Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/06/18/04-13600/fire-suppression-systems-and-voyage-planning-for-towing-vessels
Timestamp: 2018-04-20 23:16:22
Document Index: 627437564

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', 'art 164', 'arts 25', 'art 164', '§\u2009164', '§\u2009164', '§\u2009164', '§\u2009164', '§\u2009164', 'art 25', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', 'art 27', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', 'art 51', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927', '§\u200927']

This final rule is effective July 19, 2004. The incorporation by reference of certain publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 19, 2004.
69 FR 34064
34064-34072 (9 pages)
1625-AA60
04-13600
Requirement for a Fixed Fire-Extinguishing System
Design of Fixed Suppression Systems
Requirements for Semi-Portable Fire Extinguishers
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/04-13600 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/04-13600
This final rule adopts, with changes, the interim rule published on April 29, 2003, that required the installation of fire-suppression systems in the engine rooms of towing vessels and voyage planning. This rule aims at reducing the number of uncontrolled engine-room fires and other mishaps on towing vessels. It should save lives, reduce property damage, and reduce the associated threats to maritime commerce and the environment.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of this docket and are available for inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov/​.
If you have questions on this rule, call Randall Eberly, P. E., Project Manager, at 202-267-1861. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Andrea M. Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Department of Transportation, at telephone 202-366-0271.
In 1996, as a result of the tugboat SCANDIA's catching fire and causing the spillage of about 850,000 gallons of oil from the barge NORTH CAPE, which it was towing, Congress amended (in Public Law 104-324) section 902 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act [codified as 46 U.S.C. 3719] to direct the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules for fire-suppression equipment on towing vessels (See Statutory Mandate for a statement of current authority). Subsequently, on October 6, 1997, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register titled “Towing Vessel Safety” [62 FR 52057]. The NPRM proposed fire-suppression measures on towing vessels, but did not make the installation of fixed fire-suppression systems mandatory on existing vessels, because their engine rooms were typically not designed as enclosed spaces. Instead, it proposed a combination of fire-detection systems, semi-portable fire extinguishers, training of crews, and fixed or portable fire pumps. It also solicited public comments on principles of voyage planning for the development of a future Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC).
A number of comments submitted in response to the NPRM criticized the proposed fire-safety measures, saying they failed to meet the intent of the Authorization Act because they did not entail total-flooding fixed fire-suppression systems on all vessels, or, at least, not on all towing vessels used to transport oil and other hazardous substances. Many of the comments also held our logic of proposing alternative measures on existing vessels flawed, because there are specially designed fixed fire-suppression systems available for engine rooms that are not enclosed. Some of them also maintained that the proposed measures were inadequate because they did not consider vessels' characteristics, their methods of operation, or their nature of service, nor did they differentiate between ocean-going tugboats and inland towboats. Yet another group of comments disputed entirely the need for supplemental fire-suppression equipment, citing the established safety record of the towing industry, and pointing out that the SCANDIA incident was an isolated occurrence.
While most of the comments disagreed with our proposals for fire-suppression equipment, most agreed with our proposals for added safety measures, such as communication systems and fire-detection systems. We therefore divided the fire-protection issues into two separate rulemakings. The less-controversial requirements we addressed in an interim rule titled: “Fire Protection Measures for Towing Vessels” [USCG-1998-4445], which was published on October 19, 1999 [64 FR 56257]. That rule implemented requirements for general-alarm systems, internal-communication systems, fire-detection systems, remote fuel-shut-off valves, and monthly drills on all non-exempt towing vessels. Those requirements ultimately appeared in a final rule on August 28, 2000 [65 FR 52043]. That rule involved some minor changes based on comments received on the docket, but did not address requirements for fire-suppression systems, either manual or fixed.
We began a separate rulemaking to address the controversial requirements for fire-suppression systems. On November 8, 2000, we published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) entitled: “Fire-Suppression Systems and Voyage Planning for Towing Vessels” [USCG-2000-6931][65 FR 66941]. The SNPRM included voyage planning in response to public comments made on the docket for the prior proposal. We received cogent comments doubting whether voyage planning was amenable to treatment in a NVIC. We therefore proposed rules that would require completion of a voyage-planning analysis before each trip.
