussed below.

A. Comments Concerning Fire Alarm and Detection Systems

1. New Approval Processes for Fire Detection and Alarm Systems
    The Coast Guard received six comments from four commenters on the
changes to approval processes for fire detection and alarm systems.
    Two commenters requested that, in addition to the Coast Guard
requiring electrical control units and accessories for fire alarm
systems to meet UL 864 ``Standards for Control Units and Accessories
for Fire Alarm Systems, 2003'', the Coast Guard should also require
these products to meet FM Global (FM) 3010 ``Approval Standard for Fire
Alarm Signaling Systems.'' The Coast Guard disagrees with this request.
It is a long-standing Coast Guard policy to harmonize its shipping
regulations with voluntary consensus standards whenever possible. UL
864 is a voluntary consensus standard and it reflects the input of a
balanced group of contributors (e.g., producers, testing organizations,
authorities having jurisdiction, and government) combined with the
solicitation of public input. Although FM 3010 is a credible resource,
it is a proprietary standard developed in-house by FM to enable its
personnel to evaluate alarm systems, and it is not a voluntary
consensus standard.
    Another commenter noted that UL 864 ``Standards for Control Units
and Accessories for Fire Alarm Systems, 2003'' is a consensus standard
and should be the preferred standard when determining the appropriate
product certification. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment.
    One commenter expressed concern that as MODUs are built and have
initial acceptance tests conducted overseas, it may prove difficult for
the ship builder and/or facility owner to utilize a specific testing
entity as required in 46 CFR 161.002-6(a), Testing Requirements, which
states that ``[d]evices must be tested and listed for fire service by
an accepted independent laboratory, as accepted in accordance with
Sec.  159.010 of this subchapter, or by a NRTL as set forth in 29 CFR
1910.7.'' The Coast Guard disagrees. Certain safety equipment installed
or carried on U.S flag MODUs and foreign flag MODUs operating on the
U.S. OCS must be type approved by the Coast Guard as set forth in the
applicable inspection subchapters of the U.S. shipping regulations. The
testing required to obtain these type approvals is the responsibility
of the manufacturer of the equipment and is usually done by accepted
independent laboratories. Later, when this equipment is installed on
the MODU, the installation must be inspected and approved by a
classification society and/or Coast Guard inspector. These are two
different approvals. Section 161.002 of CFR 46 applies to testing of
the equipment for Coast Guard type approval. Under this section,
manufacturers seeking type approval of their equipment must have the
equipment tested by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast
Guard in accordance with Sec.  159.010 or by an NRTL accepted by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under 29 CFR
1910.7. This final rule gives the equipment manufacturer the additional
option of using an NRTL. These tests are different from the initial
acceptance tests of safety equipment after installation on vessels,
including MODUs, which are not affected by this provision. Instead,
acceptance tests of individual installations of type approved systems
on inspected vessels will continue to be carried out by classification
societies and/or Coast Guard inspectors.
    One commenter endorsed the Coast Guard's proposal to allow the
different components of alarm and detection systems to be approved
individually under the ``device method'' in 46 CFR 161.002-19, or
continue to be approved collectively under the current ``system
method'' in 46 CFR 161.002-18. The Coast Guard acknowledges this
comment.
2. Grandfathering and Compliance Period
    The Coast Guard received two comments on grandfathering and the
2\1/2\ year compliance period. One commenter stated that the 2\1/2\
year period proposed in 46 CFR 76.27-1; 76.27-80; 76.30-1; 76.33-1;
76.35-1, and 161.002-4 for compliance with the new fire alarm and
detection system regulations is inadequate, and requested that the
Coast Guard consider providing a longer compliance period. The Coast
Guard agrees. The Coast Guard is extending the compliance period for
the grandfathering of existing fire detection and alarm installations
and approvals from 2\1/2\ years to five years. This longer compliance
period should provide fire alarm and detection system users and
manufacturers enough time to comply with the new regulations. In
extending the compliance period, the Coast Guard considered that the
new fire alarm and detection regulations were proposed in order to
harmonize with voluntary consensus standards and not to address a
perceived safety deficiency. Similarly, the Coast Guard will extend the
period for completing approval programs under the current criteria from
180 days to 1 year, as specified in 46 CFR 161.002-4.
    The same commenter found the manner in which the Coast Guard chose
to organize the NPRM's discussion of changes on the grandfathering
clause and compliance period for the fire alarm and detection
regulations to be confusing and requested the time periods be in
numbered paragraphs. Upon review of the discussion in the NPRM (see
Section V. A. 4.,

``Grandfathering and 2 and \1/2\ year Compliance Period''), the Coast
Guard concurs that the paragraphs in this discussion were confusing and
clarifies the discussion of the grandfathering and compliance clauses
set forth in 46 CFR 76.27-1, 76.27-80, 76.30-1, 76.33-1, 76.35-1, and
161.002-4 as follows: (1) Existing systems. These existing fire alarm
and detection systems (other than certain smoke sampling systems) may
be kept and used for the life of the vessel unless and until they are
altered. Guidance on what is considered a mere repair versus changes
that constitute an altered alarm and detection system is found in 46
CFR 76.27-80(d). Owners and operators are encouraged to contact the
local Coast Guard Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) if there
is a question on whether a system will be considered altered or
repaired. (2) Systems installed during the 5-year compliance period.
New systems installed or existing systems altered within five years of
the effective date of the final rule will be allowed to use systems
meeting the requirements in place just prior to the effective date of
the final rule for the life of the vessel unless and until they are
altered after the 5-year compliance period. (3) Systems installed after
5-year compliance period. New systems and altered systems installed or
altered five years after the effective date of the final rule will have
to meet the new regulation requirements and use systems approved under
the new approval criteria.

