[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33860-33894]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12334]

Vol. 77

Thursday,

No. 110

June 7, 2012

Part III

Department of Homeland Security

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

Coast Guard

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

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

Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression Systems on Commerical Vessels; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, 62, 71, 76, 78, 91, 95, 97,
107, 108, 112, 115, 118, 119, 122, 131, 132, 147, 162, 167, 169,
176, 181, 182, 185, 189, 190, 193, 194, and 196

[USCG-2006-24797]
RIN 1625-AB44

Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression Systems on Commercial Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the current regulations for fire
suppression systems on several classes of commercial vessels. The
amendments clarify that approved alternatives to carbon dioxide systems
may be used to protect some spaces on these vessels, and set general
requirements for alternative systems. Additionally, certain new carbon
dioxide systems must be equipped with lockout valves and odorizing
units to protect persons after a carbon dioxide discharge. By requiring
these features on carbon dioxide systems and by making a wider range of
fire suppression systems available, the regulations advance the Coast
Guard's strategic goals of promoting marine safety and maritime
mobility.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 9, 2012. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on July 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2006-24797 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2006-24797 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Suzanne Hemann, CG-5214; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Comments and Changes
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 Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
FSS IMO's International Code for Fire Systems Safety
IMO International Maritime Organization
MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit
MSC Coast Guard Marine Safety Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NTTAA The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
SOLAS 74 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,
1974
TSAC Towing Safety Advisory Committee
UL Underwriters Laboratory
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History

    On February 24, 2010, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled ``Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression Systems on Commercial
Vessels'' in the Federal Register (75 FR 8432). We received 18 comments
on the proposed rule. No public meeting was held.

III. Basis and Purpose

    The basis of this final rule is the Secretary of Homeland
Security's regulatory authority under the following statutes. In all
cases, the Secretary has delegated this authority to the Coast Guard
through Delegation No. 0170.1(92). Section 3306 of Title 46, United
States Code (U.S.C.) mandates the issuance of vessel equipment
regulations for Coast Guard-inspected vessels and the issuance of
structural fire protection regulations for small passenger vessels; 46
U.S.C. 3703 mandates regulations, including fire protection
regulations, for vessels carrying liquid bulk dangerous cargoes; 46
U.S.C. 4102 authorizes regulations, after consultation with the Towing
Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), for fire protection and suppression
measures on towing vessels; 46 U.S.C. 4302 authorizes safety equipment
regulations for recreational vessels; and 46 U.S.C. 4502 mandates fire
extinguisher regulations for some uninspected commercial fishing
vessels and authorizes safety equipment regulations for certain other
uninspected commercial fishing vessels.
    The purpose of this final rule is to advance the Coast Guard's
strategic goals of marine safety and maritime mobility, by clarifying
and codifying the requirements for fire suppression systems that use
carbon dioxide (CO2) alternatives, and by requiring lockout
valves and odorizers to improve safety on certain vessels that use
carbon dioxide fire suppression systems.

IV. Background

    This discussion is adapted from Parts III and IV of our NPRM. See
75 FR 8432, 8433.
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) systems are suitable for
suppressing or extinguishing fires in certain vessel spaces. They work
by flooding spaces with CO2. CO2 flooding
deprives a fire of the oxygen it needs to burn, but these same systems
have also killed people on U.S. military vessels and foreign flag
vessels who were in CO2-protected spaces when the odorless
CO2 gas was discharged accidentally, or without adequate
warning to evacuate. This final rule addresses that risk by requiring
lockout valves (``lockouts'') and odorizing units (``odorizers'') for
most new CO2 systems, specifically those installed or
altered after July 9, 2013. (``Altered'' means modified or refurbished
beyond the maintenance required by the manufacturer's design,
installation, operation and maintenance manual.)
    New CO2 systems protecting spaces containing more than
6,000 cubic feet will need lockout valves. The lockout must be locked
in the ``off'' position during maintenance or testing of a
CO2 system, to prevent its accidental discharge during those
times of heightened risk to personnel.
    All new CO2 systems will need odorizers. In the event of
a discharge, the odorizer will inject a wintergreen scent that will
linger as long as harmful amounts of the discharged gas are present, to
alert personnel to that presence.

    Existing Coast Guard regulations require CO2 systems in
certain spaces on towing vessels, tank vessels, cargo and miscellaneous
vessels, mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), offshore supply
vessels, public nautical school ships, and large passenger vessels
(``Subchapter H'' vessels); we allow their use on smaller ``Subchapter
K'' and ``Subchapter T'' passenger vessels as well. In recent years,
fixed extinguishing systems using ``clean agents'' have been developed
that are comparable to CO2 systems in their ability to
suppress fires, but that do not pose the same risks to persons onboard.
We would like to spread public awareness that these alternatives exist.
We have approved many alternative systems as ``regulatory equivalents''
to CO2 systems, but the process for requesting and granting
an equivalency determination can be burdensome and time-consuming both
for regulated entities and for the Coast Guard. We want to update our
regulations so that the clean agent systems we have routinely been
approving can be used by regulated entities to comply with Coast Guard
fire suppression requirements, without the need for obtaining
individual equivalency determinations. This should reduce regulatory
burden and potentially increase the use of these alternative systems.
    The following table lists the parts within 46 CFR that are affected
by the final rule and the specific sections we are amending. The
foregoing discussion provides a general summary of the changes. When
additional information is required, it appears in the table in
parentheses. The table omits any discussion of numerous minor and non-
substantive style, format, or wording changes that we are proposing
solely to improve the clarity of our regulations.

