[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30557-30595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-10413]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 162
[Docket No. USCG-2022-0471]
RIN 1625-AC96
Foam Fire-Extinguishing Systems
AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard must approve marine foam fire-extinguishing
systems. Currently, eight guidance documents set out the existing type
approval criteria. The Coast Guard proposes to update and codify the
type approval criteria to reflect current industry practices. Criteria
updates would reflect advancements in technology, reduce certain
testing and design requirements, and reduce the administrative burden
on industry and the government. This deregulatory measure would result
in cost savings for industry and the government.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 27, 2026.
ADDRESSES: To submit comments and view available documents, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search for USCG-2022-0471. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on
submitting comments. This proposed rule, with its plain-language
proposed rule summary of 100 words or less, will be available in this
same docket.
Collection of information. Submit comments on the collection of
information discussed in section VII.D. of this preamble both to the
Coast Guard's online docket and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) using their website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Comments sent to OIRA on the collection of information must reach OMB
on or before the comment due date listed on their website.
Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. Make
arrangements to view this material by calling the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For information about this document call or email John Miller,
Coast Guard; telephone 571-608-3413, email [email protected] or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2022-0471), indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments by going
to www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-2022-0471 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit
your material by using www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for
alternate instructions.
Viewing material in the docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) web page,
available at www.regulations.gov/faq. That page also explains how to
subscribe for email alerts that will notify you when comments are
posted or if a final rule is published. We review all comments
received. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or
duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to
this document, see the Department of Homeland Security's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
Public meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we
will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a
meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register
notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
COA Certificate of Approval
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG-ENG-4 Coast Guard Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division
[[Page 30558]]
CGMIX Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange
DIOM Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EC European Commission
FR Federal Register
Ft2 Square feet
GS General Schedule
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IMO International Maritime Organization
MRA Mutual Recognition Agreements
MSC.1/Circ. International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety
Committee Circular
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RA Regulatory Analysis
REC Record of Environmental Consideration
Sec. Section symbol
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
U.S.C. United States Code
III. Basis and Purpose
The Coast Guard is required to inspect certain vessels to ensure
they are ``equipped with proper appliances for lifesaving, fire
prevention, and firefighting.'' 46 U.S.C. 3305(a)(1)(B). To carry out
these inspections, in accordance with Section 3306 of Title 46 United
States Code (U.S.C.), the Coast Guard prescribes regulations for the
design, construction, alteration, repair, and operation of vessels
subject to inspection, and approves safety and other equipment, to
secure the safety of life and property at sea. Under this authority,
the Coast Guard is authorized to prescribe regulations that apply to,
among other systems or equipment, ``firefighting equipment, its use,
and precautionary measures to guard against fire.'' \1\ The Secretary
of Homeland Security delegated this authority to promulgate regulations
under this section to the Commandant of the Coast Guard under
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No.
00170.1(II)(92)(b), Revision No. 01.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 46 U.S.C. 3306(a)(3). See also generally 46 CFR part 162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to update and codify the
type approval criteria for marine foam fire-extinguishing systems.
Guidance documents that are outdated, difficult to find, or not
publicly available currently contain the existing type approval
criteria for these systems. We would update these criteria to reflect
advancements in technology, which would lower industry costs.
Consolidating hard-to-find criteria and processes into published
regulations would improve efficiency and decrease the administrative
burden on industry and the government. In addition, codifying these
criteria would strengthen the Coast Guard's enforcement mission of
ensuring the safety of life and property at sea.
IV. Background
A. Foam Fire-Extinguishing Systems
Coast Guard regulations require certain vessels to carry foam fire-
extinguishing systems. The requirements for foam fire-extinguishing
systems for vessels apply to Tank Vessels, Passenger Vessels, Cargo
Vessels, and Mobile Offshore Drilling Units.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Tank Vessel Fixed Foam Extinguishing Systems regulations are
found at 46 CFR subpart 34.17, Tank Vessel Deck Foam Systems at 46
CFR subpart 34.20, Passenger Vessel Foam Extinguishing Systems at 46
CFR subpart 76.17, Cargo Vessel Foam Extinguishing Systems at 46 CFR
subpart 95.17, Mobile Offshore Drilling Units--Foam Extinguishing
Systems at 46 CFR 108.459 through 108.477, and Mobile Offshore
Drilling Units--Fire Protection for Helicopter Facilities at 46 CFR
108.486 through 108.489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam fire-extinguishing systems are designed to extinguish fires
from flammable liquids, such as petroleum or alcohol-based chemicals.
These systems produce firefighting foam by mixing a controlled amount
of foam concentrate with water to create a foam solution. The foam
solution then flows through piping to a foam-making device, where it is
mixed with air as it discharges and expands to create firefighting
foam. After it is expelled, firefighting foam creates a fluid blanket
of air-filled bubbles, which extinguishes fires by sealing the burning
liquid surface and preventing oxygen from mixing with volatile vapors
from the fuel. The water contained in the foam also provides cooling to
aid in extinguishment.
B. Foam Fire-Extinguishing System Components
A typical foam system contains several parts: A proportioning
station, which consists of a foam concentrate storage tank, and a
proportioning system, where water and foam liquid concentrate are mixed
to form a foam solution. The foam solution then travels through a
network of piping to one or several foam-making devices, where air is
introduced, and the solution is agitated to form expanded foam.
Foam-making devices can include foam monitors, foam nozzles, and
sprinklers. A foam monitor is a type of foam cannon that is capable of
delivering a large flow of foam over a significant distance; it is
typically mounted on a fixed or portable base and can swivel or rotate
to cover a wide area. A foam monitor can be operated manually, or
remotely from a central control room. Hoses with hand-held foam nozzles
can be used on tank vessel cargo decks, helidecks, or other locations
to manually direct the foam to cover spilled or burning fuel.
Sprinklers can be used in a variety of applications that include, but
are not limited to, machinery spaces, helidecks, and open deck areas.
C. Foam Fire-Extinguishing System Types
Deck foam fire-extinguishing systems, such as tank vessel cargo
deck systems, use monitors to apply foam over a large deck area from a
safe distance.
Foam systems for machinery spaces are similar to deck foam systems,
with the exception that the foam is typically applied through fixed
foam spray nozzles or sprinklers, rather than hand-held or monitor
nozzles.
In helideck foam systems, the foam solution is directed through
hand-held or monitor foam nozzles that can direct foam to fires on the
helicopter deck or helicopter fueling areas. Fixed foam spray nozzles
located flush in the helideck or around the perimeter of the helideck
and fueling area may also be used for helideck protection.
In addition, some vessels and facilities use foam hose reel
stations. A foam hose reel station consists of a small foam concentrate
tank with a mounted proportioner and a hose reel with hose and a hand-
held nozzle. Foam hose reel stations are permitted as excess equipment,
principally for the protection of helidecks without fueling facilities,
and as an adjunct to fire main systems.
D. Type Approval
1. General
All fire-extinguishing equipment installed on U.S.-flagged vessels
must have a type approval issued by the Coast Guard.\3\ See generally
46 CFR part 159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While vessel-specific fire-extinguishing equipment carriage
requirements are contained in various subchapters of Title 46 (e.g.,
subchapters D, H, I, and I-A, see footnote 2, above), requirements
that apply generally to the type-approval of fire-extinguishing
equipment are contained in subchapter Q. Currently, some
requirements for fire protection equipment and systems are in parts
161, 162, and 164 of subchapter Q. This proposed rule would add what
is required for fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems, which
currently exists only in policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to receive type approval, materials and equipment must
meet the relevant requirements, complete specified tests, and be
enrolled in a quality control or follow-up program. The Mutual
Recognition Agreements
[[Page 30559]]
(MRA) between the United States, the United Kingdom, the European
Commission (EC), and the European Free Trade Association do not include
fire extinguishing systems and equipment. We do not accept the
approvals of other governments, classification societies, Marine
Equipment Directive certificates, or EC wheel-marks as equivalent to
Coast Guard type approval for these products. Systems intended for
special applications or one-time only installations may be accepted on
a case-by-case basis without type approval.
The Commandant, Coast Guard Office of Design and Engineering
Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4) reviews items
for type approval. The Coast Guard developed type approval testing
procedures based on practical marine operating experience to ensure
that the fire protection equipment installed on U.S.-flagged vessels
will function in the harsh marine environment. Manufacturers seeking
type approval for fire protection equipment should first contact the
Commandant (CG-ENG-4) to discuss the intended use of their
equipment.\4\ If the Coast Guard determines that the intended
application is suitable, a testing program will be developed, in
conjunction with an independent testing laboratory selected by the
manufacturer. The Coast Guard does not charge a fee for approvals, but
the manufacturer is responsible for paying all laboratory testing and
follow-up program service fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The contact information for CG-ENG-4 is the following email:
[email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the approval testing is completed, the manufacturer submits a
report to the Coast Guard for review and concurrence. If the Coast
Guard accepts the submittal, a Certificate of Approval (COA) is issued
to the manufacturer. A COA is valid for 5 years and can be re-issued if
the product, manufacturing process, and the acceptance standard have
not been altered, and if the follow-up program is maintained.
Manufacturers must have a follow-up program in order to receive a
U.S. Coast Guard type approval. The manufacturer must contract for this
follow-up program through a Coast Guard-accepted independent
laboratory. The follow-up program enables periodic inspections and
tests of factory production to ensure continued compliance with the
type approval requirements. Further information on follow-up programs
is available in the Coast Guard's Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) 02-06, ``Follow-up Programs for Fire Safety Type-
Approved Products.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCODocuments/5p/5ps/NVIC/2006/NVIC02-06.pdf (last accessed August 8, 2025.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Coast Guard assigns each type approval a dedicated
approval series number. Purchasers and inspectors can use this number
to confirm that a particular system is Coast Guard-approved.
2. The Foam Fire-Extinguishing Systems Type Approval Program
To receive Coast Guard type approval for a foam fire-extinguishing
system, an applicant must submit the following:
Drawings and specifications for the system;
The engineering manual that details the operation and
maintenance of the system; and
A prospective test program.
The Commandant (CG-ENG-4) performs a preliminary review to clear
the prospective system and test program of any potential shortcomings
or flaws that would render the independent laboratory test invalid.
Testing may begin once the Coast Guard has pre-approved the prospective
test program. The applicant then submits the independent laboratory's
test report, along with any changes to the specifications, drawings,
and manual made as a result of testing, to the Coast Guard. The Coast
Guard reviews the test reports, drawings, specifications, and manual to
determine if the system meets all the criteria for foam fire-
extinguishing system type approval. If they have, the Coast Guard
issues a COA, which is valid for 5 years (46 CFR 159.005-13(a)(2)),
provided that the follow-up program remains in effect. Thereafter, upon
request of the applicant, the Coast Guard may renew the certificate
again as long as the follow-up program remains in effect and there are
no changes to the product that would affect its performance.
3. Existing Foam Fire-Extinguishing System Type Approval Criteria
Currently, the CFR does not have type approval specifications
codified for foam systems. Instead, the Coast Guard relies on
previously issued guidance and past decisions for these types of
systems. These decisions and guidance include Coast Guard policy
guidelines and industry consensus standards.