B. Comments Concerning Fire Extinguishers

1. Ratings
    The Coast Guard received ten comments on ratings. One commenter
agreed with the Coast Guard's action to replace the Coast Guard-unique
fire extinguisher rating system with the performance-based fire
extinguisher rating system of UL 711, ``Standard for Rating and Testing
of Fire Extinguishers'' referenced in 46 CFR 162.028-2 and 162.039-2.
The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment.
    In contrast, another commenter questioned the replacement of the
existing Coast Guard weight-based fire extinguisher rating system,
circa 1952, with the UL 711 fire extinguisher rating system. The
commenter was concerned that the application and coverage of fire
extinguishers for vessel fires will be compromised. This commenter
raised five specific issues, which we address separately in the next
paragraph. The Coast Guard disagrees that the adoption of the UL 711
rating system will compromise fire safety on vessels. While we agree
that the 1952 Coast Guard extinguishing rating system was valid and
useful, maintaining a separate rating system is not warranted in light
of the general and broad acceptance of the UL 711 rating system, the
demonstrated effectiveness of the UL 711 system, and the potential for
confusion caused by having a separate rating system for marine use.
Moreover, any differences between the two rating systems were taken
into account by the Coast Guard in its development of the new
requirements for the number, location, size, and type of fire
extinguishers that must be carried on vessels, so the same level of
fire safety is maintained under the new regulations. For example, see
46 CFR 76.50-10, Table 76.50-10(a).
    Turning to the specific issues cited by the commenter, the first
issue concerns changes over time in the UL 711 rating system for Class
A fire extinguishers, leading to different ratings for the same size
extinguishers depending on the year of manufacture. The Coast Guard
acknowledges that the UL 711 Class A rating system has changed more
than once over the years, whereas the Coast Guard rating system has
not. However, such changes may be in response to changes in technology
or the end user market and are subject to consensus review. Thus, such
changes are the reason the maritime industry will benefit from the
incorporation of the consensus-based, voluntary UL 711 standard rather
than being a reason not to adopt the standard.
    Similarly, the second issue concerns two changes to the UL 711
rating system of Class B fire extinguishers, leading to higher recent
ratings for the same size extinguishers. Again, these changes reflect
changes in technology and are subject to consensus review; these are
not a reason not to incorporate the UL 711 standard.
    The third issue concerns the test that is used in the UL 711
standard to rate Class B extinguishers, wherein professional test
operators extinguish heptane (a flammable liquid) fires in open, flat
and unobstructed test pans. Specifically, the commenter is concerned
that this test covers only one fire scenario and that the tests on
which the rating is based are too difficult for most novices to
accomplish. The Coast Guard acknowledges that the UL 711 Class B fire
extinguisher ratings are based on only one fire scenario and that the
test results reflect the skill of the professional test operators.
However, the UL 711 rating system is an effective way of broadly
ranking the effectiveness of various extinguishers on Class B fires in
a consistent and repeatable manner, carried out by a professional
laboratory. Moreover, the Coast Guard's new rules on the number,
location, sizes and types of fire extinguishers required onboard for
various hazards take into account the rating process.
    The fourth issue concerns some extinguisher standards moving away
from numerical ratings for Class B fires and instead specifying minimum
agent capacities and flow rates for certain fire scenarios. The
commenter cites NFPA 10 as requiring minimum quantities and flow rates
for certain hazards. While NFPA 10 does specify quantities and flow
rates of agents for certain hazards, it still relies on the fire test
standard of UL 711 in its general prescriptions for the size and
placement of extinguishers for general fire hazards. Again, the Coast
Guard's new rules on the number, location, sizes and types of fire
extinguishers required onboard for various hazards take into account
the expected capabilities of extinguishers classified according to the
fire test standards of UL 711.
    The fifth issue concerns the commenter's views that the UL 711 test
for electrical conductivity is inadequate because it measures the
conductivity across the fire extinguishers' discharge stream and not
across a pool of the extinguishing agent, and that use of extinguishers
approved under the standard could be dangerous. The Coast Guard
disagrees. The Coast Guard believes that the UL 711 test adequately
measures electrical conductivity of extinguishing agents, that the
extinguishers are safe when used properly, and the Coast Guard is not
aware of any casualty analysis demonstrating the inadequacy of the UL
711 conductivity test. Moreover, as a voluntary consensus standard, the
UL 711 test has broad acceptance and is almost universally used in
domestic residential, municipal and industrial applications to good
effect.
    Another commenter noted that UL 711 is not a certification standard
and therefore, those laboratories referenced would strictly be testing
laboratories. The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment and notes that
the regulations in question, 46 CFR 162.028-2 and 162.039-2, refer to
``approval tests.'' The commenter added that the appropriate references
to the fire extinguisher certification standards are ANSI/UL 8, ANSI/UL
154, ANSI/UL 299, ANSI/UL 626, and ANSI/UL 2129. The Coast Guard
acknowledges these designations; however, per guidance from the Office
of the Federal Register stating that UL published documents must be
incorporated by reference as UL

documents, the Coast Guard will not add ``ANSI'' in the title of these
documents since they are not ANSI published documents.
    The same commenter recommends that the requirements in 46 CFR
162.039-3(b) be revised to be consistent with the UL 8 (Section 6.11),
UL 154 (Section 6.10), UL 299 (Section 6.11), UL 626 (Section 6.11),
and UL 2129 (Section 6.11) such that semi-portable fire extinguishers
are designated based on overall weight of 60 pounds rather than 50
pounds. The Coast Guard is maintaining the weight limit at which fire
extinguishers are designated as semi-portable at 50 pounds. The 50-
pound weight limit was chosen to harmonize with the 23 kg portable
extinguisher limit that is prescribed by the International Code for
Fire Safety Systems (``FSS Code''). U.S.-flagged vessels engaged in
international trade are required to meet the International Convention
for Safety of Life at Sea (``SOLAS'') and FSS Code regulations.
    One commenter endorsed the Coast Guard's effort to reduce
unnecessary complexity and confusion for fire equipment standards on
vessels by providing an efficient approach to regulating fire
extinguishers through less complex carriage requirements and
incorporation of the UL rating system. The Coast Guard acknowledges
this comment.
2. Maintenance Requirements
    The Coast Guard received five comments on the new maintenance
requirements. One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard identify
acceptable training organizations to certify personnel before they are
allowed to maintain and recharge fire extinguishers. We disagree. In
the Coast Guard's experience, service providers who are licensed and
certified in the local communities have proven reliable and there does
not appear to be a need to change this.
    One commenter endorsed the Coast Guard's action of requiring an
annual inspection of portable fire extinguishers by qualified service
personnel while allowing the appropriate vessel crew members to perform
the required monthly visual inspection of portable fire extinguishers.
The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment.
    Another commenter suggested that our regulations account for the
different fire extinguisher designs, special types of service
equipment, and personnel training required to service them. While the
Coast Guard acknowledges that different types of fire extinguishers may
require different equipment and techniques to service and recharge
them, we have relied upon service providers who are licensed and
certified by local authorities. This practice has proven to be reliable
and there does not appear to be a need to change it.
    One commenter expressed concern with the requirements in 33 CFR
145.01 and 46 CFR 107.235 and several other regulations which state
that fire extinguisher servicing agencies are required to be certified
by the state or local jurisdiction, suggesting that this would be
problematic on waters bordered by multiple jurisdictions. The Coast
Guard agrees with the commenter. We did not intend to specify any
particular jurisdiction but rather want to ensure that the
certification is conducted by an appropriate authority having
jurisdiction (AHJ) to perform the certifications. The Coast Guard has
revised these regulations by changing ``the'' to ``a,'' to state that
``[c]ertification or licensing by a state or local jurisdiction as a
fire extinguisher servicing agency will be accepted by the Coast Guard
as meeting the personnel certification requirements of NFPA 10 for
annual maintenance and recharging of cylinders.''
    One commenter endorsed requiring qualified service personnel
certified by local AHJs to conduct annual inspections of fire
extinguishers, while endorsing vessel crew members to perform monthly
visual inspections of fire extinguishers. The Coast Guard acknowledges
this comment.
3. Spare-Extinguisher Requirements
    The Coast Guard received three comments on the new spare-
extinguisher requirements. One commenter suggested that the new spare
extinguisher requirements must specifically address details of the
procedures and equipment for recharging spent fire extinguishers. This
comment mentioned three specific issues, which we address in the
following paragraph. In general, however, the Coast Guard disagrees
that the requirements for spare extinguishers require detailed
regulations relating to recharging fire extinguishers. The spare fire
extinguisher requirements in 46 CFR 34.50-10(a), 76.50-10(a), 95.50-
10(a), 108.495, 169.567(a), and 193.50-10(a) refer to the number of
complete and ready-to-use fire extinguisher units that must be carried
on a vessel. These regulations do not address the carriage of spare
charges for extinguishers; therefore, it is unnecessary to include
spare-recharge requirements in these regulations.
    Turning to the specific issues cited by this commenter, the first
is a suggestion that the spare extinguisher regulations establish which
types of fire extinguishers may be recharged and serviced by crews
underway. First, as mentioned above, the new spare extinguisher
regulations refer to complete units and not spare charges. Second,
while the Coast Guard acknowledges that some types of fire
extinguishers are more easily recharged than others, there have been no
indications that existing practices warrant regulatory change. Instead,
the Coast Guard will continue to rely on the AHJs to certify personnel
to recharge extinguishers, and to rely on these certified personnel to
recharge the extinguishers properly.
    The third issue raised is that the number of spare fire
extinguishers should take into account the different storage, recharge,
service and calibration requirements for the different types of fire
extinguishers carried. Under the new regulations, however, required
spares must be complete and ready-to-go fire extinguisher units. Any
spare recharges that may be carried onboard are surplus to this
requirement and need not be addressed in the regulations.