                                           Table 1--Changes to 46 CFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            46 CFR part and topic                            46 CFR sections affected (& comments)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25--Uninspected vessels.....................  25.30-1 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 25.30-15
                                               (remove paragraph designations and remove redundant second
                                               paragraph).
27--Towing vessels..........................  27.100 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 27.101.
28--Commercial fishing industry vessels.....  28.30 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 28.825.
31, 34, 35--Tank vessels....................  31.01-1 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 31.10-18
                                               (remove flow test requirement in para. (f)), 34.01-1
                                               (preemption), 34.01-15 (incorporation by reference), 34.05-5,
                                               34.15-50 (new), 34.15-60 (new), 35.01-2 (new; preemption), 35.40-
                                               7, 35.40-8 (new), 35.40-10.
62--Marine engineering, vital systems         62.01-1 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 62.25-20.
 automation.
71, 76, 78--Subchapter H passenger vessels    71.01-1/71.01-2 (new/redesignation; preemption; see part VII.E of
 (>/=100 gross tons).                          this preamble), 71.20-20, 71.25-20, 71.65-5, 76.01-1
                                               (preemption), 76.05-1, 76.10-5, 76.15-50 (new), 76.16-60 (new),
                                               78.01-1 (preemption), 78.47-9, 78-47.11 (new), 78.47-17.
91, 95, 97--Cargo & miscellaneous vessels...  91.01-1/91.01-2 (new/redesignation; preemption; see part VII.E of
                                               this preamble), 91.20-20, 91.25-20, 91.55-5, 95.01-1
                                               (preemption), 95.01-2 (incorporation by reference), 95.05-10,
                                               95.10-5, 95.15-5 (lengthen discharge time from 2 to 10 min. for
                                               spaces specially suitable for vehicles to provide greater safety
                                               margin and meet the International Maritime Organization's Safety
                                               of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requirements), 95.15-30 (provide for
                                               nitrogen pilot cylinders), 95.15-50 (new), 95.15-60 (new), 95.16-
                                               1--95.16-90 (new; based on current subpart 95.15, modified and
                                               reorganized), 97.01-1 (preemption), 97.37-9, 97.37-11 (new),
                                               97.37-13.
107, 108--Mobile offshore drilling units....  107.01-1 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 107.231,
                                               107.235, 108.102 (new; preemption), 108.444 (new), 108.446 (new),
                                               108.626 (new), 108.627 , 108.631.
112--Electrical engineering, emergency        112.05-1 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 112.15-5.
 lighting & power systems.
115, 118, 119, 122--Subchapter K passenger    115.1 (new; preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 115.810,
 vessels (<100 gross tons & >150 passengers    118.115 (preemption), 118.410, 119.100 (preemption), 119.710,
 or >49 overnight passengers).                 122.115 (preemption), 122.612.
131, 132--Offshore supply vessels...........  131.100 (new; preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble),
                                               131.815, 131.817 (new), 131.825, 132.100 (preemption), 132.350.
147--Hazardous ships' stores................  147.1 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 147.7
                                               (incorporation by reference), 147.45 (non-substantive change),
                                               147.60 (non-substantive change), 147.66 (new), 147.67 (new).
162--Engineering equipment..................  162.017-1 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 162.161-
                                               1--162.161-9 (new).
167--Public nautical school ships...........  167.01-5 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 167.45-1,
                                               167.45-45, 167.55-5.
169--Sailing school vessels.................  169.101 (preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 169.247,
                                               169.564, 169.570 (new), 169.571 (new), 169.732, 169.734.
176, 181, 182, 185--Subchapter T passenger    176.1 (new; preemption; see part VII.E of this preamble), 176.810,
 vessels (<100 gross tons & 2 alternative (clean agent)
systems, and requiring some minimal protective measures for new
CO2 systems.
    A second commenter inferred that a carbon dioxide lockout would
need to be activated even at times when the CO2 system is
not undergoing maintenance. Our intention is for the lockout only to be
activated when the CO2 system is being tested or maintained,
and we have modified the regulatory text to make this clearer.
    The second commenter also asked questions about our proposed
lockout exception for spaces smaller than 6,000 cubic feet. In the
NPRM, we proposed limiting that exception to those small spaces that
provide a means of horizontal escape, like spaces with walk-in/walk-out
access. We have decided, for the final rule, to extend the exception to