The Coast Guard's existing type approval program for foam fire-
extinguishing systems focuses primarily on three elements: the foam
concentrate, the foam proportioner, and the foam-making devices. The
existing criteria are based on the foam concentrate fire test from the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 11, ``Standard for Low-,
Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam, Annex F,'' 2024 Edition, dated
December 21, 2023, (originally published in O-F-555C, Federal
Specification: ``Foam Liquid, Fire Extinguishment, Mechanical''), and
the fire, hydraulic, materials, and performance tests and requirements
of UL Standard 162, ``Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates,'' Eighth
Edition, dated February 23, 2018.
Most foam concentrates for use on petroleum-based chemicals must
pass the 100 square feet (ft\2\) fire test published in NFPA 11, Annex
F. This test involves using foam to extinguish a flaming pool fire in a
100 ft\2\ pan. Foam concentrates intended to be used on flammable polar
solvent chemicals, such as alcohols, must pass an additional set of
fire tests. These foam concentrates are tested with the UL 162 50 ft\2\
test, using a series of representative fuels that cover various
families of flammable chemicals.
Per UL 162, proportioners must pass an induction rate test to
demonstrate that the proportioner adds the proper percentage of foam
liquid concentrate to the water stream to form foam solution. Foam
makers must pass foam quality tests to demonstrate that they can
produce foam that is similar to that used to pass the fire test.
Proportioners and foam makers must also pass a series of tests to
demonstrate their durability, including pressure tests and harsh
environment tests.
4. Existing Guidance for Foam Systems Type Approval
The Coast Guard's decisions and guidance related to the approval of
foam systems include Coast Guard policy guidelines and industry
consensus standards that are either located on web-based platforms or
physical PDF documents that are only available on request through the
CG-ENG-4 office of the Coast Guard. All the documents listed below are
available either in the docket (where indicated under the ADDRESSES
portion of this preamble, use USCG-2022-0471) or online at the link
provided in this section.
Current guidance and decision documents include the following:
The website of CG-ENG-4 includes foam fire-extinguishing
system guidelines and information.\6\ This website provides primary
guidance on the Coast Guard approval process for marine foam fire-
extinguishing systems.
[[Page 30560]]
The website covers the process for obtaining Coast Guard type approval
for foam systems as well as the test criteria used, including the fire
test from NFPA 11, Annex F, and the various fire, hydraulic and
material tests found in UL 162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/CG-ENG-4/FESys/. Last
accessed on July 7, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NVIC 11-82, ``Deck Foam System for Polar Solvents'' \7\
(published 1982). This document contains guidance for the design and
review of deck foam fire-extinguishing systems for tank vessels
carrying polar solvents. Although primarily concerned with the design
criteria for the installation of foam systems on tank vessels carrying
polar solvents, some material in NVIC 11-82 addresses the special type
approval criteria for the different families of chemicals that may be
protected by a type-approved foam system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This document is publicly available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/NVIC/1982/n11-82.pdf (last accessed May 8, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Fire Fighting Foam Fire Test Criteria'' (USCG Fire Test)
(published approximately 2010). This document describes in detail the
fire test from NFPA 11, Annex F for the approval of foam concentrates.
The Coast Guard has regularly distributed this document on request to
prospective applicants for Coast Guard type approval of foam fire-
extinguishing systems. With incorporation by reference (IBR) of NFPA
11, Annex F by this proposed rule, this document would become obsolete.
``Criteria for U.S. Coast Guard Approval of Foam Fire
Fighting Systems'' (USCG Foam Criteria) (published approximately 2010).
This document prescribes the approval of whole systems, the use of the
NFPA 11, Annex F test for the approval of foam concentrates, hydraulic
and durability tests for foam system components, and the elements of
the design manual. The Coast Guard has regularly distributed this
document on request to prospective applicants for Coast Guard type
approval of foam fire-extinguishing systems. It is available in the
docket or from the Coast Guard upon request.
NVIC 02-06, ``Follow-Up Programs for Fire-Safety Type-
Approved Products'' \8\ (published 2006). This document provides
guidance on the elements of follow-up programs for foam fire-
extinguishing systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This document is available online at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/NVIC/2006/NVIC%2002-06.pdf (last accessed September 9, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Approval Criteria for Deck Integrated Fire Fighting
Systems for Helideck Protection'' (USCG Heli Criteria) (published
approximately 2010). This document outlines the specific type approval
criteria for foam fire-extinguishing systems for helidecks, including
foam concentrate specifications, hydraulic and durability tests from UL
162, and foam quality limits. The Coast Guard has regularly distributed
this document on request to prospective applicants for Coast Guard type
approval of helideck foam fire-extinguishing systems. It is available
in the docket or from the Coast Guard upon request.
``Criteria for USCG Approval of Hose Reel Stations'' (USCG
FHS Criteria) (published 2013). This document outlines the specific
type approval criteria for foam hose reel stations that can also be
used as hose stations on the fire main system. It includes criteria
from UL 162 for fire, hydraulic, foam quality, and durability tests, as
well as guidance on components and operational requirements for foam
hose reel stations. The Coast Guard has regularly distributed this on
request to prospective applicants for Coast Guard type approval of foam
fire-extinguishing systems. It is available in the docket or from the
Coast Guard upon request.
``Criteria for USCG Approval of Hose Reel Stations of
Helidecks Without Fueling Facilities'' (USCG FHS Helideck Criteria)
(published 2010). This document outlines the specific type approval
criteria for foam hose reel stations on helidecks without fueling
facilities. It includes criteria from UL 162 for fire, hydraulic, foam
quality, and durability tests, as well as guidance on components and
operational requirements for foam hose reel stations. The Coast Guard
has regularly distributed this document on request to prospective
applicants for Coast Guard type approval of foam hose reel stations
used on helidecks. It is available in the docket or from the Coast
Guard upon request.
``Design Manual for Marine Foam Systems'' (USCG Manual
Requirements) (published approximately 2010). This document outlines
the specific type approval criteria for foam fire-extinguishing system
manuals. It lists the criteria to be in the manual including component
list, hydraulic calculations, foam characteristics, component test
data, and sample system calculations. The Coast Guard has regularly
distributed this document on request to prospective applicants for
Coast Guard type approval of foam systems. It is available in the
docket or from the Coast Guard upon request.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to add two new subparts to Subchapter Q,
``Equipment, Construction, and Materials: Specifications and
Approval.'' These subparts would contain the existing construction
criteria and test regimen for the type approval of foam fire-
extinguishing systems on Coast Guard-inspected vessels. This rule would
consolidate the policies that the Coast Guard uses for approval of foam
fire-extinguishing systems into the CFR. Publication would make them
more accessible and ease the industry burden of locating the relevant
guidance. It would also improve efficiency by streamlining government
processes and would reduce government costs by eliminating the need for
government employees to manually distribute guidance and answer
questions about the approval process.
Proposed Subpart 46 CFR 162.033--Fixed Foam Fire-
Extinguishing Systems
This subpart would contain the existing criteria for the type
approval of fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems.
Proposed Subpart 46 CFR 162.040--Foam Hose Reel Stations
This subpart would contain the existing criteria for the type
approval of foam hose reel stations used as excess equipment.
These new subparts would codify type approval procedures for foam
fire-extinguishing systems into the CFR. The procedures would be based
on the existing type approval procedures and longstanding criteria
employed by the Coast Guard for the approval of marine foam fire-
extinguishing systems that are discussed in section IV. Background of
this preamble. However, this rule proposes some modifications to the
existing procedures for type approval. These changes would allow
greater flexibility for the manufacturers in the design of these
systems and, in some instances, update testing procedures to help
reduce the cost and potential environmental impacts of production and
certification of foam fire-extinguishing systems, while still ensuring
their capability and reliability.
Specific changes are as follows, detailed by subpart:
Proposed Subpart 162.033
Table 1 lists the proposed sections of subpart 162.033, the current
policy, what the new section proposes, whether the criterion would be a
change from current Coast Guard policy guidelines and industry
standards, and its potential cost impact. After this table, we explain
each section in more detail. Two
[[Page 30561]]
proposed provisions of 162.033 would produce cost savings: 162.033-7(h)
and 162.033-9(a)(10). None of the proposed provisions would add a new
cost burden.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[[Page 30562]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.500
[[Page 30563]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.501
[[Page 30564]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.502
[[Page 30565]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.503
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033 would follow a standardized format, laid
out as follows:
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-1, ``Scope,'' would be unchanged from the
scope of current policy.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-3, ``Definitions,'' would list procedural
definitions currently used in the type approval program.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-5, ``Incorporation by reference,'' would
incorporate by reference widely accepted national and international
standards currently used by the Coast Guard to approve foam fire-
extinguishing systems. It also would include standards that we are
proposing to add as alternatives. Specifically, it would incorporate
the following standards:
1. UL 162, ``Standards for Safety: Foam Equipment and Liquid
Concentrates,'' Eighth Edition, dated February 23, 2018, would be
incorporated for its alternative fire tests for other hazards that are
not on a tanker deck (``other hazards'') and various tests related to
the performance and durability of foam system components.
2. NFPA 11, ``Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam,
2024 Edition,'' dated December 21, 2023, would be incorporated for
component general requirements and for the Annex F foam concentrate
test for tanker decks or other hazards.
3. MSC.1/Circ. 1312/Corr.1, dated November 22, 2011, ``Revised
Guidelines for the Performance and Testing Criteria, and Surveys of
Foam Concentrates for Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems,'' would be
incorporated as an alternative foam concentrate test for other hazards
and an alternative formula for synthetic sea water.
4. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Airport
Services Manual (Doc. 9137-AN/898), Fourth Edition, 2014, Part 1
``Rescue and Fire Fighting'', Chapter 8, ``Extinguishing Agent
Characteristics,'' would be incorporated for its Class B and C tests
that are proposed as alternative foam concentrate tests for other
hazards.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-7, ``General requirements for fixed foam
fire-extinguishing systems,'' would list the design, construction, and
performance criteria currently used by the Coast Guard for the approval
of fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems. Consolidating these policies
into the CFR would streamline government processes, improve industry
accessibility, and strengthen the enforceability of the design,
construction and performance criteria.
Most of these requirements would be essentially unchanged from
existing Coast Guard policy and guidance. However, paragraphs (c) and
(h) of this proposed CFR section would introduce greater flexibility
that differs from current Coast Guard policy and guidance. Paragraph
(c) would allow the use of non-UL-listed components (for example,
proportioners and foam-making devices). We do not expect any costs or
cost savings under (c). Paragraph (h) would allow alternative tests for
foam concentrates intended for other hazards. We expect quantified cost
savings for laboratories under paragraph (h), and we present these cost
savings in section VII. Regulatory Analyses of this proposed rule.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-9, ``Foam liquid concentrate tests for
fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems,'' would list the tests required
for foam liquid concentrates used in a fixed foam fire-extinguishing
system. Consolidating these policies into the CFR would streamline
government processes, improve industry accessibility, and strengthen
the enforceability of the foam liquid concentrate test criteria.
This section would also contain proposed changes to the existing
NFPA 11, Annex F foam concentrate test for tanker decks that would be a
benefit to independent laboratories. These
[[Page 30566]]
proposed changes would reduce requirements and provide flexibility in
the test method, which would benefit the manufacturer and the
independent laboratory that conduct the tests.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) do not define the test
facility as indoor; they only specify the wind speed and ambient, fuel,
water, and foam solution temperatures, possibly allowing the test to be
conducted outside. This would codify a standard industry practice,
where laboratories may choose to conduct tests indoors or outdoors. The
Coast Guard required the use of indoor testing facilities in the Fire
Fighting Foam Fire Test Criteria published approximately in 2010 but
allowed the use of outdoor testing with Coast Guard approval. However,
shortly afterwards, the Coast Guard began allowing outdoor testing
without the need for approval. Discussions with the affected
laboratories reveal that there are no cost savings that would result
from this proposed part since laboratories already have the ability to
choose indoor or outdoor testing and already have their testing
facilities set-up based on their preference.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) would allow for adjustments
to nozzle aim and flow during the fire test. These adjustments could
make it easier for the foam to extinguish the fire and pass the test.