C. Comments Concerning Other Fire Protection Equipment

1. Spanner Wrench Carriage Requirements
    The Coast Guard received two comments on the spanner wrench
carriage requirements. One commenter agrees with the revisions in 46
CFR 181.310 that will allow 46 CFR subchapter T vessel operators to use
two 1\1/2\ inch-diameter firehoses at external vessel locations instead
of one 2\1/2\ inch hose. The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment.
    The same commenter agreed with our requirements to install spanner
wrenches at all 1\1/2\ inch fire hydrants; however, the organization
represented by the commenter, expressed concern with the 30-day
compliance period upon the publication of this rule. The organization
noted that small passenger vessels comprise half of the inspected U.S.-
flagged vessel fleet and that information dissemination, purchase, and
installation all have an impact on a reasonable response time. When the
current rules for 46 CFR Subchapter T small passenger vessels were
written, we inadvertently omitted the requirement to have spanner
wrenches at all 1\1/2\ inch hydrants. The commenter suggests that a
more appropriate interval for compliance might be 60 days or the date
of the vessel's first annual inspection after this final rule is
published, or whichever is later. The Coast Guard agrees with the
commenter

and will revise the regulations in 46 CFR 118.310 and 181.310 to
establish a 180-day compliance period.
2. Use of Non-Metallic Pipe
    One commenter agreed with the revisions in 46 CFR 182.720 that will
allow 46 CFR subchapter T vessels to use non-metallic piping in non-
vital systems per the requirements in 46 CFR 56.60-25(a)(3), as an
alternative to those prescribed in subchapter T. The Coast Guard
acknowledges this comment.
3. Use of Plastic Pipe
    One commenter noted that the requirement in 46 CFR 56.60-25(a)(7)
limits the certification of plastic pipe being used for potable water
to certain laboratories. It was not our intent to unnecessarily exclude
any appropriately qualified independent laboratories. Therefore, the
Coast Guard is amending the requirement in 46 CFR 56.60-25(a)(7) to
require ``[p]ipe that is to be used for potable water must bear the
appropriate certification mark of a nationally-recognized, ANSI-
accredited third-party certification laboratory'' rather than referring
to one particular set of laboratories.
4. Sprinkler System Requirements
    The Coast Guard received one comment on 46 CFR 76.25-1,
``Application.'' The commenter suggested that in addition to requiring
Chapter 25 of NFPA 13, ``Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems'' (2010 Edition), for the design and installation of sprinkler
systems, the Coast Guard should also require sprinkler systems to meet
the design and installation requirements found in NFPA 15, ``Standard
for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection,'' and NFPA 16,
``Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water
Spray Systems.'' The Coast Guard disagrees. Chapter 25 of NFPA 13 is
specifically directed to the unique requirements of marine, onboard,
fixed fire extinguishing systems. In contrast, neither NFPA 15 nor NFPA
16 has such specific sections dealing with specifically address marine
installations. Although most shore side fire protection engineering
principles are adaptable to marine use, nevertheless the design and
operating environment of ships is different enough to warrant special
consideration. For instance, marine layout and configuration is
different from buildings, and the marine environment is harsher due to
salt air, salt water, vibrations and rough seas. Thus, fire
extinguishing systems must be adapted to this environment.
5. Carbon Dioxide Fire Extinguishing System Requirements
    The Coast Guard received one comment on 46 CFR 147.65, ``Carbon
dioxide and Halon fire extinguishing systems.'' The commenter suggested
that the Coast Guard extend the visual inspection requirements of Halon
1301 fire extinguishing systems to clean agent fire extinguishing
systems. The Coast Guard disagrees. Halon 1301 fire extinguishing
systems no longer need to be periodically emptied, hydrostatically
tested, and refilled. In part, this is because the international ban on
the production of Halon 1301 requires carefully controlled reclamation
and collection of Halon 1301, making the emptying and refilling of
Halon 1301 cylinders expensive and impractical for vessel owners.
Instead, this testing will be replaced with a visual inspection. This
change was made to avoid the risk of accidentally releasing Halon, an
ozone-depleting agent that is very harmful to the atmosphere. As an
alternative, halocarbon clean agents may be visually inspected per the
existing regulations in 46 CFR 147.67. However, the hydrostatic testing
method is being kept for the inert gas clean agents, in keeping with
the recommendations of NFPA 2001, ``Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems'' (2012), which is a consensus standard.
6. Portable Foam Applicators
    One commenter agreed with the Coast Guard's action to allow the use
of UL 162, ``Standard for Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates,''
(Seventh Edition) for the type approval of portable foam applicators
found in 46 CFR 162.163-3 and 162.163.-4. The Coast Guard acknowledges
this comment.
7. Independent Laboratories
    Two commenters endorsed the standards in 46 CFR 159.010-3 for the
acceptance of independent laboratories. These comments are
acknowledged.

D. General Comments

    The Coast Guard received nine comments on the NPRM that we have
categorized as general comments. Below we discuss the comments and our
responses.
1. Testing Laboratories
    One commenter noted that the list of OSHA nationally recognized
testing laboratories referenced in ``Table 46 CFR 34.50-10(a) Portable
and Semi-Portable Extinguishers'' footnote 13 should have included UL.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that UL is listed as an OSHA NRTL (see
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nrtllist.html). No change in
footnote 13 is required in response to this correction since the
footnote only refers to OSHA NRTLs in general, and does not list them.
2. Incorporation by Reference
    One commenter endorsed the Coast Guard's incorporation by reference
of UL 8 ``Standard for Foam Fire Extinguishers,'' UL 154 ``Standard for
Safety for Carbon-Dioxide Fire Extinguishers,'' UL 299 ``Standard for
Safety for Dry Chemical Fire Extinguishers,'' UL 626 ``Standard for
Safety for Water Fire Extinguishers'' and UL 2129 ``Standard for
Halocarbon Agent Fire Extinguishers'' for the testing and labeling of
fire extinguishers in 46 CFR 162.028-2 and 162.039-2. The Coast Guard
acknowledges this comment.
    One commenter advised us that the title to UL 626 was changed to
``Standard for Safety for Water Fire Extinguishers.'' In response, the
Coast Guard has amended the title of UL 626 to reflect the correct name
of the standard.
3. Acceptance of Equipment Approved to Solas Requirements as Equivalent
to CFR Requirements
    One commenter supported the Coast Guard's recognition and
acceptance of certain equipment, materials, and components approved
under SOLAS. The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment. However, the
commenter requested to know how industry could alleviate any possible
conflicts that may exist in other regulations and in published
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars with regard to the SOLAS/
Coast Guard equivalency provisions referenced in the NPRM (e.g., 33 CFR
140.15 (b), which requires specific Coast Guard type approval). The
Coast Guard does not detect a conflict. Where Coast Guard regulations
require type approval of equipment they clearly state such approval
shall be made by the Commandant of the Coast Guard. This is in accord
with SOLAS, which has regulations that call for approved equipment, but
leaves the approval of the equipment to the Administration, which in
the United States means the Commandant, for vessels and MODUs under the
United States' flag. The new rules simplify which standards must be
used for the approval of materials and equipment for use on domestic
vessels by allowing these vessels an option to have structural fire
protection in accordance with SOLAS and applicable FTP Code provisions,
and by adopting FTP Code and FSS Code provisions for certain

