# Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-15229 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** July 22, 2016 - **Citation:** 81 FR 48220 ## Text 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 202-372-1447, email Laurence.E.Fisher@uscg.mil . 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 §  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 § 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 § 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 § 27.203(b)(4) was renumbered to § 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 § 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 §§ 27.203(b)(2) and 27.203(b)(3) above and were likewise removed to maintain consistency with uninspected towing vessels. Additionally, proposed § 28.155(a)(4) was renumbered to § 28.155(a)(2), and the statement requiring testing and inspection was removed from new § 28.155(a)(2) for the same reason as discussed for proposed § 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 for the affected population of vessels, offshore facilities, MODUs, and recreational vessels Updated the 2012 data pull with 2013 data to reflect the most current full year estimates in MISLE and Recreational Boating Statistics. Wages Loaded wage for BLS occupation code 53-5011, Sailors and Marine Oilers Updated the 2012 BLS loaded wage estimates with 2013 estimates. Wages Loaded wage for BLS occupation code 53-5021, Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels Updated the 2012 BLS loaded wage estimates with 2013 estimates. Compliance Period Compliance 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 new fire alarm and detection system increased from 2 1/2 -years to 5 years Facilitate harmonizing with voluntary consensus standards without imposing additional costs on industry, lining up with our initial assessment. Compliance Period Compliance period for carriage of spanner wrenches in 46 CFR 181.310 increased from 30 days following publication of the final rule to 180 days Response to public comment. No impact on initial assessment. 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 percent discount rate) $1.1 million total costs; $156,588 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 Facilities 8,573 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 (MODU) 259 46 J Electrical Engineering n/a 46 K Small Passenger Vessels Carrying more than 150 Passengers or with Overnight Accommodations for more than 49 Passengers 591 46 L Offshore Supply Vessels 1,548 46 N Dangerous Cargoes 42 46 Q Equipment, Construction and Material Specifications and Approval n/a 46 R Nautical Schools 127 46 T Small Passenger Vessels (Under 100 Gross Tons) 11,157 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 × 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 Year(s) Affected vessels Avg. cost per vessel Total cost all vessels Undiscounted 7 percent discount 3 percent 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 extinguishers to be used where larger semi-portable extinguishers were required. However, CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 based extinguishers will be required to replace their semi-portable CO 2 extinguisher with an extinguisher that uses another extinguishing agent. To determine if there is a cost differential between the current Coast Guard-approved CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 extinguishers, because there is no way of knowing the exact number of CO 2 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 CFR Subchapter Existing population Vessels Extinguishers Affected population (10 percent of existing) Vessels Extinguishers Average per vessel 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 × $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 × 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 Year Certifications per year Undiscounted costs Cost of online examination Total with recordkeeping costs Total discounted costs Online examination (7 percent) Online examination (3 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 Number of 1 1/2 ″-hose installations Total vessel count 10 Percent of affected vessels Costs per vessel 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 × 2.5 units per vessel). Table 9—Total Costs of Spanner Wrench-Carriage Requirement Affected vessels (A) 10 Percent of count of 1 1/2 ″ installations (B) Wrench costs (C) Total * (B × C) 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 Year Undiscounted costs Sample extraction NFPA 10 Certification and recordkeeping Spanner wrenches Undiscounted total costs Discounted costs Total costs (7 percent) Total costs (3 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] CFR Subchapter designation Description Discounted total costs (7 percent) Annualized costs (7 percent) (A) Affected population (B) Annualized costs per vessel (A/B) C Uninspected Vessels $0 $0 n/a n/a D Tank Vessels 205,319 29,233 326 $90 H Passenger Vessels >100 GT 18,585 2,646 29 91 I Cargo Vessels 103,299 14,708 163 90 IA MODU 5,039 717 8 90 K Small Passenger Vessels 39,298 5,595 90 49 L Offshore Supply Vessels 35,270 5,022 56 90 N Dangerous Cargoes (Dry Bulk) 2,519 359 4 90 R Nautical Schools 2,519 359 4 90 T Small Passenger Vessels 653,951 93,108 1,252 75 U Oceanographic Research 5,039 717 8 90 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 CFR subchapter designation Description Sample extraction costs NFPA 10 costs Spanner wrench costs Totals (undiscounted) Total costs Vessel count Cost per vessel C Uninspected Vessels $0 $0 n/a n/a D Tank Vessels 69,265 69,265 326 $212 H Passenger Vessels > 100 GT $1,243 5,949 7,192 28 257 I Cargo Vessels 2,486 34,208 36,694 161 228 IA MODU 1,700 1,700 8 212 K Small Passenger Vessels 9,774 $2,240 12,014 46 261 L Offshore Supply Vessels 11,898 11,898 56 212 N Dangerous Cargoes (Dry Bulk) 850 850 4 212 R Nautical Schools 850 850 4 212 T Small Passenger Vessels 219,906 11,050 230,956 1,035 223 U Oceanographic Research 1,700 1,700 8 212 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 CFR Subchapter designation Number of small entities Average