This deregulatory measure would eliminate an unnecessary testing
protocol for laboratories and would introduce more flexibility by
making the task easier and more efficient to complete. We do not expect
these two provisions to produce any new costs or cost savings. See
section VII. Regulatory Analyses of this proposed rule for further
detail.
Proposed paragraph (a)(6) would allow for multiple formulas of the
synthetic sea water needed for the NFPA 11, Annex F fire test. This
would benefit independent laboratories by allowing them to choose the
formula. This deregulatory measure would eliminate an unnecessary
testing protocol for laboratories and introduce more flexibility for
industry. We do not expect any new costs or cost savings under this
proposed provision.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(7) through (a)(9) would provide expanded
detail for the torch, burnback resistance tests methods, and the fire
control time for the NFPA 11, Annex F fire test procedure. These
requirements would be essentially unchanged from existing Coast Guard
policy and guidance. Consolidating these policies into the CFR would
streamline government processes, improve industry accessibility, and
strengthen the enforceability of these details for the NFPA 11, Annex F
fire test procedure. There are no new costs or cost savings associated
with this proposed section because these are already widespread
industry practices.
Proposed paragraph (a)(10) would reduce the required number of fire
tests to be conducted within the NFPA 11, Annex F test procedure from
four tests to two tests. Because standards are already strict, the
Coast Guard has determined that passing two tests in a testing series
suffices. This would produce quantified cost savings for laboratories
because conducting two fewer tests would save time and resources. A
reduction in the number of tests would also reduce potential
environmental impacts associated with the management of foam
concentrate. This would introduce a deregulatory measure and cost
savings by eliminating an unnecessary testing protocol for laboratories
by reducing the number of tests that are required for system type
approval, in line with technological advancements in testing
procedures.
Proposed paragraphs (b) through (e) would include additional foam
concentrate tests for other hazards that have not been previously
available to manufacturers or accepted laboratories. This deregulatory
measure would eliminate unnecessary testing restrictions for
manufacturers and laboratories and would introduce flexibility of
choice for manufacturers and laboratories. We do not expect any new
costs or cost savings under these proposed provisions.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-11, ``Follow-up program, marking, and
labeling,'' would describe the follow-up program and the marking and
labeling of equipment associated with a fixed foam fire-extinguishing
system. These requirements would be essentially unchanged from existing
Coast Guard policy and guidance. Consolidating these policies into the
CFR would streamline government processes, improve industry
accessibility, and strengthen the enforceability of the follow up
program and marking and labeling requirements. There are no new costs
or cost savings associated with this proposed section because these are
already widespread industry practices. The marking and labeling
requirements do not introduce a new paperwork burden and are already
captured in an existing ICR (OMB Collection 1625-0035).
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-13, ``Design, installation, operation, and
maintenance (DIOM) manual for fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems,''
would list the requirements for a DIOM manual for fixed foam fire-
extinguishing systems. These requirements would be essentially
unchanged from existing Coast Guard policy and guidance. Consolidating
these policies into the CFR would streamline government processes,
improve industry accessibility, and strengthen the enforceability of
the DIOM manual requirements.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-15, ``Approval and modification
procedures,'' would list the approval and modification procedures for
fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems. These requirements would be
essentially unchanged from the existing Coast Guard policy and
guidance. Consolidating these policies into the CFR would streamline
government processes, improve industry accessibility, and strengthen
the enforceability of the approval and modification procedures.
Proposed Subpart 162.040
Table 2 lists the proposed sections of subpart 162.040, the current
policy, what the section proposes, whether this would be a change from
current Coast Guard policy guidelines and industry standard, and its
potential cost impact. Further explanation for each of these sections
can be found after the table. None of these provisions would add a new
cost burden or result in a cost savings.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[[Page 30567]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.504
[[Page 30568]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.505
[[Page 30569]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.506
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040 would follow standardized format, laid out
as follows:
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040-1, ``Scope,'' would be unchanged from the
scope of existing policy (Criteria for USCG Approval of Hose Reel
Stations and Criteria for USCG Approval of Hose Reel Stations of
Helidecks Without Fueling Facilities, 2013).
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040-3, ``Definitions,'' would list procedural
and contextual definitions currently used in the foam hose reel station
industry and the type approval program.
[[Page 30570]]
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040-5, ``Incorporation by reference,'' would
incorporate by reference widely accepted national and international
standards used by the Coast Guard to approve foam fire-extinguishing
systems. Specifically:
1. UL 162, ``Standard for Safety: Foam Equipment and Liquid
Concentrates,'' Eighth Edition, dated February 23, 2018, would be
incorporated for its requirements associated with the design,
construction, and performance of foam hose reel stations.
2. UL 92, ``Standard for Safety: Fire Extinguisher, Booster Hose,
and Noncollapsible Standpipe Hose and Hose Assemblies,'' Eleventh
Edition, dated March 24, 2020, and MIL-H-24580(SH), ``Military
Specification, Hose Assemblies, Synthetic Rubber, Non-collapsible, Fire
Fighting,'' dated May 21, 1985, would be incorporated for the
specifications for hose used on foam hose reel stations.
3. NFPA 11, ``Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam,
2024 Edition,'' dated December 21, 2023, would be incorporated for its
requirements associated with the design, construction, and performance
of foam hose reel stations.
4. MSC.1/Circ. 1312/Corr.1, ``Revised Guidelines for the
Performance and Testing Criteria, and Surveys of Foam Concentrates for
Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems,'' dated 22 November 2011, would be
incorporated for its requirements on the periodic sampling of foam
liquid concentrates.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040-7, ``General requirements for foam hose
reel stations,'' would list the design, construction, and performance
criteria currently used by the Coast Guard for the approval of foam
hose reel stations. Consolidating these policies into the CFR would
streamline government processes, improve industry accessibility, and
strengthen the enforceability of these requirements.
These requirements would be essentially unchanged from existing
Coast Guard policy and guidance. However, paragraph (d) would allow for
the possibility of a variable proportioning rate for the foam hose reel
station, if approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG-4). This change would
allow manufacturers to choose the proportion of foam to water that best
suit their needs. The two manufacturers of foam hose reel stations have
expressed interest in a variable proportioning rate but currently do
not plan to seek approval from the Commandant (CG-ENG-4). This is
because any new proportioning rate would differ only slightly from
their current proportioning rates, making the change unnecessary at
this time. Manufacturers expressed interest in pursuing this option in
the future for modified foam hose reel station system designs but
stated that they will not for now. As such, this proposed provision
would not generate costs or cost savings, and the Coast Guard does not
foresee additional costs for approval since manufacturers are unlikely
to request changes at this moment. This deregulatory measure would
eliminate an unnecessary foam system design restriction for
manufacturers and would introduce flexibility of choice for future foam
hose reel station designs.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040-9, ``Tests for foam hose reel stations''
would list the tests for foam hose reel stations that an independent
laboratory must conduct. These tests would be essentially unchanged
from existing Coast Guard policy and guidance. Consolidating these
policies into the CFR would streamline government processes, improve
industry accessibility, and would strengthen their enforceability.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040-11, ``Follow-up program, marking, and
labeling,'' would describe the follow-up program and the marking and
labeling of equipment associated with a foam hose reel station. These
requirements would be essentially unchanged from existing Coast Guard
policy and guidance. Consolidating these policies into the CFR would
streamline government processes, improve industry accessibility, and
strengthen the enforceability of these requirements.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040-13, ``Design, installation, operation, and
maintenance (DIOM) manual for foam hose reel stations,'' would list the
requirements for a DIOM manual for foam hose reel stations. These
requirements would be essentially unchanged from existing Coast Guard
policy and guidance. Consolidating these policies into the CFR would
streamline government processes, improve industry accessibility, and
strengthen the enforceability of the DIOM manual requirements
Proposed 46 CFR 162.040-15, ``Approval and modification
procedures,'' would list the approval and modification procedures for
foam hose reel stations. These requirements would be essentially
unchanged from existing Coast Guard policy and guidance. Consolidating
these policies into the CFR would streamline government processes,
improve industry accessibility, and strengthen the enforceability of
the approval and modification procedures.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
Material for incorporation by reference appears in proposed
Sec. Sec. 162.033-5 and 162.040-5. The standards are summarized in
section VII.L. Technical Standards of this preamble. For information
about how to view this material, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. Copies of the materials are available from the sources listed
in Sec. Sec. 162.033-5 and 162.040-5. Before publishing a binding
rule, we will submit this material to the Director of the Federal
Register for approval of the incorporation by reference.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly
reduce the private expenditure required to comply with Federal
regulations and provides that ``any new incremental costs associated
with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset
by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior
regulations.''
Two additional Executive orders promote the goals of Executive
Order 13563: Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation) and Executive Order 13610 (Identifying and Reducing
Regulatory Burdens). Executive Order 13609 targets international
regulatory cooperation to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements. Executive Order 13610 aims to
modernize the regulatory systems and to reduce unjustified regulatory
burdens and costs on the public.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a ``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
[[Page 30571]]
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an
Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
The proposed rule would reduce the burden on manufacturers of foam
firefighting systems and the laboratories that test them by removing
unnecessary testing and design protocols and restrictions, promoting
flexibility of choice to industry, and generating cost savings for
industry. It would also improve government efficiency and increase
accessibility by consolidating type approval criteria into the CFR
where it is publicly available. A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
No-Action Baseline Discussion
The 2003 Circular A-4 \9\ encourages agencies to include multiple
baselines in regulatory analyses to provide a more comprehensive
evaluation of potential impacts, and it mandates that agencies consider
at least one baseline that reflects the state of the world without the
regulation. This proposed rule consolidates eight prior policy actions.
Pursuant to the Circular A-4 guidance, the Coast Guard analyzed the
marginal effects of each policy action to isolate the incremental
impact of the proposed rule relative to each baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4
(Last accessed on July 7, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this proposed rule, the Coast Guard did not conduct a multiple
baseline analysis because the policy guidance documents were all
published over 10 years ago, and industry already complies with the
prospective regulations. Given the age of the policy actions, it is
difficult to analyze the state of the world before and after their
implementation because of the lack of accurate data. These policy
actions are well-established over time, with little or no changes in
policy or practice since their publication. In fact, the industry began
implementing significant changes around 2003, driven by advancements in
technology. This included more rigorous inspections, testing protocols,
and enhancements in safety standards. The industry standards
illustrated in the policy actions predate the policy actions
themselves, which further complicates a marginal effect analysis. Given
our previous explanation, because there is 100 percent compliance
within the industry with previously issued guidance letters, and
because this proposed rule updates and codifies past policy actions, we
analyze a single baseline scenario (without guidance) in this RA. As a
result, the impacts we estimate in this RA are attributed to the
proposed rule.