all spaces smaller than 6,000 cubic feet, whether or not they provide
horizontal escape routes. Not all small spaces provide walk-in/walk-out
access, but in most cases the small space is protected by a
CO2 system that protects that space alone. The arrangements
for these systems are generally less complex as they serve only one
space, and are thus, less likely to discharge inadvertently during
system maintenance and testing.
    The third commenter asked if we intend for the rule to apply to
foreign-flagged mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) operating on the
U.S. Outer Continental Shelf under a U.S. Certificate of Compliance.
This commenter said it would be problematic to apply U.S. type
approvals to non-U.S. manufactured carbon dioxide systems on foreign-
flagged MODUs. Under 33 CFR 143.207, a MODU documented under the laws
of a foreign nation has a choice of design and equipment standards with
which it must comply when operating on the U.S. Outer Continental
Shelf. It may comply with Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR part 108,
which, as amended by this final rule, include the lockout and odorizer
requirements for CO2 systems. It may comply with the
documenting nation's standards, if it applies for and receives a Coast
Guard determination that those standards provide an equivalent or
greater level of safety. In the case of CO2 system lockout
and odorizer requirements, an equivalency determination may be given
after an applicant demonstrates that the foreign nation's standards
require some type of lockout and odorizer or alternative means of
providing an equivalent level of safety, though they need not be Coast
Guard-approved equipment. Finally, the foreign MODU may comply with the
International Maritime Organization's Code for Construction and
Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, which does not require
lockouts or odorizers for CO2 systems.
    Need for the rule. Ten commenters questioned the need for various
aspects of this rule. Four commenters questioned the overall need,
focusing primarily on the lockout and odorizer requirements. Typical of
these four commenters was the remark: ``retrofitting the numerous and
extremely diverse vessel population this rule would impact would be
much more costly than [the Coast Guard's] analysis indicates and would
provide a marginal safety advantage, if any.'' In the NPRM, we proposed
applying those requirements to all vessels, which would have required
retrofitting for existing vessels. In the final rule, we have
eliminated the provisions that would have required retrofitting,
thereby significantly reducing costs and eliminating the disagreement
raised by this commenter. Seven commenters said we had failed to
demonstrate a need for lockouts, and five said we failed to show the
need for odorizers. Many pointed out that lockouts would not have
prevented many of the reported carbon dioxide-related casualties in
recent years, and that we cited no studies to show that odorizers would
provide better protection than the audible and visual alarms that
already protect most vessels.
    In response to these comments, we will not require the retrofitting
of existing CO2 systems, but we will apply the lockout and
odorizer requirements only to new CO2 systems regardless of
vessel class. Although we have only limited casualty data for some
vessel classes, we think the risk of inadvertent CO2 system
discharge is common to all classes and requires a uniform regulatory
approach. Furthermore, while alarms provide advance warning of an
imminent discharge, they do not provide similar protection after a
discharge when pockets of CO2 can pose a serious risk of
fatality. Similarly, lockouts provide better protection than alarms in
scenarios where evacuation is not feasible despite the advance warning
provided by alarms.
    We acknowledge that our lockout and odorizer requirements may not
eliminate the risk of casualties related to CO2 exposure,
but we believe they will reduce that risk. CO2 exposure is a
potential health hazard recognized by government agencies like the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (see their
publication NIOSH 76-194, ``Criteria for a Recommended Standard--
Occupational Exposure to Carbon Dioxide,'' available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/76-194.html) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and by industry groups like the National Fire Prevention
Association (NFPA). Internationally, 19 incidents since 1980, involving
55 deaths and at least 29 injuries, indicate the reality and extent of
the risk with respect to marine CO2 fire suppression
systems. To the extent U.S. vessels are equipped with those systems, we
think they share in that risk.
    Two commenters questioned the need for lockout or odorizer
requirements on passenger or towing vessels, which are already required
by Coast Guard regulations to have central alarms that sound in advance
of a carbon dioxide discharge. Lockouts and odorizers provide
protection that alarms and discharge delays cannot. The lockout is a
positive control to prevent discharge into protected spaces during
maintenance and testing, when any other safety control or method may be
turned off or potentially misaligned. Unlike alarms, odorizers are not
primarily intended to notify persons who are in a protected space when
CO2 is inadvertently discharged. The odor allows crewmembers
to positively identify where the gas has lingered in protected spaces
or migrated to other spaces after an intentional or inadvertent
release. This is important, as CO2 gas is heavier than air
and can easily migrate or collect in unanticipated areas even after the
spaces have been ventilated naturally or mechanically.
    Alternative systems. Five commenters addressed our proposals for
CO2 alternative fire protection systems. One of the five
said that if there are safer