types of fire extinguishing and detecting equipment. This is not a
blanket adoption of these international standards for the approval of
all materials and equipment on domestic vessels. However, the
applicable regulations must be consulted for specific situations,
especially if the SOLAS option for structural fire protection is not
selected. Interested parties also are referred to the applicable
regulations, and NVIC 06-05, Unified Interpretations of SOLAS Chapter
II-2, the FSS Code, the FTP Code and related fire test procedures, and
NVIC 9-97, CH1, Guide to Structural Fire Protection.
4. Harmonization
    The Coast Guard received four comments regarding harmonization with
national and/or international standards.
    While endorsing the new fire extinguisher regulations, one
commenter expressed concern about the fire protection, detection, and
extinguishing equipment provisions for harmonizing Coast Guard
requirements with international standards because they are so complex
that it is difficult to determine exactly how they impact towboats that
operate only in domestic inland waters. If these standards do apply to
such vessels, the commenter requested that the Coast Guard extend the
comment period and hold public meetings to better explore the impacts
of these revisions on inland towing vessels to ensure that
international standards are not automatically applied to inland U.S.
mariners and vessel operations since their operating environment is
drastically different. The commenter added that it seems as though
there are no direct impacts to the domestic towboat industry; however,
the commenter urged the Coast Guard to ensure that any future
considerations to apply international standards to domestic-only
vessels be done only after discussions with domestic inland towing
vessel operators. The Coast Guard acknowledges the commenter's
concerns. Where international SOLAS or consensus standards apply to
domestic vessels in the rule, these standards provide flexibility by
allowing for regulatory alternatives to the existing regulations and do
not change the existing domestic requirements. For this reason, neither
an extension of the comment period nor a public meeting on this subject
is needed. One commenter endorsed the Coast Guard's harmonization of
standards for fire protection, detection, and extinguishing equipment.
This comment is acknowledged.
    Two commenters supported the Coast Guard's objective of harmonizing
fire protection requirements; however, consistent with that objective
and the Coast Guard's commitment to a ``one shelf, one standard
policy,'' the commenter's recommended that in the interest of safety
and regulatory efficiency, the Coast Guard and the Department of
Interior Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) should
promulgate joint fire protection requirements for OCS facilities. Both
the Coast Guard and the BSEE have statutory authority for regulation of
MODUs and facilities on the OCS. Generally, the Coast Guard regulates
the MODUs as inspected and certificated vessels, while the BSEE
regulates the MODUs when attached and engaging in drilling operations.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard and the BSEE have apportioned the
responsibilities for the regulation of the various systems associated
with MODUs between themselves as the lead agencies. Under this
apportionment, the Coast Guard is responsible for fire protection on
MODUs except for the drill floor and related areas. None of the
regulations in the current rulemaking affect the drill floor and
related areas, therefore the Coast Guard has determined that this final
rule does not conflict with any BSEE regulations. Moreover, the Coast
Guard and the BSEE systematically coordinate so as to promulgate
regulations that foster fire safety, among other objectives, in an
efficient manner.
5. Preemption
    One commenter agrees with the revisions to existing regulations and
the issuance of new regulations that preempt state and local regulation
with regard to fire protection, detection, extinguishing equipment, and
materials on several types of vessels. These vessels include inspected
vessels, uninspected vessels, uninspected commercial fishing vessels,
towing vessels, deepwater ports, MODUs, and OCS facilities. This
commenter urged the Coast Guard to add specific regulatory language
stating that the requirements in 46 CFR subchapters H, K, and T
completely preempt state and local regulations. The Coast Guard
acknowledges this comment, and refers to the preemption section of this
preamble below which is consistent with applicable law.

V. Summary of Changes From NPRM

    Changes made in the final rule in response to comments are
discussed in detail above in Section IV, ``Discussion of Comments and
Changes''. Additional changes are discussed individually below.
    The Coast Guard has added a comma to sections 46 CFR 76.10-10(b)(2)
and 95.10-10(b)(2) to make clear that one wye connection supplies two
1\1/2\ inch hoses. Section 193.10-10(b) of Title 46 of the CFR already
had this comma.
    In 46 CFR 76.10-10(d), the existing requirement that there be
enough hydrants such that two hose streams reach all parts of the
vessel accessible to passengers and crew other than machinery and cargo
spaces was inadvertently deleted. We are restoring this two-hose-stream
requirement in the final rule.
    In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed that the number of spare fire
extinguishers that must be carried on domestic vessels be reduced from
50 percent of the number of extinguishers required to as low as 10
percent. We also sought specific comments on the appropriate percentage
of spares necessary, along with a brief explanation. Because we
received no specific comments or suggested percentages of spares in
response, we are setting the percentage of spares required at 10
percent in the final rule based on the rationale set forth in the NPRM
that a reduction in the number of spares required is warranted by the
enhanced maintenance provided by the new regulations and by the ease in
the ability to source spares when needed. The tables that specify the
10 percent spare requirement are 46 CFR 34.50-10(a), 76.50-10(a),
95.50-10(a), and 108.495. Tables to 46 CFR 132.220 and 193.50-10(a) are
already set at the 10 percent requirement rate. Other fire extinguisher
tables do not reference spares, so they remain unchanged.
    Spacing and indentation have been changed for the ``Spares'' row in
the required fire extinguishers tables in order to clarify that the
``Spares'' row is a separate category and not part of the category
immediately above it. This change was made to the tables to 46 CFR
76.50-10(a), 95.50-10(a), 108.495, 132.220, and 193.50-10(a). Table to
46 CFR 34.50-10(a) was already correctly spaced.
    In response to comments, the Coast Guard revised 46 CFR 56.60-25(7)
to allow all nationally-recognized, ANSI-accredited, third-party
certification laboratories to be used to certify plastic pipe carrying
potable water, rather than specific laboratories.
    In response to comments, the Coast Guard revised the following
sections to clarify that any appropriate AHJ can be used: See 33 CFR
145.01(b)(1), and 149.408(b); and 46 CFR 25.30-10(b), 31.10-18(a)(1),
91.25-20(a)(1)(i),

107.235(a)(1), 169.247(a)(1)(i), 176.810(b)(1)(i), and 189.25-
20(a)(1)(i).
    In response to comments specifically requesting a change in the
compliance period, we revised the following sections to extend the
compliance period for new and altered detection and alarm systems from
2\1/2\ years to 5 years: 46 CFR 76.27-1, 76.27-80, 76.30-1, 76-33-1(a)
& (b), and 76.35-1(b). Furthermore, the Coast Guard revised 46 CFR
161.002-4(b) and (c) to extend the allowable period for obtaining
approvals of detection and alarm systems based on the provisions in
place prior to the effective date of this rule.
    The Coast Guard revised sections 46 CFR 118.310 and 181.310 to
extend the compliance period for obtaining 1\1/2\ inch spanner wrenches
from 30 to 180 days from date of publication of the final rule in
response to comments.
    As a result of one comment, the Coast Guard revised the following
sections to correct the name of UL 626 to ``Standard for Safety for
Water Fire Extinguishers:'' 46 CFR 162.028-1(b)(4), 162.028-3(a)(4),
162.039-1(c)(4), and 162.039-3(a)(4).
    To harmonize this regulation with a separate and concurrent
rulemaking for commercial towing vessels (see the Inspection of Towing
Vessels notice of proposed rulemaking (76 FR 49976, August 11, 2011)),
the Coast Guard deleted requirements regarding excess non-approved fire
detection systems onboard uninspected towing vessels in proposed 46 CFR
27.203(b)(2) and 27.203(b)(3), respectively. Specifically, the
requirements for installation of these systems to conform to 46 CFR
chapter I, subchapter J, (Electrical Engineering) and for the Coast
Guard to review wiring plans were removed because they exceed those
found in the towing vessels proposed rulemaking. Proposed Sec.
27.203(b)(4) was renumbered to Sec.  27.203(b)(2). The Coast Guard does
not require these excess systems to be inspected aboard uninspected
vessels therefore the requirement for testing and inspection was
removed from new Sec.  27.203(b)(2) in the final rule.
    Commercial fishing vessels are also uninspected. Proposed 46 CFR
28.155(a)(2) and 28.155(a)(3), mirrored the proposed Sec. Sec.
27.203(b)(2) and 27.203(b)(3) above and were likewise removed to
maintain consistency with uninspected towing vessels. Additionally,
proposed Sec.  28.155(a)(4) was renumbered to Sec.  28.155(a)(2), and
the statement requiring testing and inspection was removed from new
Sec.  28.155(a)(2) for the same reason as discussed for proposed Sec.
27.203(b)(4) above.
    The Coast Guard has the authority to test and inspect any and all
systems required under the various inspection subchapters in both Title
33 and Title 46 CFR. Superfluous proposed requirements in 33 CFR
149.404(b)(4); and 46 CFR 34.01-5(b)(4), 76.01-5(b)(4), 95.01-5(b)(4),
118.120(b)(4), 132.340(b)(4), 167.45-30(b)(4), 181.120(b)(4), and
193.01-5(b)(4) were subsequently removed in this final rule.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget. A final Regulatory Assessment follows.
    As previously noted in Section IV, ``Discussion of Comments and
Changes'', we received 44 comments in response to the NPRM. These
comments were from several maritime organizations, international
associations, private companies, and individuals. Eight comments
concerned fire alarm and detection systems, 18 comments concerned fire
extinguishers, nine comments concerned other fire protection equipment,
and nine comments we classified as general comments. We received no
comments regarding the regulatory analysis (RA) performed for the NPRM.
Therefore, we adopt the methodology and assumptions for the costs and
benefits from the NPRM as final. However, we have updated the analysis
with the current affected population, wage rates, training costs, and
equipment cost estimates as reflected in the revised analysis below.
For brevity, we omit all items which we previously determined will
impose no new burden on industry and are not expected to result in
additional costs. For a detailed discussion refer to the January 13,
2014 NPRM publication entitled, ``Harmonization of Standards for Fire
Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment'' in the Federal
Register (79 FR 2254). The table below summarizes the elements in the
analysis that were updated between the NPRM and the final rule.