Table 3 lists each policy/guidance document along with its year of
publication or an approximate date. If this rule is finalized as
proposed, most of these policy actions would be cancelled and replaced
by this rule. NVIC 11-82 and NVIC 02-06 are the only documents that
would remain in effect, because they address issues beyond foam
firefighting type approval that fall outside the scope of this proposed
rule. They would continue to serve as key policy guidance for those
matters.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[[Page 30572]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.507
[[Page 30573]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.508
[[Page 30574]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.509
[[Page 30575]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.510
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Proposed Changes
Table 4 lists the proposed new CFR subparts, sections, and
paragraphs broken down by criteria changes and economic impact.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[[Page 30576]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.511
[[Page 30577]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.512
[[Page 30578]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.513
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
The proposed rule would update the type approval criteria for foam
fire-extinguishing systems to reflect advancements in technology and
introduce deregulatory measures and cost savings for industry. The
proposed rule would also consolidate existing foam fire-extinguishing
system type approval criteria derived from Coast Guard policy,
guidelines, and industry standards.
Table 5 presents the estimated impacts of this proposed rule on
industry and the Federal Government. Please see table 1 in section V.
Discussion of Proposed Rule of this preamble, for more details.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[[Page 30579]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.514
[[Page 30580]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.515
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
Affected Population
Based on the publicly available Coast Guard Maritime Information
Exchange (CGMIX) Equipment List,\10\ this proposed rule would directly
impact three manufacturers of foam systems for tanker decks and two
manufacturers of foam systems for other hazards. Additionally, this
rule's change in 162.040-7(d) would affect five manufacturers that
produce foam hose reel stations. Because there is overlap between the
manufacturers of the foam systems and the foam hose reel stations, the
total number of manufacturers in our affected population is six. Other
than the cost savings listed in table 5 for regulatory provisions
162.040-7(h) and 162.033-9(a)(10), we do not expect this proposed rule
to produce other costs or cost savings associated with the use of the
alternative standard NFPA 11, Annex F, that we would incorporate by
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CGMIX is a publicly available USCG database containing
maritime information, the majority of which is pulled from the Coast
Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)
database. The website can be found here: https://cgmix.uscg.mil/Default.aspx, and was last accessed on July 7, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would result in quantified cost savings for four
Coast Guard-approved laboratories that test foam systems and foam hose
reel stations.
While all manufacturers and laboratories would benefit from
increased flexibility and transparency from the proposed requirements,
only two of the proposed regulatory provisions would produce quantified
cost savings, proposed 162.033-7(h) and 162.033-9(a)(10). See Table 6.
Table 6 outlines the number of manufacturers and laboratories
affected by each proposed requirement that would depart from the pre-
rule requirements, along with whether the requirement would lead to
costs or cost savings.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.516
[[Page 30581]]
Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ To access information on foam firefighting system
manufacturers, go to ``CGMIX''. Select ``Search CGMIX'', then ``USCG
Approved Equipment'', then ``USCG Approved Equipment Search.'' For
``Approval Series Name,'' select either ``Foam Type Fire
Extinguishing Systems'' or ``Foam Hose Reel Stations.'' For
``Approval Status,'' select ``Approved.'' Based on ``Item
Description,'' the equipment was determined to be applicable to
tanker deck systems and machinery spaces or to ``other hazards''
(helideck systems), which also applies to foam hose reel stations.
\12\ To access information on independent laboratories, select
``Search CGMIX,'' then ``USCG Accepted Laboratories,'' then
``Accepted Labs Search.'' For ``Approval Series,'' select ``Foam
Systems.''
\13\ The 2 manufacturers are a subset of the 4 manufacturers
that manufacture foam firefighting systems in our affected
population. The 2 manufacturers develop systems that target other
hazards that are not on tanker decks or machinery spaces. There is
one manufacturer that only produces foam hose reel systems, so the
total number of manufacturers affected is 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would not impose net costs on industry. The
changes to the type approval criteria would streamline the process by
providing alternatives and eliminating redundancy in testing. The
proposed provisions would incorporate by reference the existing
standards; however, two proposed provisions would result in cost
savings, 162.033-7(h) and 162.033-9(a)(10). We do not expect any new
costs or cost savings associated with any other provision of this
proposed rule.
Cost Savings
This proposed rule would generate quantifiable cost savings for
laboratories that test foam fire-extinguishing systems. Two proposed
requirements (proposed 162.033-7(h) and proposed 162.033-9(a)(10) would
produce quantified cost savings. We examine the cost savings of each of
these regulatory provisions in the following analysis.
Discussion of Proposed Regulatory Changes to Manufacturers
Proposed 162.033-7(h) would allow for alternative tests other than
the NFPA 11, Annex F foam concentrate test to be performed on systems
for other hazards. Alternative tests include the UL-162, the ICAO Fire
Test, or the or MSC.1/Circ. 1312/Corr.1 foam concentrate tests.
According to the manufacturers we spoke with, these tests will be less
costly and take less time to conduct than the NFPA 11, Annex F foam
concentrate test. For example, the NFPA 11, Annex F foam concentrate
test uses a 100 ft\2\ pool of fire, versus the 50 ft\2\ pool of fire
that would be used for alternative tests. This would allow laboratories
to save on resources, such as foam, fuel, and time expended during
testing, and possibly charge manufacturers less for alternative
testing.
There are two manufacturers in our population that manufacture foam
systems for other hazards. One manufacturer in our population does not
foresee using the alternative tests for foam concentrate testing and
would continue using the NFPA 11, Annex F foam concentrate test due to
their prior investment in systems to pass the test. However, the other
manufacturer is interested in pursuing alternative testing and would
choose the UL-162 alternative test.
Table 7 illustrates areas of cost savings where the NFPA 11, Annex
F foam concentrate test and the UL-162 test primarily differ. Similar
differences exist between the NFPA 11, Annex F test and other
alternative tests, but since the manufacturer expressed interest in
using the UL-162 test, we are providing this difference between
parameters for these two tests for clarity.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[[Page 30582]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.517
BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
According to this manufacturer, the cost savings for this test are
currently unquantifiable due to a lack of data. Laboratories have not
yet determined how much they would charge manufacturers for the UL-162
test (the NFPA 11, Annex F test is priced at $50,000). While they are
aware of the differences in parameters between the UL-162 test and the
NFPA 11, Annex F test, they lack information on the variations in time
or resources needed to make the cost calculable, though they believe
that the difference in costs would likely be minimal. The Coast Guard
requests public comments on the data that may be available for this
particular item under this provision, to determine if cost savings
exist for manufacturers.
Proposed 162.033-9(a)(10) would reduce the number of required foam
concentrate tests in a testing series from four NFPA 11, Annex F foam
concentrate tests to two. The NFPA 11, Annex F testing series is
structured as follows: (1) a preliminary testing series setup; (2) the
required number of foam concentrate tests (formerly four, proposed
two), each followed by cleanup and setup for a subsequent test; and (3)
a final clean-up of the testing site that closes out the testing
series. The cost savings to manufacturers would come from the reduction
of tests in a single testing series (from four tests to two tests),
which would reduce the cost of the overall testing series. The average
cost of an NFPA 11, Annex F foam concentrate test series is $50,000 for
four tests in one series. However, much of the cost is attributed to
the preliminary testing series setup and final cleanup, which will
already occur, given that two tests will still be conducted; therefore,
we do not expect cost savings to be associated with the preliminary
setup and final cleanup portion of the test (the quantified cost
savings is from the reduction in the number of tests itself, which we
discuss in the cost savings portion of this RA). The Coast Guard
requests public comment on this item to determine if there would be
cost savings for this part of the test for manufacturers.
Discussion of Proposed Regulatory Changes to Independent Laboratories
Proposed 162.033-7(h) would allow for tests other than the NFPA 11,
Annex F foam concentrate test to be performed on hazards other than
tanker decks. Alternative tests include the UL-162 test, ICAO Fire
test, or MSC.1/Circ. 1312/Corr.1 tests. According to manufacturers,
these tests would be less costly and take less time to conduct than the
NFPA 11, Annex F foam concentrate test, and one manufacturer of foam
systems for other hazards has expressed intent to use the UL-162 test.
Regarding Quantified Cost Savings to Laboratories, we calculated
the cost savings for a single laboratory that uses n-heptane fuel
instead of gasoline to conduct the UL-162 test, specifically for the
one manufacturer who expressed interest in alternative testing. Aside
from this quantifiable cost, we do not
[[Page 30583]]
expect cost savings to come from laboratories not having to measure
environmental conditions--such as test facility temperature, air
temperature, wind speed, and foam solution temperature--when performing
the UL-162 test, as well as the difference in the amount of foam used
and the difference in time it takes to conduct the tests. Laboratories
did not have estimates on how much time or resources would be saved;
therefore, we are not able to include these savings in this RA. The
Coast Guard requests public comments to determine if cost savings exist
for laboratories who would use the UL-162 test.
Proposed 162.033-9(a)(4) and (5) would allow laboratories to adjust
nozzle aim during testing, which would allow laboratories to maintain
the target and use only as much foam as needed to put out a fire.
Currently, the firefighter conducting the test is required to aim at
the approximate center of the backside of the pan, which can result in
foam spraying outside the intended area. This proposed paragraph allows
the firefighter to adjust the aim along the backside of the pan,
potentially reducing the amount of foam that misses the pan. This
adjustment could lead to small cost savings for laboratories, as less
foam would be wasted. However, laboratories currently lack data on the
amount of foam lost when aiming at the middle of the backside of the
pan; therefore, we cannot estimate a cost savings associated with these
two regulatory provisions and it is unclear if a cost savings would
exist. The Coast Guard requests public comments to gather more
information and to determine if cost savings exist.
Quantified Cost Savings to Laboratories
Cost Savings From Proposed 162.033-7(h)
Proposed 162.033-7(h) would allow for manufacturers of systems for
other hazards to choose alternative tests instead of the NFPA 11, Annex
F test. In NFPA 11, Annex F tests, gasoline is used in a larger 100
square foot pan, which makes the test more stringent and requires more
foam to extinguish the fire due to gasoline's higher volatility. This
results in a greater quantity of foam needed and a longer test
duration. In contrast, alternative tests use n-heptane fuel, which is
easier to extinguish, and only requires a 50 square foot pan. The
smaller test area and simpler fuel type would reduce the overall
expense of conducting the test and would make alternative tests more
cost-efficient compared to NFPA tests. These savings would be from
reduced material costs (foam) and shorter test times that minimize
labor requirements.
While laboratories were unable to provide the amount of foam saved
and the amount of time saved, we were able to calculate the fuel
savings from using n-heptane fuel instead of gasoline for the UL-162
test. We calculated the cost savings for a single laboratory, assuming
that the manufacturer of the foam system would select one laboratory at
a time for testing. We also assume that a single lab would test a foam
system for other hazards annually because foam systems, after prior
certification, require periodic testing by laboratories to ensure
quality control. As shown in table 7, the UL-162 test requires 62
gallons of n-heptane, while the current NFPA 11, Annex F test requires
300 gallons of gasoline. Specific 2024 North American price data for n-
heptane was unavailable, so we used the Q3 2025 price of $2,250 per
metric ton as a proxy.\14\ While n-heptane experienced rising costs in
2024, the price of n-heptane stabilized in 2025. Therefore, while the
figure we use is likely lower than the Q4 2024 price, the stabilization
in 2025 makes it a reliable estimate. Since 1 metric ton of n-heptane
equals approximately 386 gallons, the price of 1 gallon of n-heptane
fuel is approximately $5.83 ($2,250 per metric ton / 386 gallons),
rounded. We multiplied 62 gallons required for the UL-162 test by $5.83
to obtain the total cost of n-heptane fuel for the UL-162 test of
approximately $361.40. For the NFPA 11, Annex F test, the average price
per gallon for the type of gasoline used in fire testing (regular grade
gasoline) averaged around $3.30 in 2024.\15\ For the currently required
300 gallons for the NFPA 11, Annex F test, the total cost of fuel would
be $990. Therefore, the quantifiable cost savings for a laboratory
conducting the UL-162 test instead of the NFPA 11, Annex F test would
be approximately $629 ($990-$361.40 = $628.60), rounded, annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Please see: https://www.imarcgroup.com/n-heptane-pricing-report. Last accessed: January 14, 2026.