alternatives that work as well as carbon dioxide, ``those systems ought
to be considered and offered as options.'' The other four generally
agreed with the comment that recognition of ``other clean agent systems
appears to be overdue and should go forward.'' We agree with these
comments.
    One commenter, an EPA employee, recommended limiting the use of
carbon dioxide systems in new installations. Another commenter
recommended incorporating the 2010 version of NFPA 13, a standard for
sprinkler systems, in 46 CFR part 34, instead of the 1996 edition that
we currently incorporate by reference, and also recommended
incorporating NFPA standards for water mist, spray, and foam fire
suppression systems. These recommendations are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, and not necessary to reach our regulatory goals of
providing protective measures where CO2 systems are used and
a regulatory structure for CO2 alternative (clean agent)
fire suppression systems.
    Lockouts. Twelve commenters addressed the NPRM's proposed
requirement for lockouts on carbon dioxide systems. One of these
acknowledged that lockouts could be useful when persons unfamiliar with
a vessel perform maintenance on the CO2 system. Two
commenters agreed with our proposal, one of them pointing out that
lockouts ``are widely used low-cost methods for reducing the risk to
personnel in spaces protected with carbon dioxide.''
    Four commenters questioned the need for, or effectiveness of,
lockouts. Three of the four said vessel operators already use rigorous
procedures, sirens, and strobe lights to warn personnel in the event of
a carbon dioxide discharge. The fourth pointed out that, during
CO2 system maintenance, a trained and certified
manufacturer's representative should always be present to ensure that
written safety protocols are observed, and that the crew should verify
compliance with those protocols. In his view, therefore, lockouts are
not needed. Our position is that lockouts provide protection that the
measures cited by these commenters cannot. The lockout valves are
intended to provide protection during repair and maintenance procedures
to the system, preventing an accidental discharge with a positively
closed valve, whereas existing measures simply warn of an impending
accidental (or intentional) discharge. There are many ways in which a
CO2 system can discharge inadvertently during maintenance
and testing. Because each system is uniquely engineered and arranged to
suit the space it protects, even experienced technicians may be
unfamiliar with a system designed to protect multiple spaces with
multiple actuation methods and locations. The lockout gives the master
or person-in-charge an ultimate, positive control to prevent discharge
into protected spaces at a time when any other safety controls may be
turned off or potentially misaligned.
    Five commenters said the lockout requirement might have unintended
adverse consequences. A typical comment from these five said that
personnel might fail to reopen the lockout once the need for closing
the CO2 system ends, and that this failure might not be
noticed until a fire triggers the need for the CO2 system to
discharge. The commenter contrasted that possibility with electrical
systems, where inadvertent failure to reopen a lockout would result in
continued disruption of electrical service and would be noticed
immediately. Turning the valve on and off each time a crewmember enters
a protected space is not the intended use of the valve. Our regulatory
text now clarifies that the lockout is to close the system only during
system maintenance and testing, and that the master or person-in-charge
must ensure that the valve is locked open when maintenance or testing
is completed. Finally, we will ensure that when we review a
manufacturer's maintenance manual, we verify that using and unlocking
the lockout valve is discussed in the manual's maintenance procedures.
Such procedures have proven to be effective where CO2
lockout valves have been used.
    Another commenter suggested that, instead of requiring the master
to ensure that a carbon dioxide system is returned to service after
maintenance, we should require ``a lockout/tag-out system, which is a
more generally accepted method to ensure that each valve * * * is
correctly positioned after maintenance.'' We support, but do not
require, the use of lockout/tag-out systems, and believe we achieve
similar protection by requiring the lockout design or locking mechanism
to make it obvious whether the valve is open or closed.
    Four commenters suggested alternatives or modifications to our
proposal. One commenter cited the International Maritime Organization's
International Code for Fire Safety Systems (FSS Code) requirement for
the use of two independent valves to control the release of a
CO2 system and, noting that the FSS Code also allows for the
use of a lock box and key to prevent activation of the flooding system,
said that ``[a]s the lock box is designed to work with an existing
system controls it will be easier to install and maintain'' than a
lockout valve. We also require a dual-action release arrangement on
most spaces larger than 6,000 cubic feet, and passenger vessels are
required to have a locked box to protect the release handles against
inadvertent discharge. The locked boxes and dual action releases help
to ensure that the system is only activated when intended, and that the
agent is released to the desired space during an emergency. The use of
a locked box reduces the probability of tampering or inadvertent
release by inquisitive or malicious passengers. Lockout valves, on the
other hand, serve to protect personnel during system maintenance and
testing, when accidental discharges have been known to occur.
    A second commenter suggested that, as an alternative to requiring
lockouts, a ``better approach for life safety would be to prohibit new
installations of carbon dioxide systems.'' This suggestion is beyond
the scope of this rulemaking, which seeks only to provide protective
measures where CO2 fire suppression systems are used, and to
provide a regulatory structure for CO2 alternative (clean
agent) systems.
    Finally, a third commenter said we should substitute ``master or
person-in-charge'' for ``master'' as the person responsible for
ensuring the reopening of carbon dioxide system valves after
maintenance, because not all vessels use masters, or use masters only
when the vessel is underway. We have made the suggested change.
    Odorizers. Eleven commenters addressed our odorizer proposal. Two
supported our proposal, and one of these two said odorizers ``are
widely used low-cost methods for reducing the risk to personnel in
spaces protected with carbon dioxide.''
    One commenter asked if we intended to require adding wintergreen
scent directly to the carbon dioxide gas stored in system cylinders, or
if we intended to require even hand-held pressurized CO2
cylinders to be odorized. Neither is our intent. However, if it ever
becomes feasible to odorize CO2 directly in the cylinder,
this could be considered for approval as a regulatory equivalent to our
requirement for the CO2 system to have an approved odorizing
unit.
    Seven commenters questioned the effectiveness of an odorizer
requirement. Most asked why we think odorizers are superior to the
sirens, strobe lights, or other alarms they already use to warn
personnel in the event of a carbon dioxide discharge. In our view
odorizers are not necessarily superior to those other alarms, but a