revenue Maximum revenue Minimum revenue Revenue for a 1 percent impact Count of entities under 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 Transportation, Water $1,944,343 $50,000 $50,000,000 488330 Navigational Services to Shipping 8,345,361 44,000 500,000,000 713990 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries 1,102,422 36,000 69,921,582 238910 Site Preparation Contractors 32,709,859 300,000 1,767,445,000 713930 Marinas 4,630,929 78,000 50,000,000 488390 Other Support Activities for Water Transportation 18,174,058 30,000 1,390,835,000 561990 All Other Support Services 1,102,015 46,000 50,000,000 441222 Boat Dealers 10,158,095 130,000 80,000,000 336611 Ship Building and Repairing 46,894,870 99,000 500,000,000 813410 Civic and Social Organizations 2,517,346 80,000 6,308,457 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. Number of Responents: We estimate that a Master for each of 1,722 vessels will be affected by this rule. See Table 6 for an estimated detailed description of the number of vessels affected by this requirement. Frequency of the Response: We anticipate that all 1,722 vessels will have a crewmember trained and certified in accordance with NFPA 10 industry standards to perform annual maintenance on rechargeable fire extinguishers. We estimate that in the first year all vessels in the affected population will require certification. After the first year, we estimate that 1/3 of the affected population, or 574 crewmembers, will require new certification or re-certification. See footnote 8 above for an explanation of the assumption used in the certification for years 2 and 3. We estimate the three year average number of respondents to be 957 ((1,722 + 574 + 574)/3). Burden of Response: We estimate an additional burden imposed by this rule to be 4 minutes on a per-vessel basis. The amount of annual recordkeeping required is anticipated to be less than two minutes for filing the certificate, and another two minutes for producing the certificate during periodic inspections. Estimate of Total Annual Burden: We estimate the total annual burden for the affected population in the initial year of this rule to be 114.8 hours ((4 min × 1,722 total affected population)/60 minutes). After the initial year, we anticipate that 1/3 of the affected population, 574 vessel Masters, 10 will be burdened with this new requirement each year. We estimate the annual burden, after the initial year, to be 38.3 hours ((4 min × 574)/60 minutes). The annual cost of this burden in the initial year is estimated to be $5,970 (114.8 hours × $52 Vessel Masters), and after the initial year to be $1,990 (38.3 hours × $52 Vessel Masters). The per-vessel burden cost is estimated to be $3.47 ($1,990/574) (note that the per-vessel cost burden in the initial year will be equal to the burden in the subsequent years). 10 As discussed above in section VII. Regulatory Analysis, we assume a vessel master will be responsible for filing and producing the certificate upon request. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (d)), we have submitted a copy of this rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. You are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has not yet completed its review of this collection. Therefore, we are not making 33 CFR 145.01 and 149.408; 46 CFR 25.30-10; 31.01-2; 31.10-18; 71.25-20; 91.25-7; 91.25-20; 107.235; 169.247; 176.810; 188.01-5; and 189.25-20 effective until OMB completes action on our information collection request, at which time we will publish a Federal Register notice describing OMB's action and, if OMB grants approval, notifying you when 33 CFR 145.01 and 149.408; 46 CFR 25.30-10; 31.01-2; 31.10-18; 71.25-20; 91.25-7; 91.25-20; 107.235; 169.247; 176.810; 188.01-5; and 189.25-20 take effect. E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained in the following paragraphs. It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard, including categories for inspected vessels. It is also well-settled, now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. ( See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000)). This rule regulates fire prevention, protection, detection, extinguishing equipment, and materials on inspected vessels, and therefore the States may not regulate within this category of fire prevention equipment. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. Additionally, towing vessels are now subject to inspection under 46 U.S.C. 3301 and 3306. As mentioned above, it is well-settled that states may not regulate within categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306 for inspected vessels. Since this rule creates comprehensive regulations for fire prevention, protection, detection, extinguishing equipment, and materials on towing vessels, states may not regulate within this category of fire prevention equipment. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. Congress also granted to the Coast Guard, through delegation by the Secretary, the authority to promulgate regulations with respect to fire fighting equipment on uninspected vessels. 46 U.S.C. 4102(a) requires that “[e]ach uninspected vessel propelled by machinery shall be provided with the number, type, and size of fire extinguishers, capable of promptly and effectively extinguishing burning liquid fuel, that may be prescribed by regulation.” This rule regulates, among other things, fire extinguishing equipment on uninspected vessels, and therefore the States may not regulate within this category. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. Additionally, with regard to regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 4302 concerning recreational vessels, under 46 U.S.C. 4306, those Federal regulations that establish minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and their associated equipment, as well as regulations that establish procedures and tests required to measure conformance with those standards, preempt State law, unless the State law is identical to a Federal regulation or a State has specifically provided an exemption to those regulations, or permitted to regulate marine safety articles carried or used to address a hazardous condition or circumstance unique to that State. This rule establishes minimum requirements for fire extinguishing equipment for recreational vessels, and therefore the States may not issue regulations that differ from Coast Guard regulations within these fire equipment categories for recreational vessels. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. Congress also granted the authority, through delegation by the Secretary, to promulgate regulations for uninspected commercial fishing vessels, which requires these vessels to “be equipped with readily accessible fire extinguishers capable of promptly and effectively extinguishing a flammable or combustible liquid fuel fire.” 46 U.S.C. 4502(a)(1). Also, Congress permitted the Secretary to establish minimum safety standards for certain uninspected commercial fishing vessels, including standards for “fire protection and fire fighting equipment, including fire alarms and portable and semi-portable fire extinguishing equipment.” 46 U.S.C. 4502(c)(2)(C). As this rule regulates fire prevention, protection, detection, extinguishing equipment, and materials on uninspected commercial fishing vessels, the States may not regulate within this category of equipment, therefore, this rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. Additionally, Congress specifically granted the authority to regulate artificial islands, installations, and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the OCS and in the waters adjacent thereto as it relates to the safety of life to the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating. 43 U.S.C. 1333(d)(1) states that the Secretary “shall have the authority to promulgate and enforce such reasonable regulations with respect to lights and other warning devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion of safety of life and property on the artificial islands, installations, and other devices . . . as he may deem necessary.” As this rule regulates fire prevention, protection, detection, extinguishing equipment, and materials to ensure safety of life on these OCS installations, it falls within the scope of authority Congress has granted exclusively to the Secretary. This authority has been delegated to the Coast Guard and is exercised in this rulemaking, and the States may not regulate within this category of safety equipment. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. Finally, Congress granted the authority to regulate deepwater ports to the Secretary of Transportation. 33 U.S.C. 1509(b) states that the Secretary of Transportation “shall issue and enforce regulations with respect to lights and other warning devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion of safety of life and property in any deepwater port and the waters adjacent thereto.” When the Coast Guard was an agency within the Department of Transportation, the authority to issue regulations with respect to safety on deepwater ports was delegated to the Coast Guard. See 49 CFR 1.46(s). The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, transferred the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act, authorities that were delegated to the Coast Guard remained intact during this transfer by operation of law. The authority was then delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard through Department of Homeland Security Delegation 0170.1. Since this rule regulates fire prevention, protection, detection, extinguishing equipment and materials to ensure safety on deepwater ports, it falls within the scope of authority that has been transferred, delegated to, and exercised by the Coast Guard. The States may not regulate within this category of safety equipment. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and preemptive effect, E.O. 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard invited State and local governments and their representative national organizations to indicate their desire for participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by submitting comments to the NPRM. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, the Coast Guard provides this federalism impact statement: (1) There were no comments submitted by State or local governments to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2014 (79 FR 2254). (2) There were no concerns expressed by State or local governments. (3) As no concerns were expressed or comments received from State or local governments, there is no statement required to document the extent to which any concerns were met. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”). H. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. J. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. K. Energy Effects We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E. O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211. L. Technical Standards and 1 CFR Part 51 The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule incorporates by reference the following new voluntary consensus standards, which are listed and summarized below: • ANSI/FM 3260 Approvals, American National Standard for Radiant Energy-Sensing Fire Detectors for Automatic Fire Alarm Signaling, February 2004. This standard sets performance requirements for radiant energy sensing fire detectors used for automatic fire alarm signaling. • ASTM F1546/F1546 M—96 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Specification for Fire Hose Nozzles, approved May 1, 2012. This specification covers the material and performance requirements for adjustable-pattern water spray nozzles intended for general and marine fire fighting use. • CGA C-6-2007, Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders, Tenth Edition. This standard covers visual inspections required to ensure that compressed gas cylinders, including those used on ships for gaseous fire suppression systems, are in a safe working condition. • FSS Code, International Code for Fire Safety Systems, Second Edition, 2007 Edition (Resolution