As announced in a notice of meeting [65 FR 82030] on February 8, 2001, a public meeting occurred during the comment period in Washington, DC. At the meeting, the Chairman of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) advised us that the comment period was scheduled to close before the regularly scheduled meeting of the TSAC on March 14-15, 2001, and that, consequently, we would not have the benefit of the members' input. So we published a notice [66 FR 11241] extending the comment period until May 8, 2001, to allow the members more time for comments. During the extended comment period, we received requests from several operators of towing vessels on the Western Rivers to hold another public meeting, at a place convenient to the inland waterways. We honored this request by, again, publishing a notice [66 FR 36224] extending the comment period, and announcing that we would hold a second meeting, in Huntington, West Virginia, on August 15, 2001.
The interim rule published on April 29, 2003 [68 FR 22604] changed the requirements proposed in the SNPRM in response to the comments received, both on the docket and at the two public meetings. The interim rule prescribed that non-exempted towing vessels must—
Be fitted with fire-suppression equipment in their engine rooms; and
Not proceed on a trip or voyage beyond the territorial sea baseline before completing a plan for the trip or voyage.
However, separate requirements were proposed for (1) vessels in inland service and (2) those in ocean or coastal service. Start Printed Page 34065
These changes were made in the interim rule because the public response to the SNPRM was overwhelmingly negative. Most of the comments opposed the requirement for fixed fire-suppression systems on towing vessels in inland service, and suggested we allow manual fire-fighting measures on those vessels. Most of the comments on voyage planning opposed its application to towing vessels on inland waters. After considering all of the comments to the SNPRM along with the fire-related casualty statistics available for towing vessels, we decided to accept manual fire-fighting equipment and measures as an alternative to fixed fire-suppression systems on all towing vessels operating exclusively on inland waters. However, we still required the installation of fixed fire-suppression systems in the engine rooms of new ocean or coastal service towing vessels whose construction was contracted for on or after August 27, 2003. And the applicability of the voyage-planning requirement was narrowed, so that it does not apply to towing vessels operating exclusively on inland waters.
The public response to the interim rule showed that the changes we made were generally acceptable to the towing industry. Several limited comments were submitted in response to the interim rule, and they are summarized under Discussion of Comments and Changes.
Section 902 of the Authorization Act of 1996 directs that the Coast Guard consider requiring the installation, maintenance, and use of fire-suppression systems or other such measures on towing vessels. It further directs that the Coast Guard develop rules for the installation “of a fire-suppression system or other measures to provide adequate assurance that a fire on board a towing vessel, that is towing a non-self-propelled tank vessel, can be suppressed under reasonably foreseeable circumstances.”
On March 1, 2003, by authority of subsection 103(c) of the Homeland-Security Act of 2002 [Pub. L. 107-296], the Coast Guard shifted from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. The Secretary of Homeland Security supports this rulemaking as an important initiative.
The docket received a total of 9 letters containing 17 comments on the interim rule. Of the comments, 15 dealt with fire suppression while 2 dealt with voyage planning. The following paragraphs contain summaries of the comments (and explanations of any changes made by this rule to the interim rule) under the category-headings that follow:
One comment indicated support for changing the rule to require fixed fire-extinguishing systems for the protection of all towing vessels' engine rooms. This comment was not adopted for the reasons explained in the interim rule (68 FR 22606).
One comment recommended that we add criteria to § 27.305(b) to require that engine-intake air must come from outside the engine room. The commenter felt that this would allow the vessel's engine or engines to continue to operate if the extinguishing system was discharged. We do not agree with this comment. If there were a fire in the engine room, the engine could be affected by fire-related damage despite the source of intake air. We expect that the fixed-fire suppression system will limit this damage.
One comment expressed concern that the requirement for a size B-V semi-portable fire extinguisher on all towing vessels was excessive. The comment proposed that a size B-III portable extinguisher would be satisfactory for the protection of towing vessels under 79 feet (24 m) in length. We do not agree with this proposal. The severity of an engine-room fire is not related to the length of the vessel, but to the fire hazard present in the engine room. The use of marine diesel fuel oil poses a sufficient hazard to warrant the higher fire-suppression capability of a size B-V extinguisher.