natural complement to existing protective measures. Alarms are intended
to alert personnel in the protected space when a CO2 system
discharges. The alarm is short and stops once the gas has stopped
flowing from the storage bottles. Because the gas is naturally odorless
and colorless, the addition of an odorizer will signal to personnel
where the CO2 gas is and will provide notice as long as it
remains, and will continue to provide an alert to danger after
discharge. Further, the odor provides easy indication if it remains in
the protected space or if the gas has migrated, perhaps unexpectedly,
to other compartments. Being alerted to where the CO2 gas is
and how long it remains should enhance the safety of personnel. The
longstanding use of mercaptan to signify the presence of natural gas
and the successful use of wintergreen odorizers for shore-based
CO2 systems show the validity of such requirements. For
example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's NRC Information Notice 99-
05 describes an incident in which a security guard was alerted to the
dangerously concentrated presence of migrated CO2 in an area
outside of a protected space by its wintergreen scent. With crew
familiarization, and the explanatory signage we require, personnel will
become accustomed to wintergreen being associated with CO2
discharges, just as they learn to differentiate other alerts such as
bells and sirens in their workplace.
    One commenter pointed out that carbon dioxide casualties in recent
years have resulted from persons being trapped in spaces during carbon
dioxide discharges, and not from a lack of warning. We acknowledge that
odorizers, by themselves, will not prevent a trapping incident.
However, the odorizer will at least give a person additional warning
that he or she should exit the space if possible and it may also alert
others nearby who can help extricate any trapped person, and will alert
individuals to potentially dangerous concentrations post-discharge.
    Another commenter asked whether an offensive odor might work better
than wintergreen, and raised practical concerns about how the crew
would recognize the scent if it was masked by other environmental
conditions, such as the presence of perfume or cleaning agent odors. We
chose wintergreen because it is required, except when it is already in
common use for non-emergency purposes in the system location, by the
National Fire Protection Association's commonly-used NFPA 12 Standard
on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems, and therefore is widely and
inexpensively available. Personnel are likely to respond to an unusual
scent without regard to how pleasant it smells, especially if they are
trained to do so. If other environmental odors are strong enough to
cause notice, they will prompt a simple investigation that presumably
will quickly allay concerns of a CO2 leak. Wintergreen is
used on shore-based systems in part to avoid confusing a CO2
presence with the presence of mercaptan-laced natural gas.
    Three commenters suggested alternatives to our proposal. As other
commenters also observed, one commenter said wintergreen may be
confused with other scents in use on the vessel. Therefore this
commenter suggested using an odor other than wintergreen, or adding
color to the carbon dioxide gas. Our existing regulations allow for the
approval of regulatory equivalents when strict compliance with
regulatory requirements is impractical, and when there are alternatives
that can be shown to achieve the same level of safety that the
regulations provide. Owners and operators who find it impractical to
use the wintergreen odor may have another odor approved under these
equivalency provisions. However, we expect most systems to use
wintergreen, given its acceptance for shore-based systems under NFPA 12
and its wide and inexpensive availability. The success and availability
of wintergreen additives in the shore-based systems provide the basis
for choosing this as the standard. We will continue to monitor industry
standards for the success of alternative scents or adding color to
carbon dioxide gas.
    A second proponent of alternatives suggested prohibiting the
installation of new carbon dioxide systems instead of requiring systems
to be odorized. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking,
which seeks only to provide protective measures where such systems are
used, and to provide a regulatory structure for CO2
alternative (clean agent) fire suppression systems.
    The third proponent of alternatives suggested using plastic wrap to
detect leaks rather than requiring odorizers. This suggestion is also
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Further, it would only help those
looking for a leak to detect it, assuming the wrap happened to be in
place at the location of the leak, but it would not alert persons who
are engaged in other activities at the time of an indavertant discharge
as the odorizers are designed to do. Existing requirements for annually
validating the weight of fire suppression agents provide routine
protection against the small leaks that the commenter's suggestion
would target, but they do not focus on the full discharge that is the
focus of this rulemaking.
    Cost information. Eight commenters provided information about the
cost of our proposals. One commenter provided a combined estimate of
$3,472 to meet both the lockout valve and odorizer proposals.
    Four commenters provided cost estimates for lockout valves. Two of
these supplied estimates ranging between $800 and $1,800 per lockout
valve. A third estimated that a lockout valve for a less-than-2-inch
pipe would cost $2,895. The fourth estimated that the total cost of
lockouts for the commenter's 30 vessels would be $175,000, but did not
estimate the total number of lockouts that would be required.
    Three commenters provided cost estimates for odorizers. One said
the cost of odorizing a system would be $400. Another estimated the
cost at $3,225, and had received a discounted estimate of $25,329 for
eight tanks. The third estimated the cost, for 30 vessels, as $75,000,
but did not indicate how many tanks would require treatment.
    We have incorporated the additional specific cost information
provided by these commenters as appropriate based on the completeness
of data and sources provided. This final rule reflects new national
average costs accordingly. In the NPRM, we gave the national average
cost for lockout valves under two inches as $1,258, and $3,188 for
lockout valves two inches or more in length. The new figures are $2,076
and $4,925 respectively.
    Four commenters, some of whom acknowledged that the costs of our
specific proposals might be reasonable, stated that our proposals were
unreasonable when considered cumulatively with the cost of other recent
Federal regulations, including Coast Guard regulations, affecting
vessel owners and operators. Two of these commenters operate dinner
cruise vessels, and cited their inability to pass these cumulative
costs to their customers without harming their ability to compete with
land-based recreational attractions not subjected to marine safety
regulations. We reviewed our proposed regulation in light of the cost
concerns cited by commenters, and we have modified the regulatory text
for the final rule to minimize costs. Existing vessels will not be
affected by our lockout and odorizer requirements unless they install
or alter a CO2 system. We encourage vessel owners and
operators to voluntarily modify existing CO2 systems to
include lockouts and