         Table 2--Summary of Changes Between NPRM and Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                 Description            Rationale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population.........  Updated estimates     Updated the 2012
                               for the affected      data pull with 2013
                               population of         data to reflect the
                               vessels, offshore     most current full
                               facilities, MODUs,    year estimates in
                               and recreational      MISLE and
                               vessels.              Recreational
                                                     Boating Statistics.
Wages.......................  Loaded wage for BLS   Updated the 2012 BLS
                               occupation code 53-   loaded wage
                               5011, Sailors and     estimates with 2013
                               Marine Oilers.        estimates.
Wages.......................  Loaded wage for BLS   Updated the 2012 BLS
                               occupation code 53-   loaded wage
                               5021, Captains,       estimates with 2013
                               Mates, and Pilots     estimates.
                               of Water Vessels.
Compliance Period...........  Compliance period     Facilitate
                               proposed in 46 CFR    harmonizing with
                               76.27-1; 76.27-80;    voluntary consensus
                               76.30-1; 76.33-1;     standards without
                               76.35-1, and          imposing additional
                               161.002-4 for new     costs on industry,
                               fire alarm and        lining up with our
                               detection system      initial assessment.
                               increased from 2\1/
                               2\-years to 5 years.
Compliance Period...........  Compliance period     Response to public
                               for carriage of       comment. No impact
                               spanner wrenches in   on initial
                               46 CFR 181.310        assessment.
                               increased from 30
                               days following
                               publication of the
                               final rule to 180
                               days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated
with this final rule. The table which follows provides a summary of the
final rule costs and benefits.

            Table 3--Summary of the Impacts of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population...............  Affected population varies by CFR
                                     title and subchapter, see Table 4
                                     below.
Total and Annualized Costs (7       $1.1 million total costs; $156,588
 percent discount rate).             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 availability of tools and
                                     equipment during emergency
                                     situations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule contains provisions amending the CFR requirements
for fire protection equipment, materials, components, and systems. In
the NPRM, Section V, ``Discussion of Proposed Rule'', laid out the
proposed changes and the rationale for those changes. The provisions
fell 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
provisions, both harmonizing and non-harmonizing, were not expected to
impose additional costs upon the industry. However, we identified three
provisions which we expect to have a cost impact on industry:
    (1) Sample extraction type smoke detection systems requirements,
which specify 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;
    (2) Fire extinguisher carriage and maintenance requirements, which
eliminate the current Coast Guard-specific rating system for fire
extinguisher classification, and specify that individuals performing
annual inspection, maintenance, or necessary recharging of fire
extinguishers must be certified in accordance with the standards of
NFPA 10; and,
    (3) Spanner wrench carriage requirements for small passenger
vessels, which specify that all subchapter K and T vessels carry a
spanner wrench for each 1\1/2\ inch diameter hose installation.
    Based on these elements, Table 4 shows the total affected
population and the numbers of vessels, offshore facilities, and MODUs
organized by CFR subchapter. For each of the three provisions noted
before, we identified the affected population and the respective
economic impacts.

                                          Table 4--Affected Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CFR Title                       Subchapter                  Topic                 Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33...........................................               N   Outer Continental Shelf                    8,573
                                                                 Facilities.
33...........................................              NN   Deepwater Ports.................              56
46...........................................                C  Uninspected Vessels.............      11,232,060
                                                                  Towing Vessels                           7,961
                                                                  Uninspected Vessels                     86,370
                                                                  Fishing Vessels                         34,723
                                                                  Recreational Vessels *              11,103,006
46...........................................               D   Tank Vessels....................           5,362
46...........................................               F   Marine Engineering..............             n/a
46...........................................               H   Passenger Vessels...............             308
46...........................................               I   Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels.           1,750
46...........................................             I-A   Mobile Offshore Drilling Units               259
                                                                 (MODU).
46...........................................               J   Electrical Engineering..........             n/a
46...........................................               K   Small Passenger Vessels Carrying             591
                                                                 more than 150 Passengers or
                                                                 with Overnight Accommodations
                                                                 for more than 49 Passengers.
46...........................................               L   Offshore Supply Vessels.........           1,548
46...........................................               N   Dangerous Cargoes...............              42
46...........................................               Q   Equipment, Construction and                  n/a
                                                                 Material Specifications and
                                                                 Approval.
46...........................................               R   Nautical Schools................             127
46...........................................               T   Small Passenger Vessels (Under            11,157
                                                                 100 Gross Tons).
46...........................................               U   Oceanographic Research Vessels..             888
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mechanically propelled recreational vessels
Source: USCG MISLE database for all non-recreational populations. Recreational vessel population is from
  COMDTPUB P16754.27--2013 Recreational Boating Statistics, Table 37, available at http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/AssetManager/2013RecBoatingStats.pdf.