Another comment recommended revising the wording of § 27.209 to prescribe the use of video training materials instead of videotapes, since DVD format is now routinely used. We agree with this and have changed the section accordingly.
One comment questioned the clarity of the exemptions listed in § 27.100— specifically, the use of the word “solely” in each sub-paragraph of § 27.100, (b)(1) through (4). The comment noted that the use of the word “solely” within each sub-paragraph would appear to exclude vessels that perform more than one of the exempted services from being granted an exemption. We agree with the comment. It was not our intent to prevent towing vessels that may perform multiple services not involving the towing of barges from receiving an exemption. We have revised the text of the rule to further clarify which vessels may receive an exemption.
A related comment criticized the wording in the exemption listed in § 27.100(b)(7) that permits vessels that operate within 20 miles of shore and in fair weather, a general exemption from the rule. The comment pointed out that, as it currently stands, this exemption would permit a wide range of towing vessels to move tank barges for significant distances within the permitted 20-mile limit from shore. If an engine-room fire were to occur on one of these vessels that caused the loss of propulsion or steering, a significant polluting accident could occur. We agree with this observation. It was our intent that the exemption only apply to certain towing vessels—those pushing a barge ahead or hauling a barge alongside—that normally operate in inland service and occasionally travel, in fair weather only, beyond the territorial sea baseline of the U.S. for very short distances on pre-determined routes. The proposed wording and the location of the exemption within the rule were in error. To correct this, we have moved the exemption to § 27.305 and narrowed the acceptable operating distance to within 12 miles of shore.
Another comment requested that we reconsider the exemption for harbor-assist tugs stated in § 27.100(b). The comment suggested that fixed fire-suppression systems should be required on such vessels because local fire departments in that State did not have the resources to fight vessel fires. We do not agree with this comment and have not changed the rule because of it. In our NPRM and SNPRM, we considered the extent of the fire hazard attributable to harbor-assist tugs nationwide, and determined that, because they do not routinely move tank barges, they present an acceptable level of risk.
Other comments argued that we should require qualified fire-fighting training and personal protective gear for crewmembers. The comments disagreed with our view in the SNPRM that the costs associated with maintaining the correct gear in the sizes needed for each crewmember would be prohibitive, arguing instead that most crewmembers could wear a size large. They also argued that the lack of personal protective gear and fire-fighting training would shift the burden for the safety of towing vessels from the operators of the Start Printed Page 34066vessels to the local fire departments. We do not agree with these opinions, and maintain the position taken in the SNPRM that our analysis of casualties indicates that all fires put out by crewmembers were put out by crewmembers without benefit of extensive training or protective clothing. We therefore have decided not to amend the final rule.
We received two comments that recommended that we subject towing vessels to inspection by the Coast Guard. This suggestion is outside the scope of this rulemaking and has not been considered in the final rule.
Several comments requested that we reconsider the requirement in § 27.301(a)(2) that a crewmember be able to energize the fixed fire pump from the operating station. The commenters suggested that this was too restrictive a requirement and that locating the fire-pump control at any safe place outside the engine room would be suitable. We agree and have changed the wording of this section.
A related comment pointed out that the fire-main valves need to be included in the requirements for remote operation, because they may not be normally kept in the open position. We acknowledge that this could be a problem if the fire main has valves. However, we have not issued any rules that require valves to be installed. Acting on this suggestion, we have added criteria for being able to remotely operate any valves in the fire main.
We received comments from the National Fire Protection Association, whose standards we incorporate by reference in § 27.102, informing us that the references we cited have been updated. The Association recommends that the reference to NFPA 302—Pleasure and Commercial Motorcraft— be changed from the 1989 edition to the 1998 edition. The other reference in need of updating is NFPA 750—Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems. In the interim rule we cited the 2000 edition. The current edition is 2003. We have decided to make the recommended changes. The Association also recommended that we cite NFPA standard 301—Safety to Life From Fire on Merchant Vessels—for informational purposes, since chapter 18 of this standard addresses towing vessels. We have not done so, because we do not incorporate the standard by reference in the rule.
One comment suggested that we require every towing vessel to be equipped with an electronic chart-plotter and that mariners be trained in its use. This requirement is outside the scope of this rulemaking and has not been considered.