odorizers, but we will not require them to do so. We acknowledge the
new Executive Order 13563 of January 2011 (``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'') that asks Federal regulatory agencies to ``tailor
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations.'' In this rule, we have sought to minimize the cumulative
impacts on industry by removing the NPRM requirements for existing
vessels unless the CO2 system is altered. Consequently, in
this final rule we reduced the incremental cumulative cost to industry
from the NPRM's figure of $9.8 million to $2.3 million, a reduction of
$7.5 million or 77 percent over 10 years (using a 7-percent discount
rate).
    Regulatory analysis. One commenter, an industry association, stated
the breakeven analysis is contradicted by actual experience since the
Coast Guard found no CO2-related fatalities in the U.S.
commercial fleet in 13 years. The commenter also said we did not
account for other factors that might have been involved in the
casualties linked to carbon dioxide discharges, pointing out that many
casualties occurred on foreign-flagged or naval vessels that would not
be subject to our rule, and said we should have included in the
rulemaking docket those NFPA and EPA studies that we discuss in the
analysis. We acknowledge that most of the CO2 casualties
occurred on foreign vessels or naval vessels. However, the hazard and
vessel similarities suggest a risk remains on U.S. flag commercial
vessels. The primary hazard in the incidents mentioned above was an
unintended or accidental CO2 release. The breakeven and
uncertainty analysis in the preliminary regulatory analysis for the
NPRM acknowledged many of these concerns. The breakeven analysis of the
NPRM (which included all new and existing fire suppression systems on
certain classes of commercial vessels) found that the rule would need
to prevent 0.22 fatalities per year to break even, or about one
fatality every 4-5 years. By extension, breakeven could be achieved by
preventing multiple fatalities over longer periods. This analysis did
not include the value of potential non-fatal injuries and secondary
impacts. As this rulemaking seeks to reduce risk to the crew on vessels
with CO2 fire suppression systems, the potential value of
the avoided damages at risk is quite large in comparison to the
relatively minor costs of the proposed safety measures in the NPRM. In
addition, we further minimized costs in this final rule by removing the
NPRM requirements for all existing vessels unless the CO2
system is altered (in which case, that smaller subset of vessels would
be going through a refurbishment). We believe this balance of both
reduced costs and reduced risks makes this final rule the most
effective alternative. We do not believe ``no action'' is an
alternative given the inherent risks with CO2 fire
suppression systems. Coast Guard accident data reveal two more recent
casualties, from a single incident, that were not reflected in our
original analysis for the NPRM. Those casualties (crewmembers)
recovered, but their exposure to an accidental release of carbon
dioxide demonstrates that a risk remains with CO2 fire
suppression systems. We have modified the breakeven analysis for the
final rule to reflect the revised applicability and reduced cost. The
final rule would need to prevent one fatality every 27 years for the
benefits of the rule to equal or exceed the costs. Regarding the EPA
and NFPA reports, we did not place them on the docket because the EPA
report is accessible online at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report.pdf and the NPFA reports are available free online as read-
only documents at http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=12.
    Timing of implementation. One commenter criticized as
``inadequate,'' without further explanation, the NPRM's proposal for a
5-year phase-in of lockouts and odorizers for existing carbon dioxide
systems. We have modified these requirements in the final rule so that
they will not affect existing systems, only new CO2 systems.
    Small business impacts. One commenter stated that most domestic
passenger vessels are operated by small businesses or small entities.
Given absence of documented need for application of the proposed rule
to this sector of the maritime industry, the Coast Guard has a
statutory duty to more rigorously examine the proposal's consequences
for small businesses and entities. In the NPRM and its supporting
regulatory analysis on the docket, we summarized and prepared an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis discussing the impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities. We performed this analysis as required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). As required by
section 603(b) of the Act, we provided detailed discussion in response
to the following: (1) A description of the reasons why action by the
agency is being considered; (2) a succinct statement of the objectives
of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; (3) a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which
the proposed rule will apply; (4) a description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities
which will be subject to the requirement, and the type of professional
skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; (5) an
identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal
rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule;
and, under section 603(c) of the Act, a description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. After
performing and documenting this analysis, we found that we could
certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rulemaking would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We solicited public comments on this finding. We reviewed our proposed
regulation in light of the cost concerns cited by commenters, and we
have modified the regulatory text for the final rule to minimize costs
to small entities, eliminating the need for existing vessels to meet
our lockout and odorizer requirements unless they install or alter a
CO2 system.
    Preemption. Throughout this final rule, we have added new text
explaining the preemptive effect of our regulations. See the
``Federalism'' discussion in part VII.E of this preamble for a full
discussion.
    Beyond scope of rulemaking. One commenter said carbon dioxide
systems should be banned for new and retrofit installations because of
the availability of better alternatives, and that we should ban gas-
driven alarms and shutdowns in favor of alarms and shutdowns that are
not gas-driven. A second commenter said the Coast Guard should
routinely hold at least one public meeting in connection with any
rulemaking. These suggestions are all beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, which seeks only to provide protective measures where
carbon dioxide systems are used, and to provide a regulatory structure
for CO2 alternative (clean agent) fire suppression systems.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Office of the Federal Register has approved the
material in 46 CFR 34.01-15, 147.7, and