Costs
    In the following discussion, we describe the impacts for each of
the three categories for the provisions listed in the previous
paragraphs. As previously noted, we received no comments regarding the
RA we performed for the NPRM. We therefore adopt the methodology and
cost assumptions as final. However, we have updated this section using
2014 population estimates, wage rates, training costs, and equipment
costs.
(1) Sample Extraction Type Smoke Detection Systems
    This requirement implements changes regarding the ventilation of
potentially toxic or flammable gases. Previous regulations allowed
systems to route these potentially toxic or flammable gases or smoke
from the cargo hold to the bridge so that a watchstander could detect a
problem by smell. International consensus standards consider this
practice 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 new provisions, found in 46 CFR 76.33,
require that 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 on 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 Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)
database which documents the types of fire detection systems installed
on vessels, the affected population for this provision includes three
vessels: two active SOLAS vessels built before May 25, 1980, and one
active non-SOLAS vessel.
    Information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
indicates that the loaded mean hourly labor cost (wages and benefits)
is $28 for Sailors and Marine Oilers (BLS occupation code 53-5011 \1\).
This loaded wage rate includes the hourly base wage rates of $19.56
multiplied by a load factor of 1.43 (rounded).\2\ We estimate the cost
per vessel to comply with this provision at $1,243. This includes 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 $28.00 per hour x 6 hours
= $168). We assume that one of the affected vessels will comply each
year (given 5 years to meet compliance) beginning in the third year
after publication of this final rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.bls.gov/oes/2013/may/oes535011.htm.
    \2\ Load factor is determined by dividing the reported total
average compensation for all private industry workers of $30.11 per
hour worked as reported in June, 2014 by the wages and salaries per
hour worked of $21.02. ``Table 9. Private industry workers, by major
occupational group: employer costs per hours worked for employee
compensation and costs as a percentage of total compensation, 2004-
2014,'' available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ececqrtn.txt.
    \3\ We anticipate that vessel owners will use the first two
years, 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 provision to be about $2,849 and $3,314 discounted
at 7 and 3 percent, respectively. We estimate the annualized costs to
be approximately $695 and $724 discounted at 7 and 3 percent,
respectively. Table 5 summarizes the costs of this provision to
industry.

                 Table 5--Requirement for Routing Potentially Toxic or Flammable Gases or Smoke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total cost all vessels
                                     Affected      Avg. cost per -----------------------------------------------
             Year(s)                  vessels         vessel                         7 percent       3 percent
                                                                   Undiscounted      discount        discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................               0          $1,243              $0              $0              $0
2...............................               0           1,243               0               0               0
3...............................               1           1,243           1,243           1,015           1,138
4...............................               1           1,243           1,243             948           1,104
5...............................               1           1,243           1,243             886           1,072
6-10............................               0           1,243               0               0               0
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals *....................               3              --           3,729           2,849           3,314
    Annualized..................  ..............  ..............  ..............             695             724
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding

(2) Fire Extinguishers
    This rule makes 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.
Ratings: UL 711 and NFPA 10:2010
    These provisions apply to all the affected populations carrying
portable and semi-portable fire extinguishers listed in Table 4,
including recreational vessels. These provisions eliminate the current
Coast Guard-specific rating system for fire extinguisher
classifications, in favor of the classifications specified in the
relevant national industry standards. The Coast Guard rating system
relied on a prescriptive 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 of Title
46 of the CFR require labeling of approved extinguishers with specific
language which includes the Coast Guard rating of the extinguisher. As
a result, the Coast Guard rating system was a duplicative and confusing
requirement that was inconsistent with current industry standards.
    With this change, manufacturers of fire extinguishers no longer
have to label their extinguishers with the Coast Guard rating.
Extinguisher labeling will remain consistent with current industry
formats and styles, and manufacturers will not need to redesign their
current labels. This simplifies labeling requirements for manufacturers
and limits confusion for purchasers of fire extinguishers for marine
use. Currently, all fire extinguishers with Coast Guard-specific
approval are marked with a UL

rating. Therefore, 46 CFR 162.028-4 and 162.039-4 will no longer
require labeling of approved extinguishers with Coast Guard rating
language. The removal of these requirements eliminates confusion and
has no impact on the approval procedure. We anticipate that
manufacturers will continue using their current supply of labels and
will only remove the Coast Guard-specific rating information when they
order new labels. Industry therefore will not incur any additional
expense from this requirement.
    The changes also include adjusting the current carriage
requirements for fire extinguishers 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 previously noted in the NPRM, section ``V.
Discussion of Proposed Rule'', we established close correlation between
Coast Guard ratings and the NFPA 10 and UL 711 ratings, so that the
number and relative size of extinguishers does not change. In some
cases, however, a slightly larger or smaller extinguisher may be
required.
    This rule does 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, replacement fire
extinguishers will have to meet the requirements of this rule. New
vessels, constructed after the publication of the final rule, are
required to be equipped with extinguishers that conform to the new
requirements.
    Whenever they become unserviceable, all portable and small semi-
portable fire extinguishers will 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 between extinguishers
approved under the previous Coast Guard standard and comparable
extinguishers rated according to 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 provisions requiring UL class fire extinguishers will affect
certain vessels using large semi-portable CO2 extinguishers
(class B-IV and B-V). Extinguishers of this size are required in
certain machinery spaces of vessels described under the different
subchapters as shown in Table 4. The Coast Guard's previous weight-
based rating system allowed CO2 extinguishers to be used
where larger semi-portable extinguishers were required. However,
CO2 extinguishers cannot meet the UL performance standards
to receive a sufficient rating to be considered equivalent to class B-
IV and B-V extinguishers under those standards, therefore semi-portable
CO2 extinguishers will no longer be permitted to be used in
these circumstances. However, as with all other extinguishers, existing
vessels do not have to replace their currently operational
extinguishers and may continue to use these extinguishers in machinery
spaces until they become unserviceable, when they will have to be
replaced with extinguishers of comparable classification under the UL
rating scale. Vessels using CO2 based extinguishers will 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 is
approximately $5,000, whereas the B-V extinguishers using other agents
range in price from $1,200 to $2,000. This cost differential will
result in a net savings \4\ for all vessels that replace these larger
CO2 extinguishers as we will not require replacement ahead
of the normal replacement schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maintenance: NFPA 10: 2010
    These provisions 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 collect or maintain records of
personnel who are currently NFPA 10 certified, so we estimated
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 can 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.
    The Coast Guard is not requiring that the vessel owners, operators,
or designated crewmembers performing monthly inspections and annual
maintenance of rechargeable fire extinguishers be NFPA 10 certified.
NFPA 10 requires that a ``certified'' person perform all annual
maintenance of rechargeable extinguishers. Under this rule, monthly
inspections can continue to be performed by the owner, operator or a
designated crewmember. For annual maintenance required by this rule
carried out by persons certified under NFPA 10, the Coast Guard will
accept the certification or licensing of a fire extinguisher servicing
company according to NFPA 10, granted by an appropriate state or local
AHJ for servicing and maintenance.
    The Coast Guard's MISLE database contains records on approximately
114,395 fire extinguishers on 17,228 U.S.-flagged vessels which may 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 assumed that all of the extinguishers are
rechargeable. We also estimated that more than 90 percent \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 90 percent is an estimate provided by subject matter
experts from Coast Guard's Lifesaving& Fire Safety Division, Office
of Design & Engineering Standards based on input from field marine
inspectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs associated with these provisions include the
certification costs for owner/operators who wish to continue performing
annual maintenance according to NFPA 10

specifications. We estimate that 10 percent or 1,723 vessels are
currently not using a private servicing company to maintain their
extinguishers. We, therefore, assume that a designated individual from
each of these vessels will continue to perform annual maintenance on
their extinguishers and will therefore need to obtain certification.
Table 6 summarizes the population of vessels and fire extinguishers, as
well as the average extinguisher count per vessel.