\15\ Visit https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_a.htm (Accessed on January 14, 2026). Average
fuel cost pulled from ``Gasoline-Regular'' for 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings From Proposed 162.033-9(a)(10)
Proposed 162.033-9(a)(10) would reduce the number of required foam
concentrate tests in a testing series from four NFPA 11, Annex F foam
concentrate tests to two. There are currently four tests per testing
series. As stated previously, the structure of a testing series is: (1)
a preliminary testing series setup; (2) the required number of foam
concentrate tests (formerly four tests, now two tests), each followed
by cleanup and setup for a subsequent test; and (3) a final cleanup of
the testing site that closes out the testing series. According to
sources at the affected laboratories in our population, there is an
average of six testing series conducted annually by each of the 4
laboratories. These tests can either be initial testing of a new foam
system for prior certification or required annual or biannual testing
of foam systems for quality assurance. Each NFPA 11, Annex F foam
concentrate test takes between 26 and 31 minutes to conduct, with
cleanup after each test and preparation for the next test averaging
approximately 2 hours. These individual tests are conducted
sequentially, or all in a single day.
Given this, laboratories would save approximately 28.5 minutes ((26
+ 31) / 2), on average, for each test not required, as well as 4 hours
of expected cleanup and preparation time for the new test. The
preliminary setup and final cleanup after the foam concentrate tests
remain the same. In total, laboratories would save approximately 57
minutes on tests (28.5 minutes x 2 tests) and approximately 4 hours on
set-up and clean-up (240 minutes), totaling approximately 4.95 hours
for clean-up and preparation (297 minutes total).
To calculate the cost savings, we used the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Series. We considered the
unloaded wage rates for a firefighter (BLS Occupational Employment
Series: 33-2011 ``Firefighters''), who is responsible for conducting
the foam concentrate test, and the Health and Safety engineer (BLS
Occupational Employment Series: 17-2111 ``Health and Safety Engineers,
Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors'') who is responsible for
overseeing the testing. Laboratories used the occupation title ``fire
safety engineer,'' but that occupation does not have an individual
Occupational Employment Series, so we approximate it with the BLS labor
category ``Health and Safety Engineers . . .'' series, whose job
description is to develop procedures and design systems to protect
people from illness and injury and property from damage.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/health-and-safety-engineers.htm (last accessed July 7, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The firefighter is a local Government employee hired by the
laboratory for the testing series, and the Health and Safety
[[Page 30584]]
Engineer is considered a private industry employee. The laboratories
are located in Illinois, Texas, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. The
unloaded mean hourly wage rate for Health and Safety Engineers is
$53.91 in Illinois, $63.38 in Massachusetts, $56.88 in Minnesota, and
$60.39 in Texas.\17\ Across four states, this averages out to $58.64
for Health and Safety Engineers, rounded. BLS does not have mean wage
rates for local Government employees by region, so for firefighters, we
use the national unloaded mean wage rate for firefighters employed by
local government ($31.50).\18\ Laboratories stated that they pay the
firefighters an equivalent wage to their mean hourly wage. We obtained
the unloaded compensation rates, and wages and salaries for the
occupations of Firefighters and Health and Safety Engineers using the
BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation News Release published in
December 2024 (Quarter 4).\19\ For Firefighters, we used the total
compensation value of $63.46 for Quarter 4 of 2024 for state and local
Government employees, and the ``Wages and Salaries'' value of $39.22
for Quarter 4 of 2024 for state and local Government employees. These
values are found in the third paragraph of the Economic News Release.
We calculated the load factor by dividing ``Total Compensation'' by
``Wages and Salaries'' ($63.46 / $39.22), for a load factor of
approximately 1.62 for Firefighters. Similarly, we calculated the load
factor for private industry employees (Health and Safety Engineer)
using the total compensation value of $44.67 for Quarter 4 of 2024 and
the ``Wages and Salaries'' value of $31.47 for Quarter 4 of 2024. These
values are found in the second paragraph of the Economic News Release.
We calculated the load factor for Health and Safety Engineers by
dividing $44.67 by $31.47 for a load factor of approximately 1.42. In
table 8, we present the loaded mean hourly wage rates for each
occupational category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ To find mean hourly wage rates for individual States, visit
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2024/may/oessrcst.htm (last accessed January
14, 2026). Select the Illinois, Texas, Minnesota, or Massachusetts
and scroll down to Occupation Code: 17-2111 Health and Safety
Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors. See the
``Mean Hourly Wage'' cell. We did not estimate a cost for a
firefighter to travel to a laboratory because a firefighter would
still need to be present even though the number of tests is being
reduced from four to two.
\18\ Visit https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/999301. (last
accessed January 14, 2026). Scroll down to ``Firefighters (33-
2011)'' and then across to the third column ``Hourly Mean Wage''.
\19\ Visit https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03142025.pdf (last accessed January 14, 2026) to calculate the
load factors for state and local government employees and private
industry employees in December 2024 (Quarter 4). Divide the total
employer compensation costs by the wages and salaries to obtain the
load factor. Refer to paragraph 3 for state and local government
employees and paragraph 2 for private industry employees.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.518
Laboratories pay for the Firefighters to conduct the tests. For
each testing series, laboratories would save approximately $252.60 in
labor time for Firefighters (4.95 hours x $51.03 loaded wage rate).
They would save approximately $412.18 for Health and Safety Engineers
(4.95 hours x $83.27 loaded wage rate), for a total cost savings of
approximately $664.78 per testing series. Given an average of six
testing series (with 4 tests per series) conducted annually by a single
laboratory, or a total of 24 testing series for all laboratories
annually (6 testing series x 4 laboratories), laboratories would save a
total of approximately $15,955, rounded, (24 testing series x $664.78)
annually from this proposed change. Based on industry information,
which was validated by Coast Guard SMEs, each test takes approximately
15 minutes for documentation; four tests take approximately 1 hour for
a total hour burden of approximately 24 hours. This proposed rule would
allow for the removal of two tests, which would result in an annual
paperwork hour burden reduction of 12 hours (30-minute reduction (0.5
hours) from documenting two fewer tests per series x 6 testing series x
4 laboratories). Please see section D. Collection of Information for
further details.
Under the same proposed paragraph, 162.033-9(a)(10), the laboratory
would save approximately 150 gallons of fuel by conducting two fewer
tests (300 gallons of fuel currently required / 2), according to
sources from the independent laboratories. The average price per gallon
for the type of gasoline used in fire testing (regular grade gasoline)
averaged around $3.30 in 2024.\20\ This would result in cost savings of
approximately $495 (150 gallons of fuel saved x $3.30) for each testing
series. Given an average of six foam concentrate tests annually, the
cost savings for fuel consumption would be approximately $2,970 (6
testing series x $495) for an individual laboratory. Across the four
affected laboratories (24 testing series conducted annually), this
would result in a cost savings for fuel consumption of approximately
$11,880 (24 total testing series x $495). In total, laboratories would
save approximately $27,835 ($15,955 from reduced time used to conduct
tests + $11,880 from fuel savings) annually under proposed paragraphs
162.033-9(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Visit https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_a.htm (Accessed on January 14, 2026). Average
fuel cost pulled from ``Gasoline-Regular'' for 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We combine this result with the cost savings of $629 from using n-
heptane fuel for the UL-162 test instead of gasoline for the NFPA 11,
Annex F test. The estimated annual undiscounted cost savings for
industry is approximately $28,464, rounded (laboratories only). Table 9
shows the estimated cost savings to industry of the proposed rule over
a 10-year period of analysis, using 7-percent and 3-percent discount
rates.
[[Page 30585]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.519
For industry, we estimate that the 7-percent discounted cost
savings over a 10-year period of analysis would be approximately
$199,920, rounded to the nearest whole number, and the annualized cost
savings using a 7-percent discount rate would be approximately $28,464,
rounded. The Coast Guard requests public comments on our estimates for
the two provisions of the proposed rule that we determined would
produce cost savings. Using a perpetual period of analysis with an
assumed implementation year of 2026, we estimate the total industry
annualized cost savings of this action to be $25,464 deflated back to
2024 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate.
Cost Savings to Government
Currently, the Coast Guard receives an average of three inquiries
annually regarding foam equipment and testing from manufacturers. Under
this proposed rule, the answers to these inquiries would be in the CFR,
where the Coast Guard would refer a caller to obtain the specific
information. The anticipated reduced hour burden to the Government is
not associated with any specific proposed change to a regulatory
provision. Changes in the number of these inquiries following
publication of an effective rule is not something the Coast Guard can
predict. These inquiries, either through email or by telephone, take
approximately 1 hour to resolve. Through this proposed rulemaking, the
Coast Guard anticipates that the time spent on inquiries would fall to
a 5-minute response (0.083 hours) for an hour-burden savings of
approximately 55 minutes (0.917 hours) for each inquiry, because the
Coast Guard would be able to directly reference the CFR parts outlined
in this proposed rule to resolve the inquiries. In terms of paperwork
requirements, the hour burden for the Government would be reduced by
approximately 2.758 hours annually (0.917 hours x 3 inquiries
annually). This is not included in the ICR amendment in the Collection
of Information section because only the paperwork burden reduction to
industry is included in the change.
The Coast Guard individual responsible for responding to inquiries
is a Federal Government employee with a General Schedule (GS) grade
level of GS-14, located in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. In
2024, the unloaded mean hourly wage rate for a GS-14, step 5 (using the
midpoint of the pay scale) employee is $75.70,\21\ and the load factor
is 1.57.\22\ The loaded mean hourly wage rate is approximately $118.85,
rounded ($75.70 x 1.57). Given this, the Coast Guard would save
approximately $108.99 ((1 hour x $118.85)-(0.083 hours x $118.85)),
rounded, on each inquiry. This would have annual cost savings of
approximately $327 (3 inquiries x $108.99). This is the undiscounted
cost
[[Page 30586]]
for a single year to the Government. Table 10 presents the cost savings
to the Government over a 10-year period of analysis using 7-percent and
3-percent discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Visit https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/24Tables/html/DCB_h.aspx. Last accessed
January 14, 2026. (Go to ``GS-14'' and see ``Step 5'' wages.)
\22\ To calculate load factor, we go to https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf. Last accessed July 7, 2025. Use tables 2 and
4. Divide the total compensation by the wages for a Federal
employee. Multiply by hourly wage rate obtained from OPM. GS-14
falls under ``Professional/Doctorate Degree''. For the Professional/
Doctoral Degree, we obtain a load factor of approximately $81.70 /
$51.90 = 1.57.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.520
For the Government, we estimate that the total discounted cost
savings over a 10-year period of analysis would be approximately
$2,297, rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the
annualized cost savings for the Government would be approximately $327,
rounded, using a 7-percent discount rate. Using a perpetual period of
analysis with an assumed implementation year of 2026, we estimate the
total Government annualized cost savings of this proposed rule to be
$293 deflated back to 2024 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate.