162.161-2 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed
in those sections.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Our analyses based on 14 of
these statutes or executive orders are presented below.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The final rule has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A Final
Regulatory Analysis is available in the docket as indicated under
ADDRESSES. A summary of the Final Regulatory Analysis follows:
    Table 2 summarizes a comparison of the costs and benefits of the
NPRM and the final rule:

                           Table 2--Comparison of Impacts Between NPRM and Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                        NPRM                    Final rule               Change/reason
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected population............   Retrofit systems   No retrofits....   Final rule does
                                  on existing vessels:       Lockout valves     not include requirements
                                  3,204 existing CO2         required for about 2       for existing vessels to
                                  systems would require      altered CO2 systems per    retrofit and install
                                  lockout valves.            year for existing          lockout values and
                                  New systems on     vessels.                   odorizers unless the CO2
                                  new vessels: 34 new CO2    New systems on     system is altered.
                                  systems would require      new vessels: 53 CO2        Data refreshed
                                  lockout valves per year..  systems required lockout   for new construction
                                  All existing       valves per year.           totals.
                                  vessels require            Odorizers
                                  odorizers for 7,815 CO2    required for about 5
                                  systems. New vessels       modified or replaced
                                  require odorizers for 46   systems per year for
                                  CO2 systems per year..     existing vessels. New
                                                             vessels require
                                                             odorizers for 128 CO2
                                                             systems per year.
Unit costs that have changed:     Under 2 inches:    Under 2 inches:    Unit costs
 Lockout valves \*\.              $1,258.                    $2,076.                    increased for lockout
                                  Over 2 inches:     Over 2 inches:     valves based on data and
                                  $3,188..                   $4,925..                   information provided in
                                                                                public comments.
Costs (based on 7% discount       10-year costs:     10-year costs:     Cost reduced
 rate and 10 year period of       $9.8 million.              $2.3 million.              since final rule does
 analysis).                       Annualized         Annualized         not include requirements
                                  costs: $1.4 million..      costs: $233,000            for existing vessels to
                                                             (rounded).                 retrofit and install
                                                                                lockout values and
                                                                                odorizers unless the CO2
                                                                                system is replaced,
                                                                                altered, or added.
                                                                                Unit costs
                                                                                increased for lockout
                                                                                valves based on data and
                                                                                information provided in
                                                                                public comments.
                                                                                However, the increased
                                                                                cost estimate for
                                                                                lockout valves is
                                                                                greatly offset by the
                                                                                removal of requirements
                                                                                for existing vessels as
                                                                                previously discussed.
Benefits.......................  The primary benefit is     The primary benefit of     Final rule scope of
                                  the reduction in risk of   this final rule is the     benefits is for systems
                                  crew injuries and          reduction in risk of       on new vessels and
                                  fatalities related to      crew injuries and          existing vessels as
                                  CO2 exposure from fire     fatalities related to      systems are altered,
                                  suppression system         CO2 exposure from fire     resulting in lowering
                                  discharges in existing     suppression system         risk reduction. While
                                  vessels and new            discharges in              not quantified, the
                                  construction.              refurbished existing       benefits of this final
                                                             vessels and new            rule are reduced
                                                             construction.              compared to the proposed
                                                                                rule since these systems
                                                                                are being phased in more
                                                                                slowly.
                                 Regulatory efficiency:     Regulatory efficiency:
                                  Rulemaking formalizes      Rulemaking formalizes
                                  and codifies Coast Guard   and codifies Coast Guard
                                  acceptance of              acceptance of
                                  alternative fire           alternative fire
                                  suppression systems.       suppression systems.
Breakeven analysis \**\........  The NPRM (which included   The final rule would need  As a result of reduced
                                  all existing vessels)      to prevent about .037      costs, the breakeven
                                  would need to prevent      fatalities per year or     analysis suggests that
                                  about 0.22 fatalities      about one fatality every   it would take very
                                  per year or about 1        27 years for the           little monetized
                                  fatality every 4-5 years   benefits of the final      benefits for the final
                                  for the benefits of the    rule to equal or begin     rule to equal or begin
                                  NPRM to equal or begin     to exceed the costs.       to exceed costs.
                                  to exceed the costs.       This analysis does not     Consequently, there is a
                                  This analysis did not      include the value of       5-7 fold decrease in
                                  include the value of       potential non-fatal        mishap frequency needed
                                  potential non-fatal        injuries and secondary     for the benefits of this
                                  injuries and secondary     impacts.                   rule to equal or exceed
                                  impacts.                                              the costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These are average unit costs for lockout valves. Final rule unit cost estimates for odorizers did not change
  since the NPRM.