A second comment recommended that we reconsider our position to exempt inland towing vessels from performing voyage or trip planning. The comment did not supply any new information on this topic. We have made no changes to the rule in response to this request.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. However, it is significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Regulatory Evaluation in the docket for the interim rule is unchanged for the final rule.
A summary of the Evaluation follows:
We expect measures published in this rule to yield a benefit-to-cost ratio of about 1.6-to-1. Estimated benefits, in the form of avoided injuries and avoided damage to vessels and property, are around $29.5 million. In addition, the measures are estimated to prevent 14,139 barrels of oil pollution. The estimated total present-value cost of this rulemaking is $18.6 million. The table following this paragraph illustrates the calculation of total benefits and costs and also breaks out the benefits and costs of the fire-suppression and voyage-planning components. The period of analysis is from 2003 until 2015. Most of the costs are incurred in the first two years of the analysis period, as this is when industry will incur the capital costs of installing manual fire-fighting equipment.
Total Costs, Benefits, and Benefit/Cost Ratios of Requirements for Fire-Suppression and Voyage Planning
Present-Value Total Cost of Fire-Suppression $16,975,875
Present-Value Total Benefit of Fire-Suppression $24,325,311
Barrels of Pollution Avoided 9,032
Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.43:1
Present-Value Total Cost of Voyage Planning $1,633,346
Present-Value Total Benefit of Voyage Planning $5,104,360
Barrels of Pollution Avoided 5,107
Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.13:1
Present-Value Total Cost of Rule $18,609,221
Present-Value Total Benefit of Rule $29,429,671
Barrels of Pollution Avoided by Rule 14,139
Benefit/Cost Ratio of Rule 1.58:1
Note: Benefit/Cost ratio is present-value total benefit divided by the present-value total cost.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Coast Guard considers the economic impact on small entities of each rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required. “Small entities” include: 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.
The requirements contained in this rule will have much less of an impact on small entities than those contained in the SNPRM published November 8, 2000. There, we indicated that the requirements contained in the SNPRM might constitute a significant impact on Start Printed Page 34067a substantial number of small entities. The total present-value cost of the requirements contained in the SNPRM was around $116 million.
The SNPRM initially required the installation of a fixed fire-suppression system in the engine room of a towing vessel as an alternative to manual fire-suppression systems. The IR, however, prescribed the installation of manual fire-suppression equipment in place of a more costly fixed fire-suppression system for all new and existing inland and coastal towing vessels. A fixed fire-suppression system would be required for new coastal towing vessels only. Since the estimated number of new coastal towing vessels is small, this greatly reduced the costs for the fire-suppression requirement.
Additionally, the interim rule required voyage planning for new and existing coastal towing vessels only, not inland towing vessels, which further reduced costs of the voyage planning requirement, and, subsequently, the total cost of the rule.
We estimate that this final rule will cost industry $18.6 million. About 1,200 companies are affected by this rule; of these, about 1,000 count as small entities. The average small business, in our analysis, owns two affected towing vessels and has average annual revenues of $1.1 million. Consequently, an average small business will spend around $12,000 over the 13 years covered by our analysis to have the manual fire-fighting equipment on board and to conduct voyage planning. Therefore, we certify that this rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If your small business or organization is affected by this rule, and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Mr. Randall Eberly, P. E., Project Manager, at 202-267-1861.
This rule does not provide for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.]
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S. Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) This final rule involves equipping and operation of vessels. Because the States may not regulate within these categories, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an issue.
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. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this final rule will not result in such an expenditure, we discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This final rule will not effect a taking of private property or, otherwise, have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.
We have analyzed this final 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. It has not been designated, by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule concerns the equipping of towing vessels. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Start Printed Page 34068Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 164 and 46 CFR parts 25 and 27 as follows:
1. Revise the citation of authority for part 164 to read as follows:
2. In § 164.78, revise paragraphs (a)(6), (7), and (8) to read as follows:
§ 164.78
Navigation under way: Towing vessels.
(8) Monitors the voyage plan required by § 164.80.
3. In § 164.80, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 164.80
4. Revise the citation of authority for part 25 to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4102, 4302; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 (75).