Costs Savings to Industry and Government (Combined)
The annual undiscounted cost savings of this proposed rule would be
approximately $28,779, which is the sum of $28,464 annual cost savings
to industry and $327 annual cost savings to the Government. Table 11
shows a 10-year cost savings breakdown with 7 percent and 3 percent
discounted values.
[[Page 30587]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.521
For industry and government combined, we estimate the total 7-
percent discounted cost savings over a 10-year period of analysis to be
approximately $202,217, rounded to the nearest whole dollar, and the
annualized cost savings at a 7-percent discount rate to be
approximately $28,791, rounded. Using a perpetual period of analysis
with an assumed implementation year of 2026, we estimate the total
annualized cost savings of this proposed rule (industry plus Federal
Government cost savings) to be approximately $25,756 in 2024 dollars,
using a 7 percent discount rate.
Qualitative Benefits to Industry
In addition to the quantified cost savings associated with this
proposed rule, there are additional qualitative benefits that come from
the IBR of industry standards and the flexibility of choice for
industry by the proposed provisions. Additionally, certain provisions
eliminate standards made redundant by advancements in technology.
Proposed 162.033-7(h), 162.033-9(a)(4), 162.033-9(a)(5),
162.033-9(a)(6), and 162.040-7(d) would provide the benefit of
flexibility of choice for industry by allowing the use of alternative
standards.
Proposed 162.033-9(a)(10) would eliminate the stringent
and redundant standards to pass the NFPA 11, Annex F foam concentrate
test by reducing the number of tests in a testing series from four
tests to two tests. Because standards are already strict, passing two
tests in a testing series suffices, thereby increasing efficiency in
testing without compromising on quality or compliance.
Proposed 46 CFR 162.033-9(a)(1), (2), and (3) would
provide the benefit of codifying industry policy and guidance that
allows laboratories to choose whether to conduct testing indoors or
outdoors.
Proposed 162.033-7, 7(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g),
162.033-9(a)(7), (8), (9), 162.033-11, 162.033-12, and 162.033-15, and
proposed 162.040-7, 7(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i),
162.040-9, 9(a), (b), (c), 162.040-11, 162.040-13, and 162.040-15 all
would provide the benefit of codifying existing guidance and policy,
which aids in communication between a Federal agency and the regulated
public.
The Coast Guard requests public comments on the economic impact of
this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted using one of the methods
indicated in the ADDRESSES portion of this preamble.
Analysis of Alternatives
The Coast Guard considered three alternatives for this proposed
rule, discussed in detail as follows:
Alternative 1--Codify process and streamline standards.
This is the preferred alternative. We expect this alternative would
codify the process, streamline standards, consolidate information,
allow public comment on the type approval process, cut redundant
standards in the face of technological advancements, and result in no
additional costs to industry. We expect quantified cost savings for
laboratories and the Federal government. Please see section VII.
Regulatory Analyses of the preamble for the estimated impacts of this
chosen alternative.
Alternative 2--Reduce required NFPA 11, Annex F foam concentrate
testing series from four tests to three tests.
This alternative would reduce the number of foam concentrate tests
in a testing series from four to three, as outlined in NFPA 11, Annex
F. The cost savings of performing one less NFPA 11, Annex F foam
concentrate test in a single testing series is the sum of the labor
costs for the laboratory and the fuel costs. As explained in this RA,
there are four labs which conduct these tests six times per year,
resulting in a total of 24 testing series per year. A single test
series with three instead of four tests takes 148.5 minutes
(approximately 2.475 hours), including cleanup. When multiplied by the
loaded wages for Firefighters ($51.03) and Health and Safety engineers
($83.27), we obtain cost savings of approximately $126.30 and $206.09
per test, respectively. When combined ($332.39, approximately) and
multiplied by 24 annual tests, the cost savings per year would be
approximately $7,977.42.
[[Page 30588]]
A single test would require 75 gallons of gasoline at the 2024
market rate of $3.30, resulting in a cost of approximately $247.50,
rounded. When we multiply this cost by the 24 tests per year, it
results in cost savings of approximately $5,940. The total undiscounted
cost savings per year for this alternative would be approximately
$13,917 ($7,977.42 + $5,940), resulting in a 10-year cost savings (at a
7 percent discount rate) of approximately $97,748, rounded to the
nearest whole dollar, and an annualized cost savings of $13,917,
rounded.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.522
Alternative 3--Adopt the International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS) type approval regimen.
This alternative would adopt the internationally recognized
firefighting standards for type approval from SOLAS. The IMO adopted
the amended SOLAS treaty in 1974 and set safety standards for vessels
on international voyages. With this alternative, we would adopt
elements of SOLAS (SOLAS II-2, Regulation 10.4). However, adopting
SOLAS standards in their entirety would reduce the stringency of
testing to a point deemed unsafe by the Coast Guard.
Adopting SOLAS standards would allow foam concentrate testing for
protection of tanker decks to be performed on a 50 ft\2\ pool instead
of a 100 ft\2\ pool. It would also allow the use of n-heptane instead
of gasoline. We are unable to quantify the full cost savings of
performing testing under SOLAS requirements due to a lack of
information on the difference in parameters between the SOLAS standard
and the NFPA 11, Annex F test. However, we can calculate partial cost
savings, since the cost savings calculated earlier for the UL-162 test
compared to the NFPA 11, Annex F test also applies here. If adopted,
the SOLAS standard test would have partial cost savings of
approximately $629 annually, and a total cost savings of $4,415,
rounded to the nearest whole dollar, at a 7-percent discount rate over
a 10-year period, given annual testing requirements for foam systems,
since the SOLAS test uses n-heptane instead of gasoline. Table 13 shows
the 10-year cost breakdown at the 7-percent and 3-percent discount
rates.
[[Page 30589]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY26.523
Adopting SOLAS standards would result in both quantifiable and
unquantifiable cost savings for manufacturers and laboratories.
However, it would be a less stringent alternative to the proposed rule,
and we would still require the NFPA 11, Annex F testing series to be
performed on systems operating on tanker decks. We do not believe that
the SOLAS standards adequately assess these firefighting systems on
tank vessels. We believe that the existing NFPA 11, Annex F test is a
more rigorous foam concentrate test and is more representative of the
conditions aboard a tank vessel (such as a 100 ft\2\ pool of fire
versus a 50 ft\2\ pool of fire). Therefore, we rejected this
alternative.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000 people. No companies that we researched in our affected
population are considered to be small entities.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the eight companies in our
affected population are not ``small entities'' under the Act. If you
think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the
docket at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the proposed rule. If
the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question
or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for a change to an existing
collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of
information'' comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting,
labeling, and other similar actions. OMB Collection 1625-0035,
Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, and Engineering Equipment,
Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices, outlines
paperwork requirements for the type approval of lifesaving, electrical,
and engineering equipment used in the maritime industry. Manufacturers
of this equipment and the laboratories that test them are required to
document and report information collected during the development and
testing phases.
This change specifically affects laboratories that test foam
firefighting extinguishing systems. Due to changes in the requirements
for the NFPA 11,
[[Page 30590]]
Annex F test, laboratories would now be required to take fewer notes
during testing, since the required number of tests would be reduced
from four to two. As a result, the overall paperwork burden for these
laboratories would be reduced by half.
The total estimated annual burden reduction for industry is
approximately 12 hours, reflecting the reduced time spent observing and
recording test outcomes for foam firefighting extinguishing systems.
Below are the details of the information collection, including the
affected parties and the estimated burden reduction hours.
Title: Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, and Engineering
Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (33
CFR part 159).
OMB Control Number: 1625-0035.
Summary of the Collection of Information: During testing of foam
firefighting extinguishing systems, laboratories document testing
outcomes to generate official reports submitted to the U.S. Coast
Guard. With recent changes to the NFPA 11, Annex F requirement which
reduces the number of tests in a testing series from four to two, the
amount of time required for documenting the test results would be
reduced.
Need for Information: This change to OMB Collection 1625-0035 would
capture changes in testing criteria for foam firefighting extinguishing
systems that reduce the paperwork burden for industry.
Proposed Use of Information: OMB Collection 1625-0035 would allow
the U.S. Coast Guard to monitor compliance with the type-approval
process for foam firefighting extinguishing systems.
Description of the Respondents: The respondents are U.S. Coast
Guard-approved laboratories who test foam firefighting extinguishing
systems.
Number of Respondents: The existing OMB-approved number of
respondents is 856. This proposed rule would not change the number of
respondents in this collection of information. There are four testing
laboratories that are affected by this proposed rule that are included
in this total number of respondents.
Frequency of Response: The existing OMB-approved number of
responses is 402,310. The number of responses would not change with
this proposed rule.
Burden of Response: Each test takes about 15 minutes to document
the results. This proposed rule would not change this estimate.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved total
annual hour burden is 86,430 hours. This proposed rule would reduce
that number annually by 12 hours for a total of 86,418 hours. The
decrease is a result of the number of tests that would be reduced from
four to two for each testing series. Four laboratories conduct 6
testing series annually; therefore, the total annual burden reduction
would be 12 hours (0.5 hours x 6 testing series x 4 laboratories x 2
tests per laboratory).
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comments on the proposed collection of
information to help us determine, among other things--
How useful the information is;
Whether the information can help us perform our functions better;
How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information;
Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
How valid our methods are for determining the burden of collection;
and
How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them to both the OMB and to the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to
collect this information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and
8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation,
equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as
any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the
sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed
from regulation by the States. See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89
(2000) (finding that the states are foreclosed from regulating tank
vessels); see also Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157
(1978) (State regulation is preempted where ``the scheme of federal
regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that
Congress left no room for the States to supplement it [or where] the
Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so
dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude
enforcement of state laws on the same subject'' (citations omitted)).
This proposed rule involves codifying the type approval requirements
and process for foam fire-extinguishing systems and is authorized by 46
U.S.C. 3306; as such it is part of a pervasive scheme of Federal
regulation that forecloses regulation by the States. Because the States
may not regulate within this field, this proposed rule is consistent
with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in
Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications
and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs
agencies to consult with State and local governments during the
rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have
implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or
email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this preamble.
F. Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
[[Page 30591]]
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause taking private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule uses the following voluntary consensus
standards: ICAO Airport Services Manual, IMO MSC.1/Circ. 1312/Corr.1,
NFPA 11, UL 92, and UL 162. The proposed sections that reference these
standards and the locations where these standards are available are
listed in Sec. Sec. 162.033-5 and 162.040-5.
These standards provide internationally accepted and recognized
parameters that equipment and material must meet to ensure its safety,
proper usage, and preservation on the seas. The standards that would be
incorporated were developed by either the ICAO, IMO, NFPA, or UL, which
are voluntary consensus standard-setting organizations.
Consistent with incorporation by reference provisions in 1 CFR part
51, this material is reasonably available. Interested persons have
access to it through their normal course of business; can purchase it
from the organizations identified in Sec. Sec. 162.033-5 and 162.040-
5; or may view a copy using the methods identified in those sections.
If you disagree with our analysis of these voluntary consensus
standards or are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might
apply but are not listed, please send a comment explaining your
disagreement or identifying additional standards to the docket using
one of the methods under ADDRESSES.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the
docket. The preliminary REC includes a Special Condition that ``It is
the responsibility of facility operators to obtain and comply with all
necessary local, state, and federal environmental approvals for
discharges associated with the facility's operations. Additionally, all
facility operators must submit documentation of compliance with all
applicable local, state, and federal environmental approvals for
discharges associated with the facility's operations''. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under
paragraph L58 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 1. Paragraph L58 pertains to regulations concerning
equipment approval and carriage requirements.