MSC.98(73)). This code provides standards for design, installation, and performance of marine fire safety systems including fire detection, alarm, and extinguishing systems. • 2010 FTP Code, International Code for Application of Fire Test Procedures, 2010 (Resolution MSC.307(88)), 2012 Edition. This code sets forth fire test procedures for testing, evaluating and approving products used as the materials of construction of vessels. • IEC 60092-504:2001(E), Electrical Installations in Ships—Part 504: Special Features—Control and Instrumentation, Third edition, March 2001. This standard is intended to ensure safety in the design, selection, installation, maintenance and use of electrical equipment for the generation, storage, distribution and utilization of electrical energy for all purposes in seagoing ships. • IMO Resolution A.653(16), Recommendation on Improved Fire Test Procedures for Surface Flammability of Bulkhead, Ceiling and Deck Finish Materials, adopted on 19 October 1989. This resolution specifies a procedure for measuring fire characteristics of bulkhead, ceiling and deck finish materials for characterizing their flammability and resultant suitability for shipboard use. • IMO Resolution A.753(18), Guidelines for the Application of Plastic Pipes on Ships, adopted on 4 November 1993. This resolution sets forth material design properties, performance criteria, and test methods for plastic pipe used in vessels. • IMO Resolution A.754(18), Recommendation on Fire Resistance Tests for “A”, “B” and “F” Class Divisions, adopted 4 November 1993. This resolution sets forth the fire test procedures for determining the acceptability of products for use as parts of fire resistive decks, bulkheads, etc. in vessels. • IMO Resolution A.1021(26), Code on Alerts and Indicators, 2009, adopted on 2 December 2009. This code provides general design guidance for shipboard alarms and indicators including information on type, location and priority of alarms and components. • IMO Resolution MSC.313(88), Amendments to the Guidelines for the Application of Plastic Pipes on Ships, adopted 26 November 2010. This resolution sets forth material design properties, performance criteria, and test methods for plastic pipe used in vessels. • International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), as amended, Consolidated Edition, 2009, including Erratum. This convention sets forth uniform principles and rules for the promotion of maritime safety, including passive and active elements of ship construction and equipment for fire protection, detection, and extinction. • ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), International Standard: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, Second edition, 15 May 2005. This standard sets forth management and technical requirements for the accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories. • NFPA 12A, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2009 Edition, effective July 18, 2008. This standard provides guidance in purchasing, designing, installing, testing, inspecting, approving, listing, operating, maintaining, decommissioning and removing halogenated agents extinguishing systems such as the legacy Halon 1301 systems used on some ships. • NFPA 1964, Standard for Spray Nozzles, 2008 Edition, effective December 31, 2007. This standard covers the material and performance requirements for adjustable-pattern water spray nozzles intended for general and marine fire fighting use. • UL 8, Standard for Safety for Water Based Agent Fire Extinguishers, Sixth Edition, dated February 28, 2005, as amended through July 27, 2010. This standard covers the construction, performance and testing, exclusive of performance during fire tests, of portable foam-type fire extinguishers. • UL 154, Standard for Safety for Carbon-Dioxide Fire Extinguishers, Ninth Edition, dated February 28, 2005, as amended through November 8, 2010. This standard covers the construction, performance and testing, exclusive of performance during fire tests, of 0portable carbon-dioxide fire extinguishers. • UL 162, Standard for Safety for Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates, Seventh Edition, dated March 30, 1994, as amended through October 10, 2014. This standard sets forth requirements and tests for the approval of fire fighting foam equipment and liquid concentrates. • UL 299, Standard for Safety for Dry Chemical Fire Extinguishers, Eleventh Edition, dated April 13, 2012. This standard covers the construction, performance and testing, exclusive of performance during fire tests, of portable dry chemical fire extinguishers. • UL 464, Standard for Safety for Audible Signaling Appliances, Ninth Edition, dated April 14, 2009, as amended through April 16, 2012. This standard covers the construction, performance and testing of electrically and electronically operated bells, buzzers, horns, and similar audible signal appliances for fire protective signaling systems. • UL 626, Standard for Safety for Water Fire Extinguishers, Eighth Edition, dated February 28, 2005, as amended through November 8, 2010. This standard covers the construction, performance and testing, exclusive of performance during fire tests, of portable water fire extinguishers. • UL 711, Standard for Safety for Rating and Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishers, Seventh Edition, dated December 17, 2004, as amended through April 28, 2009. This standard covers rating, and performance during fire tests, of fire extinguishers intended for use on various classes of fires. • UL 1480, Standard for Safety for Speakers for Fire Alarm, Emergency, and Commercial and Professional Use, Fifth Edition, dated January 31, 2003, as amended through June 23, 2010. This standard covers the construction and performance of speakers for use in, among other things, fire alarm systems. • UL 1971, Standard for Safety for Signaling Devices for the Hearing Impaired, Third Edition, approved November 29, 2002, as amended through October 15, 2008. This sta [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-15229. Public record. Not legal advice.