                                             Table 6--Affected Population for Vessels Choosing Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Existing population          Affected population (10 percent
                                                                   -----------------------------------            of existing)              Average per
                          CFR Subchapter                                                              -----------------------------------     vessel
                                                                        Vessels       Extinguishers        Vessels       Extinguishers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D--Tank Vessels...................................................           3,261             12,715             326              1,272            3.90
H--Passenger Vessels..............................................             278              8,282              28                828           29.79
I--Cargo and misc. Vessels........................................           1,609             30,674             161              3,067           19.06
I-A--MODU.........................................................              81              4,222               8                422           52.12
K--Small Passenger Carrying 150+ PAX or 49+ Overnight.............             455              3,646              46                365            8.01
L--Offshore Supply Vessels........................................             563             11,881              56              1,188           21.10
N--Dangerous Cargoes (Dry Bulk)...................................              44                323               4                 32            7.34
R--Nautical Schools...............................................              44                865               4                 87           19.66
T--Small Passenger Vessels (<100 Gross Tons)......................          10,354             38,286           1,035              3,829            3.70
U--Oceanographic Vessels..........................................              75              1,900               8                190           25.33
Unspecified.......................................................             464              1,601              46                160            3.45
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals *......................................................          17,228            114,395           1,722             11,440            6.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    NFPA 10 certification can be obtained by either taking an online
examination that lasts 2\1/2\ hours, or by attending an 8-hour seminar
concluding with an examination. Upon successful completion, 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 will be accomplished through on-the-job training. We also assume
that owners and operators will choose the least-costly and time-
consuming means of obtaining certification. Therefore, we assume that
certification will be obtained using the online method. Based on an
online price quote from Fire Protection Certification Ltd,\6\ we
estimate the cost for NFPA 10 certification using the online method of
certification to be $139 per course.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ http://www.fpcltd.com/index.html.
    \7\ http://train.fpcltd.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, information from the BLS indicates that
the loaded mean hourly labor cost (wages and benefits) is $28 (rounded)
for crew members (BLS occupation code 53-5011--Sailors and Marine
Oilers). This loaded wage rate includes the hourly base wage rates of
$19.56 multiplied by a load factor of 1.43. We assume one crew member
per vessel will be certified. We also anticipate that in the initial
year of this rule, all vessels performing their own maintenance will
have a crewmember certified. Thereafter, we anticipate that \1/3\ of
the affected population will have one crewmember certified each
year.\8\ Certification through online examination will cost
approximately $209 per mariner ($139 + (2.5 hrs x $28/hr)). The annual
cost of online examination for 10 percent of the affected population is
approximately $360,000 (undiscounted) for the first year and
approximately $120,000 (undiscounted) for the recurring years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 status 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 anticipated 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
an inspector to verify crew member training. We assume that a person in
charge of the vessel will 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 \9\ of $52 (rounded) and
an estimated annual cost of this requirement to be $3.47 per vessel
($52 x 4 minutes / 60 min/hr). We have included a detailed Paperwork
Reduction Analysis in the collection of information section of the RA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Mean hourly wage of $36.34 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 1.43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the present total
value cost at approximately $1.08 million discounted at 7 percent with
an annualized cost of approximately $154,000 discounted at 7 percent.
Table 7 summarizes the cost impact of this rule on industry.

                                    Table 7--Certification Costs for NFPA 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Undiscounted costs            Total discounted costs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                Certifications                    Total with        Online          Online
                                     per year     Cost of online   recordkeeping    examination   examination (3
                                                    examination        costs        (7 percent)      percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................           1,722        $359,898        $365,873        $341,938        $355,217

2...............................             574         119,966         121,958         106,523         114,957
3...............................             574         119,966         121,958          99,554         111,609
4...............................             574         119,966         121,958          93,041         108,358
5...............................             574         119,966         121,958          86,954         105,202
6...............................             574         119,966         121,958          81,266         102,138
7...............................             574         119,966         121,958          75,949          99,163
8...............................             574         119,966         121,958          70,981          96,275
9...............................             574         119,966         121,958          66,337          93,470
10..............................             574         119,966         121,958          61,997          90,748
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals *....................  ..............       1,439,592       1,463,493       1,084,539       1,277,136
                                                                                -------------------------------
    Annualized..................  ..............  ..............  ..............         154,414         149,719
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

(3) Spanner Wrench Carriage Requirement for Small Passenger Vessels
    These provisions require that all subchapter K and T vessels carry
a spanner wrench for each 1\1/2\ inch diameter hose installation.
According to the Coast Guard's MISLE database, there are approximately
2,613 subchapter K and T vessels with 1\1/2\ inch diameter hose
installations. The total number of 1\1/2\ inch diameter hose
installations onboard the vessels is 6,645, for an average of
approximately 2.5 hose installations per vessel. The individual
catalogue prices of spanner wrenches indicate a cost of $15 to $25
each.
    Table 8 summarizes the vessel population and the cost of the
potential distribution of spanner wrenches per vessel costs depending
on the number of 1\1/2\ inch diameter hose installations. Coast Guard
marine inspectors report that over 90 percent of subchapter K and T
vessels already have the necessary spanner wrenches. We therefore
assume that 261 vessels, or 10 percent of vessels in the affected
population, will need to purchase spanner wrenches based on the number
of 1\1/2\ inch diameter hose installations on board.

                      Table 8--Summary of Vessel Population and Potential Per-Vessel Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   10 Percent of         Costs per vessel
      Number of 1\1/2\''-hose installations        Total vessel      affected    -------------------------------
                                                       count          vessels           Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................             645              65             $15             $25
2...............................................           1,295             130              30              50
3...............................................             267              27              45              75
4...............................................             158              16              60             100
5...............................................             125              13              75             125
6-9.............................................              81               8          90-135         150-225
10-20...........................................              33               3         150-300         250-500
>20.............................................               9               1        300-$750      525-$1,250
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total *.....................................           2,613             261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 9 summarizes the total costs of this requirement to industry.
Although we increased the compliance period from 30 days to 180 days
following the publication of the rule, we still assume the costs of
this requirement to be incurred in the first year. We estimated costs
for this provision based on the average cost range of spanner wrenches
to be $20 per spanner wrench. Based on information from MISLE, there
are approximately 6,645 1\1/2\ inch diameter hose installations onboard
2,613 vessels for an average of 2.5 (rounded) 1\1/2\ inch diameter hose
installations per vessel. Based on an average of 2.5 hose installations
per vessel (as noted above, for cost calculation purposes in this
analysis we use an average cost for the wrench of $20), the average per
vessel cost is approximately $50 ($20 per unit x 2.5 units per vessel).

                           Table 9--Total Costs of Spanner Wrench-Carriage Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                10 Percent of
                                                                count of 1\1/
                                                  Affected           2\''         Wrench costs   Total * (B x C)
                                                vessels (A)     installations         (C)
                                                                     (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanner Wrench Price........................             261              665              $20          $13,290
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Summary of Total Costs From All Provisions
    The total cost of this rule stems from three provisions: (1)
Installation of a sensing device for vessels using sample extraction
fire detection methods; (2) the NFPA 10 certification costs for owners
and operators who wish to continue performing annual maintenance
themselves; and (3) the spanner wrench carriage requirement. Table 10
summarizes the total costs for these provisions and Table 11 presents
the average total discounted and annualized costs by inspection
subchapter (7 percent discount rate). Over the 10-year period of
analysis, we estimate total discounted costs of these provisions to be
approximately $1.1 million and the annualized (rounded) cost at
$156,600 using a discount rate of 7 percent.

                                                           Table 10--Estimate for Total Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Undiscounted costs                                Discounted costs
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Year                                               NFPA 10
                                                           Sample      Certification and      Spanner      Undiscounted   Total costs (7  Total costs (3
                                                         extraction      recordkeeping       wrenches       total costs      percent)        percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................              $0           $365,873         $13,290        $379,163        $354,358        $368,120
2....................................................               0            121,958                         121,958         106,523         114,957
3....................................................           1,243            121,958                         123,201         100,569         112,746
4....................................................           1,243            121,958                         123,201          93,989         109,462
5....................................................           1,243            121,958                         123,201          87,840         106,274
6....................................................                            121,958                         121,958          81,266         102,138
7....................................................                            121,958                         121,958          75,949          99,163
8....................................................                            121,958                         121,958          70,981          96,275
9....................................................                            121,958                         121,958          66,337          93,470
10...................................................                            121,958                         121,958          61,997          90,748
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals *.........................................           3,729          1,463,493          13,290       1,480,512       1,099,809       1,293,353
                                                                                -------------------------------
    Annualized.......................................                                                                            156,588         151,620
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Total Costs by CFR Subchapter
    As this 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 CFR subchapter designation in Table 11. This
summary aggregates the per-vessel costs based on a vessel's inspection
subchapter designation. The summary in Table 11 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 1,986 vessels will incur an average
annualized cost of $79 per vessel.