This proposed rule involves updating and codifying the marine foam
fire-extinguishing systems type approval procedure and criteria from
the existing guidance into the Code of Federal Regulations. The
proposed codification would promote maritime safety and stewardship by
making the foam systems approval procedures and criteria more
transparent and easily available. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 162
Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Oil
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR part 162 as follows:
PART 162--ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 162 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302;
E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56
FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1,
Revision No. 01.4.
0
2. Add subpart 162.033, consisting of Sec. Sec. 162.033-1 through
162.033-15, to read as follows:
Subpart 162.033 Fixed Foam Fire-extinguishing Systems
Sec.
162.033-1 Scope.
162.033-3 Definitions.
162.033-5 Incorporation by reference.
162.033-7 General requirements for fixed foam fire-extinguishing
systems.
162.033-9 Foam liquid concentrate tests for fixed foam fire-
extinguishing systems.
162.033-11 Follow-up program, marking, and labeling.
162.033-13 Design, installation, operation, and maintenance (DIOM)
manual for fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems.
162.033-15 Approval and modification procedures.
[[Page 30592]]
Sec. 162.033-1 Scope.
This subpart prescribes standards, tests, and procedures for
obtaining Coast Guard type approval of fixed foam fire-extinguishing
systems. Each system consists of at least a foam liquid concentrate, a
proportioner, and a foam discharge device. Systems may also include
foam liquid concentrate tanks, valves, gauges, piping, and fittings.
Fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems are approved as a functional
system.
Sec. 162.033-3 Definitions.
In this subpart, the term:
Commandant means the Office of Design and Engineering Standards,
Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4). Address: Commandant
(CG-ENG-4), Attn: Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard
Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-
7509; email [email protected].
Discharge device means a fixed, semi-fixed, or portable device,
such as a foam chamber, fixed foam maker, monitors, nozzle, spray
nozzle, and sprinkler that directs the flow to the fire or flammable
liquid surface.
Film-forming foam liquid concentrate means a foam solution that has
a spreading coefficient greater than zero when tested in accordance
with the Film Forming Test of UL 162 (Incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 162.033-5).
Fire control means a reduction in fire intensity of approximately
90 percent.
Foam means a fire-fighting agent made by mechanically mixing air
with a solution consisting of fresh or salt water to which a foam
liquid concentrate has been added.
Foam expansion value means the ratio of final foam volume to
original foam solution volume before adding air.
Foam liquid concentrate means a protein or synthetic based liquid
that is intended to be diluted with fresh water, salt water, or a
mixture of both fresh and salt water to a concentration (volume of
concentrate/volume of solution).
Foam quality means a measure of a foam's physical characteristics,
expressed as a foam's twenty-five percent drainage time, and a foam
expansion value.
Foam solution means a mixture of proportioned or premixed foam
liquid concentrate dissolved in fresh water, salt water, or a mixture
of both.
Follow-up program means a quality control system developed and
performed by an independent laboratory to ensure compliance with the
type approval conditions of a fixed foam fire-extinguishing system.
Independent laboratory means an organization which meets the
standards for acceptance in Sec. 159.010-3, and which is accepted by
the Coast Guard for performing certain tests and inspections.
Listed means equipment or materials included in a list published by
an organization that is an independent laboratory, whose listing states
that either the equipment or material meets appropriate designated
standards.
Proportioner means a device intended to provide continuous
introduction of foam liquid concentrate at the recommended ratio into a
water stream to form a foam solution.
Twenty-five percent drainage time means the time required for a
twenty-five percent volume of liquid foam solution to drain from the
foam sample.
Sec. 162.033-5 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast
Guard Stop 7509, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG),
2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-7509; email
[email protected] or visit https://www.dco.uscg.mil/CG-ENG-4/. It
is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA; email: [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations. The material may
also be obtained from the following sources:
(b) UL Solutions (formerly Underwriters Laboratories), 333
Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096, 877-854-3577, www.ul.com.
(1) UL 162, Standard for Safety: Foam Equipment and Liquid
Concentrates, Eighth Edition, February 23, 2018, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 162.033-3, 162.033-7 introductory text and paragraphs (b)
and (c), 162.033-9(b) and (c), 162.033-11(d), and 162.033-13(e).
(2) [Reserved]
(c) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 800-344-3555, https://www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 11, Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam,
2024 Edition, December 21, 2023, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 162.033-7
introductory text and 162.033-9(a).
(2) [Reserved]
(d) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Publications Section,
4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7735
7611, https://www.imo.org.
(1) MSC.1/Circular 1312/Correction 1, Revised Guidelines for the
Performance and Testing Criteria, and Surveys of Foam Concentrates for
Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems, (Circ 1312), November 22, 2011, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 162.033-9(a) and (e) and 162.033-13(e).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 999 Robert-
Bourassa Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 5H7, Canada, +1 514-954-8219,
https://www.icao.int.
(1) Airport Services Manual, Doc. 9137--AN/898, Fourth Edition,
2014, Part 1, Rescue and Fire Fighting, Chapter 8, Extinguishing Agent
Characteristics, IBR approved for Sec. 162.033-9(d).
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 162.033-7 General requirements for fixed foam fire-extinguishing
systems.
For Coast Guard approval, all components of a fixed foam fire-
extinguishing system must meet the applicable design, construction, and
performance requirements of UL 162 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 162.033-5), NFPA 11 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
162.033-5), and the following additional requirements:
(a) All testing and inspections required by this subpart must be
performed by an independent laboratory. A list of accepted independent
laboratories is available online at https://cgmix.uscg.mil/EQlabs/Default.aspx.
(b) Fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems must generate foam that
matches the foam quality of the foam liquid concentrate UL 162
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5) listing.
(c) The foam liquid concentrate of a fixed foam fire-extinguishing
system must be UL 162 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5)
listed by an independent laboratory for its intended fuel group hazards
(hydrocarbon, polar solvent, alcohol-resistant).
(d) Each proportioner and foam discharge device of the fixed foam
fire-extinguishing system must be brass, bronze, stainless steel, or
similarly durable, heat-resistant, corrosion-resistant material, except
for incidental hardware and other parts, such as gaskets, bumpers, etc.
Aluminum or aluminum alloys must not be used.
(e) All materials used in the construction of the fixed foam fire-
extinguishing system must not be degraded by or adversely affect the
foam products.
(f) Pressure vessels used in fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems
must meet
[[Page 30593]]
the applicable criteria of 46 CFR Subchapter F Part 54.
(g) Fixed foam fire-extinguishing system foam liquid concentrates
intended for use on tanker decks must pass the fire test prescribed in
Sec. 162.033-9(a).
(h) Fixed foam fire-extinguishing system foam liquid concentrates
intended for all other hazards must pass one of the tests prescribed in
Sec. 162.033-9(a)-(e).
Sec. 162.033-9 Foam liquid concentrate tests for fixed foam fire-
extinguishing systems.
Foam liquid concentrates must meet one of the following
requirements:
(a) Test Method for Marine Fire-Fighting Foam Concentrates
Protecting Hydrocarbon Hazards set forth in Annex F of NFPA 11
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5), as modified below:
(1) The test facility must be 65 [deg]F 20 [deg]F.
(2) The fuel, water and foam solution temperature must be 65 [deg]F
10 [deg]F.
(3) The maximum wind speed must not exceed 10 mph.
(4) The flow parameters may be adjusted to produce representative
foam of the full-scale system; however, the flow rate must not be more
than 6.0 gallons per minute.
(5) The nozzle's aim may be adjusted during the tests as necessary
to maintain its target as the fire conditions change.
(6) Simulated sea water meeting Circ. 1312 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 162.033-5) may be used.
(7) The torch must be constructed of nominal \3/4\ inch O.D.
aluminum pipe approximately 9 feet in length. Up to 10 inches of fire-
resistant absorbent material must be wrapped with nichrome wire around
one end of the pipe, and the wrapped end must be dipped in a container
of kerosene.
(8) Burnback resistance test Method 1 must be used for non-film-
forming foam liquid concentrates. Method 2 must be used for film-
forming foam liquid concentrates or if the exposed fuel surface cannot
be ignited using Method 1.
(9) Fire control time must occur within 4 minutes of the start of
foam application.
(10) Two fire tests are required, one with fresh water and one with
synthetic or simulated sea water. Upon a failure of either test, the
series of tests must start over.
(b) UL 162 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5) Topside
Discharge Device Class B Fire Test;
(c) UL 162 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5)
Sprinklers and Spray Nozzles Class B Fire Test;
(d) ICAO Airport Services Manual (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 162.033-5) Part 1 Class B or Class C fire test; or,
(e) Circ. 1312 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5)
fire test.
Sec. 162.033-11 Follow-up program, marking, and labeling.
(a) An independent laboratory must perform an initial factory
inspection to establish the materials of construction, foam quality
tests, fixed foam fire-extinguishing system performance, material
schedule, system specifications, dimensions, tolerances and other
related factors needed to confirm product consistency during follow-up
production inspections.
(b) Production inspections must be performed by an independent
laboratory at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made
to the fixed foam fire-extinguishing system that may adversely affect
the fixed foam fire-extinguishing system effectiveness.
(c) An independent laboratory must prepare production inspection
procedures and a report of the results of the fire testing program, and
it must furnish the manufacturer a copy of each upon completion of the
required testing.
(d) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in
packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer,
product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, Coast
Guard type approval number and other information required by UL 162
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5).
Sec. 162.033-13 Design, installation, operation, and maintenance
(DIOM) manual for fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems.
Each fixed foam fire-extinguishing system must have a DIOM manual
that includes:
(a) A description of the system design, including a system
schematic that includes detailed, orthographic engineering drawings.
(b) A complete list of components.
(c) Drawings of major system components, such as nozzles, monitor
turrets, proportioners, etc.
(d) Information such as proportioning curves, discharge curves, and
hydraulic calculations for system components including minimum and
maximum inlet pressures at the discharge devices, range (throw), and
pattern (vertical and horizontal) data for all pressure settings in
increments of 25 psi (or smaller).
(e) List of type and characteristic of foam liquid concentrates
(for example: the basic composition, percent concentration, and trade
name of concentrate), as well as instructions and acceptance criteria
for periodic sampling of foam liquid concentrates to meet UL 162
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5), NFPA 11 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 162.033-5), and Circ. 1312 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 162.033-5).
(f) Sample calculations and drawings for typical fixed foam fire-
extinguishing system installations in accordance with the applicable
vessel regulations (such as 46 CFR 76.17 for passenger vessels). The
drawings must show the location and range of foam coverage for the
discharge devices, and the calculations must demonstrate that the
design foam application rate is achieved for the entire protected area
of the space. Sample drawings for tanker deck system installations in
accordance with 46 CFR 34.17 must show the location of the deck foam
monitors and the range of the foam stream for the monitors, which may
not exceed 75% of the recorded foam discharge device range data.
(g) System operation, testing and maintenance instructions.
(h) For alcohol resistant and polar-solvent foam systems, a set of
annexes that contain the design foam application rate for each chemical
cargo the system is intended to protect.
Sec. 162.033-15 Approval and modification procedures.