5. In § 25.30-10, revise the heading, and paragraph (c) and Table 25.30-10(C), to read as follows:
§ 25.30-10
Hand-portable fire extinguishers and semi-portable fire-extinguishing systems.
(c) The number designations for size run from “I” for the smallest to “V” for the largest. Sizes I and II are hand-portable fire extinguishers; sizes III, IV, and V are semi-portable fire-extinguishing systems, which must be fitted with hose and nozzle or other practical means to cover all portions of the space involved. Examples of the sizes for some of the typical hand-portable fire extinguishers and semi-portable fire-extinguishing systems appear in Table 25.30-10(C):
B-I 6.5 (13/4) 2 (4) 1 (2)
B-II 9.5 (21/2) 7 (15) 4.5 (10)
6. Revise § 25.30-15 to read as follows:
7. Revise part 27 to read as follows:
What towing vessels does this part affect?
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4102 (as amended by Pub. L. 104-324, 110 Stat. 3901); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(75).
§ 27.100
(2) A manually-operated clean-agent system that satisfies the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 2001 (incorporated by reference in § 27.102) and is approved by the Commandant; or
(3) A manually-operated water-mist system that satisfies NFPA Standard 750 (incorporated by reference in § 27.102) and is approved by the Commandant.
Towing vessel means a commercial vessel engaged in, or intending to engage in, pulling, pushing, or hauling alongside, or any combination of pulling, pushing, or hauling alongside.Start Printed Page 34070
§ 27.102
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register—in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of the change in the Federal Register and make the material available for inspection. All approved material is available at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (G-MSE), 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or from the sources indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/​federal_​register/​code_​of_​federal_​regulations/​ibr_​locations.html.
American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC), 3069 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037-1416
H-25-1986—Portable Fuel Systems for Flammable Liquids 27.211
H-33-1989—Diesel Fuel Systems 27.211
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101
NFPA 302-1998—Fire Protection Standard for Pleasure, and Commercial Motorcraft 27.211
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001
SAE J1475-1984—Hydraulic Hose Fitting for Marine Applications 27.211
SAE J1942-1989—Hose and Hose Assemblies for Marine Applications 27.211
§ 27.203
§ 27.207
To stop the flow of fuel in the event of a break in the fuel line, you must have a positive, remote fuel-shut-off Start Printed Page 34071valve fitted on any fuel line that supplies fuel directly to an engine or generator. The valve must be near the source of supply (for instance, at the day tank, storage tank, or fuel-distribution manifold). Furthermore, it must be operable from a safe place outside the space where the valve is installed. Each remote valve control should be marked in clearly legible letters, at least 25 millimeters (1 inch) high, indicating the purpose of the valve and the way to operate it.
(a) Drills and instruction. The master or person in charge of a vessel must ensure that each crewmember participates in drills and receives instruction at least once each month. The instruction may coincide with the drills, but need not. You must ensure that all crewmembers are familiar with their fire-fighting duties, and, specifically, with the following contingencies:
§ 27.211
(b) Portable fuel systems. The vessel must not incorporate or carry portable fuel systems, including portable tanks and related fuel lines and accessories, except when used for outboard engines or when permanently attached to portable equipment such as portable bilge pumps or fire pumps. The design, construction, and stowage of portable tanks and related fuel lines and accessories must comply with ABYC H-25 (incorporated by reference in § 27.102).
(A) If it is designed for use with compression fittings, is fitted with suitable, corrosion-resistant, compression fittings, or fittings compliant with SAE J1475 (incorporated by reference in § 27.102); or,
(3) Nonmetallic flexible hose complying with SAE J1942 (incorporated by reference in § 27.102) is also acceptable.
(1) ABYC H-33 (incorporated by reference in § 27.102).
(2) Chapter 5 of NFPA 302 (incorporated by reference in § 27.102).
§ 27.301
(1) Delivering water simultaneously from the two highest hydrants, or from Start Printed Page 34072both branches of the fitting if the highest hydrant has a Siamese fitting, at a pitot-tube pressure of at least 344 kPa (50 psi) and a flow rate of at least 300 lpm (80 gpm); and
[FR Doc. 04-13600 Filed 6-17-04; 8:45 am]