                        Table 11--Average Discounted Total Costs by Inspection Subchapter
                                                   [7 percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Discounted      Annualized                      Annualized
  CFR Subchapter  designation      Description    total costs (7     costs (7        Affected        costs per
                                                     percent)      percent) (A)   population (B)   vessel (A/B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.............................  Uninspected                   $0              $0             n/a             n/a
                                 Vessels.
D.............................  Tank Vessels....         205,319          29,233             326             $90
H.............................  Passenger                 18,585           2,646              29              91
                                 Vessels >100 GT.
I.............................  Cargo Vessels...         103,299          14,708             163              90
IA............................  MODU............           5,039             717               8              90
K.............................  Small Passenger           39,298           5,595              90              49
                                 Vessels.
L.............................  Offshore Supply           35,270           5,022              56              90
                                 Vessels.
N.............................  Dangerous                  2,519             359               4              90
                                 Cargoes (Dry
                                 Bulk).
R.............................  Nautical Schools           2,519             359               4              90
T.............................  Small Passenger          653,951          93,108           1,252              75
                                 Vessels.
U.............................  Oceanographic              5,039             717               8              90
                                 Research.
UNSPECIFIED...................  ................          28,971           4,125              46              90
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals *..................  ................       1,099,809         156,588           1,986           ** 79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
** Average across all vessels.

Benefits
1. Harmonization and Compliance with International and National
Standards
    The benefits of the rule include harmonization and compliance with
current international consensus standards, and harmonization with
national industry consensus standards.
    For U.S. vessels to receive SOLAS certification, they must be
constructed and maintained to international SOLAS 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 SOLAS standards
is necessary to prevent a vessel from being subject to potential
detention by Port State Control officers. Port State Control officers
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 certain equipment and materials approved to
international SOLAS standards instead of domestic standards will 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 appropriate national industry
consensus standards, this rule allows 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 the same or less costly than its current
counterpart in the marine market. Additionally, these provisions
provide additional economic efficiencies through the expansion of
markets, particularly international markets.
2. NFPA 10 Certification
    Because of its relatively large size, the shoreside fire fighting
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 a
uniform acceptable standard. 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 are 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 OSHA 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 capabilities as both a visual and audible alarm are
installed. As such, the detection system reduces detection time as the
sensitivity to gases, which indicates potential problems, is much more
sensitive 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
    The requirement for spanner wrenches ensures that the safety
equipment installed onboard vessels is available for use. These
requirements ensure that a 1\1/2\ 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 rule will 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 rule will have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we assume the maximum
potential impact any single vessel and entity will incur when
estimating costs. Table 12 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 $79. Table 11 (above)
discusses the distribution of costs by CFR subchapter and we note that
the annualized discounted costs (7 percent) range from approximately
$49 to $90.

                                                Table 12--Estimated Maximum Undiscounted First Year Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Totals (undiscounted)
                                                              Sample                      Spanner wrench -----------------------------------------------
    CFR subchapter  designation          Description        extraction     NFPA 10 costs       costs                                         Cost per
                                                               costs                                        Total costs    Vessel count       vessel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.................................  Uninspected Vessels.  ..............              $0  ..............              $0             n/a             n/a
D.................................  Tank Vessels........  ..............          69,265  ..............          69,265             326            $212
H.................................  Passenger Vessels >           $1,243           5,949  ..............           7,192              28             257
                                     100 GT.
I.................................  Cargo Vessels.......           2,486          34,208  ..............          36,694             161             228
IA................................  MODU................  ..............           1,700  ..............           1,700               8             212
K.................................  Small Passenger       ..............           9,774          $2,240          12,014              46             261
                                     Vessels.
L.................................  Offshore Supply       ..............          11,898  ..............          11,898              56             212
                                     Vessels.
N.................................  Dangerous Cargoes     ..............             850  ..............             850               4             212
                                     (Dry Bulk).
R.................................  Nautical Schools....  ..............             850  ..............             850               4             212
T.................................  Small Passenger       ..............         219,906          11,050         230,956           1,035             223
                                     Vessels.
U.................................  Oceanographic         ..............           1,700  ..............           1,700               8             212
                                     Research.
UNSPECIFIED.......................  ....................  ..............           9,774  ..............           9,774              46             212
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the 1 percent revenue listed in table 13 below. 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 13 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 12.

                                       Table 13--Estimated Distribution of Small Entities by Inspection Subchapter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Revenue for a     Count of
           CFR Subchapter designation                Number of      Average revenue     Maximum revenue       Minimum        1 percent    entities under
                                                  small entities                                              revenue         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          21,247               0
H...............................................              45         100,290,000         500,000,000         500,000          25,686               0
I...............................................             142          86,252,652       1,070,988,000          70,000          22,791               0
IA..............................................              16         242,016,333       1,767,445,000         390,000          21,247               0
K...............................................              48           5,915,538          50,000,000         110,000          26,118               0
L...............................................              18           4,532,613          20,000,000         150,000          21,247               0
N...............................................               3          27,075,000         100,000,000         500,000          21,247               0
R...............................................               6             849,996           1,549,979         200,000          21,247               0
T...............................................           1,015          12,532,100       1,000,000,000           9,000          22,315               4
U...............................................               8          27,500,000          50,000,000       5,000,000          21,247               0
UNSPECIFIED.....................................             347          46,920,905       1,390,835,000           2,000          21,247               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.

    We classify small entities using the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes for those entities that had revenue
and size data. The 2,912 small entities with data are represented by
262 different NAICS codes or categories. We used the Small Business
Administration size standards for each NAICS code to determine if a
business was small. We found that the top 10 NAICS categories represent
about 41 percent, or 1,191 of the 2,912 small entities that we
analyzed. The remaining 59 percent, or 1,721 small entities, are
represented by 252 different NAICS categories. The top 10 NAICS
categories as described by the United States Census Bureau and their
approximate revenues are presented in Table 14.

                  Table 14--Top 10 NAICS Codes and Their Minimum, Maximum, and Average Revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NAICS                      Description         Average revenue  Minimum  revenue  Maximum  revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
487210..........................  Scenic and Sightseeing          $1,944,343           $50,000       $50,000,000
                                   Transportation, Water.
488330..........................  Navigational Services to         8,345,361            44,000       500,000,000
                                   Shipping.
713990..........................  All Other Amusement and          1,102,422            36,000        69,921,582
                                   Recreation Industries.
238910..........................  Site Preparation                32,709,859           300,000     1,767,445,000
                                   Contractors.
713930..........................  Marinas.................         4,630,929            78,000        50,000,000
488390..........................  Other Support Activities        18,174,058            30,000     1,390,835,000
                                   for Water
                                   Transportation.
561990..........................  All Other Support                1,102,015            46,000        50,000,000
                                   Services.
441222..........................  Boat Dealers............        10,158,095           130,000        80,000,000
336611..........................  Ship Building and               46,894,870            99,000       500,000,000
                                   Repairing.
813410..........................  Civic and Social                 2,517,346            80,000         6,308,457
                                   Organizations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard assumes that entities will choose to minimize
revenue impacts for any given year; therefore, we estimate the revenue
impact will more closely resemble the discussion presented in Table 11.
However, based on the analysis presented in Tables 12 and 13, 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 rule will 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, does not represent
a significant economic impact on affected small entities. Therefore,
the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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

    This final rule calls 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 rule will 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 will 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.
    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 (1,722 vessel owner/operators) will 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.