(a) Fixed foam fire-extinguishing systems will be approved in
accordance with the procedures in 46 CFR 159.005. Any modifications in
design, formulation, specification, material, or construction must be
approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG-4) before being installed or used on
a U.S. vessel in any place where a Coast Guard-approved fixed foam
fire-extinguishing system is required.
(1) The manufacturer must submit an approval or modification
request application consisting of:
(i) A cover letter requesting type approval to the Commandant (CG-
ENG-4) describing the product, its intended uses and confirmation that
it complies with the requirements in 46 CFR 162.033. Modification
requests should include a change log for the product.
(ii) A test report from an independent laboratory that meets
Sec. Sec. 159.005-9, 11 and 162.033-9.
(iii) Evidence of a follow-up program or listing with an
independent laboratory that meets Sec. Sec. 159.005-11 and 162.033-11.
(iv) A DIOM manual for the fixed foam fire-extinguishing system
that meets the requirements of Sec. Sec. 159.005-12 and 162.033-13.
[[Page 30594]]
(2) The approval application must be submitted to Commandant (CG-
ENG-4) at:
(i) email [email protected], or
(ii) the mailing address in Sec. 162.033-3.
(b) [Reserved].
3. Add Subpart 162.040, consisting of Sec. Sec. 162.040-1 through
162.040-15, to read as follows:
Subpart 162.040 Foam Hose Reel Stations
Sec.
162.040-1 Scope.
162.040-3 Definitions.
162.040-5 Incorporation by reference.
162.040-7 General requirements for foam hose reel stations.
162.040-9 Tests for foam hose reel stations.
162.040-11 Follow-up program, marking, and labeling.
162.040-13 Design, installation, operation, and maintenance (DIOM)
manual for foam hose reel stations.
162.040-15 Approval and modification procedures.
Sec. 162.040-1 Scope.
This subpart prescribes standards, tests, and procedures for
obtaining Coast Guard type approval of foam hose reel stations as
excess fire-extinguishing systems for helicopter decks without fueling
facilities. Approved foam hose reel stations may also be used as a
substitute for required hose reel stations on deck fire mains if they
meet the applicable requirements of this subpart. Each foam hose reel
station consists of at least a foam tank, foam liquid concentrate, a
proportioner, a hose reel with non-collapsible hose and a nozzle, all
integrated into a compact unit.
Sec. 162.040-3 Definitions.
In this subpart, the term:
Commandant means the Office of Design and Engineering Standards,
Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4). Address: Commandant
(CG-ENG-4), Attn: Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard
Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-
7509; email: [email protected].
Foam means a fire-fighting agent made by mechanically mixing air
with a solution consisting of fresh or salt water to which a foam
liquid concentrate has been added.
Foam expansion value means the ratio of final foam volume to
original foam solution volume before adding air.
Foam liquid concentrate means a protein or synthetic based liquid
that is intended to be diluted with fresh water, salt water, or a
mixture of both fresh and salt water to a concentration (volume of
concentrate/volume of solution).
Foam quality means a measure of a foam's physical characteristics,
expressed as a foam's twenty-five percent drainage time, and a foam
expansion value.
Foam solution means a mixture of proportioned or premixed foam
liquid concentrate dissolved in fresh water, salt water, or a mixture
of fresh and salt water.
Follow-up program means a quality control system developed and
performed by an independent laboratory to ensure compliance with the
type approval conditions of a product.
Independent laboratory means an organization which meets the
standards for acceptance in Sec. 159.010-3, and which is accepted by
the Coast Guard for performing certain tests and inspections.
Listed means equipment or materials included in a list published by
an organization that is an independent laboratory, whose listing states
that either the equipment or material meets appropriate designated
standards.
Proportioner means a device intended to provide continuous
introduction of foam liquid concentrate at the recommended ratio into a
water stream to form a foam solution.
Twenty-five percent drainage time means the time required for a
twenty-five percent volume of liquid foam solution to drain from the
foam sample.
Sec. 162.040-5 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast
Guard Stop 7509, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG),
2703 Martin Luther King Jr Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-7509; email
[email protected] or visit https://www.dco.uscg.mil/CG-ENG-4/. It
is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA; email: [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations. The material may
also be obtained from the following sources:
(b) UL Solutions (formerly Underwriters Laboratories), 333
Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096, 919-549-1400, www.ul.com.
(1) UL 162 Standard for Safety: Foam Equipment and Liquid
Concentrates, Eighth Edition, (UL 162), dated February 23, 2018, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 162.040-7 introductory text, 162.040-7(f),
162.040-9(b), 162.040-11(d), and 162.040-13(e).
(2) UL 92 Standard for Safety: Fire Extinguisher, Booster, and
Noncollapsible Standpipe Hose and Hose Assemblies, Eleventh Edition,
(UL 92), March 24, 2020, IBR approved for Sec. 162.040-7(h).
(c) Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 55Z3), Department of the Navy,
Washington, DC 20362-5101.
(1) MIL-H-24580 (SH), Military Specification, Hose Assemblies,
Synthetic Rubber, Non collapsible, Fire Fighting, (MIL-H-24580),
amended May 21, 1985, IBR approved for Sec. 162.040-7(h).
(2) [Reserved]
(d) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 800-344-3555, https://www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 11, Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam,
2024 Edition, December 21, 2023, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 162.040-7
introductory text, and 162.040-13(e).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Publications Section,
4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7735
7611, https://www.imo.org.
(1) MSC.1/Circ. 1312/Correction 1, Revised Guidelines for the
Performance and Testing Criteria, and Surveys of Foam Concentrates for
Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems, (Circ 1312), November 22, 2011, IBR
approved for Sec. 162.040-13(e).
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 162.040-7 General requirements for foam hose reel stations.
For Coast Guard approval, all components of a foam hose reel
station must meet the applicable design, construction and performance
requirements of UL 162 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.040-
5), NFPA 11 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.040-5), and the
following requirements:
(a) Each proportioner, nozzle, piping, and valves of the foam hose
reel station must be brass, bronze, stainless steel, or similarly
durable, heat resistant, corrosion-resistant material, except for
incidental hardware and other parts, such as gaskets, bumpers, etc.,
which may be of rubber or plastic. Aluminum and aluminum alloys must
not be used.
(b) All materials used in the construction of the foam hose reel
station must not be degraded by or adversely affect the foam products.
(c) The foam liquid concentrate storage tank must be vented.
(d) The proportioner must be permanently preset at the factory to
the
[[Page 30595]]
recommended ratio and must not be field adjustable to a range of
concentrations unless otherwise approved by the Commandant.
(e) The foam hose reel station structure must be made of stainless
or galvanized steel.
(f) The foam liquid concentrate used in the foam hose reel station
must be listed by an independent laboratory as meeting the requirements
of UL 162 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.040-5).
(g) Foam hose reel stations intended to be used on fire main
systems must have combination nozzles that are approved by the Coast
Guard under approval series 162.027.
(h) Foam hose reel stations intended to be used on fire main
systems must have non-collapsible hose that complies with either UL 92
or MIL-H-24580 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.040-5).
(i) Foam hose reel stations intended to be used on fire main
systems must have a water bypass line around the foam proportioner for
use when flowing water only.
Sec. 162.040-9 Tests for foam hose reel stations.
For Coast Guard approval, the tests of this part must be conducted
by an independent laboratory.
(a) Performance tests. Two discharge tests must be conducted for
each foam hose reel station for which approval is sought. Each
discharge test must be conducted with half of the hose unwound from the
foam hose reel station. Each discharge test must include:
(i) Activation time. The foam hose reel station must be capable of
producing foam within 10 seconds of activation. Starting with empty
foam hose reel station piping and hose, water must be supplied to the
foam hose reel station at nominal maximum inlet pressure and the time
taken to produce foam from the nozzle must be recorded.
(ii) Induction rate. The ability of the proportioner of the foam
hose reel station to induce liquid concentrate into the water flow at
the correct percentage must be demonstrated at the minimum and maximum
nominal inlet pressures of the foam hose reel station. The criterion
for the induction rate is the nominal percentage for the liquid
concentrate minus 0 and plus 30 percent.
(iii) Discharge time. The foam discharge time of the foam hose reel
station must be at least 5 minutes at the maximum nominal inlet
pressure.
(b) Foam quality tests.
(i) Foam hose reel stations must generate foam that matches the
foam quality of their foam concentrate UL 162 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 162.033-5) listing.
(ii) [Reserved]
(c) Pressure test. A sample hose reel, hose, and piping assembly of
the foam hose reel station must be subjected to a pressure test. The
test must be conducted at twice the maximum nominal station inlet
pressure or 400 psi, whichever is less. The test must be for a duration
of one minute. No part of the tested assembly may break or rupture
during the test.
Sec. 162.040-11 Follow-up program, marking, and labeling.
(a) An independent laboratory must perform an initial factory
inspection to establish the materials of construction, foam quality
tests, foam hose reel station performance, material schedule, system
specifications, dimensions, tolerances and other related factors needed
to confirm product consistency during follow-up production inspections.
(b) Production inspections must be performed by an independent
laboratory at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made
to the foam hose reel station that may adversely affect the foam hose
reel station effectiveness.
(c) The independent laboratory must prepare production inspection
procedures and a report of the results of the testing program and must
furnish the manufacturer with each upon completion of the required
testing.
(d) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in
packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer,
product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, Coast
Guard type approval number and other information required by UL 162
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 162.040-5).
Sec. 162.040-13 Design, installation, operation, and maintenance
(DIOM) manual for foam hose reel stations.
Each foam hose reel station must have a DIOM manual that includes
the following:
(a) Detailed, orthographic, engineering drawings of the hose reel
station.
(b) A complete list of components.
(c) Drawings of major system components, such as the nozzle, reel,
proportioner, etc.
(d) Hydraulic data for system components such as proportioning
curves, discharge curves, and ranges of discharge from nozzles.
(e) List of type and characteristic of foam liquid concentrates for
use with the hose reel station (basic composition, percent
concentration, and trade name of concentrate, etc.), as well as
instructions and acceptance criteria for periodic sampling of foam
liquid concentrates carried on each vessel to meet UL 162 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 162.040-5), NFPA 11 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 162.040-5), and Circ 1312 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 162.040-5).
(f) System operation, testing and maintenance instructions.
Sec. 162.040-15 Approval and modification procedures.
(a) Foam hose reel stations will be approved in accordance with the
procedures in 46 CFR 159.005. Any changes in design, formulation,
specification, material, or construction must be approved by the
Commandant before being installed as excess equipment on a U.S. vessel.
(b) The manufacturer must submit an approval or modification
request application consisting of:
(i) A cover letter requesting type approval or modification to the
Commandant (CG-ENG-4) describing the product, its intended uses and
confirmation it complies with the requirements in Sec. 162.040. For
modifications, this should include a revision table for the product.
(ii) A test report from an independent laboratory that meets 46 CFR
159.005-9 & 11, and Sec. 162.040-9.
(iii) Evidence of a follow-up program or listing with an
independent laboratory that meets 46 CFR 159.005-11 and Sec. 162.040-
11.
(iv) A DIOM manual for the foam hose reel station that meets the
requirements of 46 CFR 159.005-12 and Sec. 162.040-13.
(c) The approval application must be submitted to Commandant (CG-
ENG-4) by--
(1) Email to [email protected], or
(2) Mail to Commandant (CG-ENG-4), Attn: Lifesaving and Fire Safety
Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-7509.
Dated: May 21, 2026.
W.R. Arguin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2026-10413 Filed 5-22-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P