** Breakeven analysis answers the question, ``How small could the value of the non-quantified benefits be before
  the rule would yield zero net benefits?'' OMB guidance also acknowledges that it will not always be possible
  to express in monetary units all of the important benefits of a rule. See OMB Circular A-4 ``Regulatory
  Analysis'' (2003), page 2.

    The purpose of this final rule is to advance the Coast Guard's
strategic goals of marine safety and maritime mobility by clarifying
and codifying the requirements for fire suppression systems that use
carbon dioxide alternatives, and by requiring lockout valves and
odorizers to provide safety on certain vessels that use carbon dioxide
fire suppression systems. This final rule applies two new requirements
that have additional costs to industry, lockout valves and odorizers,
to all CO2 suppression systems installed or altered after
July 9, 2013. ``Altered'' means modified or refurbished beyond the
maintenance required by the manufacturer's design, installation,
operation and maintenance manual. Lockout valves must be installed in
systems protecting any space with a gross volume greater than 6,000
cubic feet. According to Coast Guard Marine Investigation Security and
Law Enforcement (MISLE) data, this requirement will affect an average
of 53 systems on new vessels and about two systems on existing vessels
each year. Odorizers must be installed in CO2 systems for
new vessels and existing vessels with altered systems. According to
MISLE data, this requirement will affect an average of 128
CO2 systems of all sizes on newly constructed vessels and
about five systems of all sizes on refurbished vessels each year.
    Under the NPRM, all affected commercial vessels would have been
required to install lockout valves and odorizers. This would have
required existing commercial vessels to retrofit these devices. A major
change from the NPRM is that the final rule will only affect newly
constructed commercial vessels and those commercial vessels that may
have alterations of existing systems. Furthermore, NPRM commenters
provided additional data on the costs of lockout valves, which has been
incorporated into our estimates and results in a higher unit cost for
lockout valves. As a result of the adjustments to the proposed
regulation, total costs for the final rule decrease in comparison to
the NPRM despite an increase in unit cost for lockout valves.
    Based on industry data and public comments, we estimate the average
industry prices for installing retrofit large and small lockout valves
on new vessels to be $4,925 and $2,077, respectively. Systems that
handle more than 2,450 pounds of CO2 require a valve larger
than 2 inches. Of the two systems for refurbished vessels affected
annually by this proposed rule, .7, on average, would require the
larger, more expensive lockout valves, while 1.4, on average, systems
require the smaller valves for a total undiscounted cost of about
$6,184. Of the 52.5 systems for newly constructed vessels affected
annually by this rule, 17.3 would require the larger, more expensive
lockout valves, while 35.2 systems require the smaller valves for a
total undiscounted cost of about $158,368. The annual undiscounted cost
for owners of newly constructed and refurbished vessels with systems to
meet the lockout valve requirement of this rule would be approximately
$164,552 for each year. Industry would incur this cost for each year
over the ten-year period of analysis.
    As for odorizers, we estimate that the installed costs, including
three warning signs, are $516/unit based on industry information. We
estimate the total annual undiscounted cost of the refurbished vessels
to be $2,582. For systems on newly constructed vessels, the total
undiscounted annual cost is $66,105. We estimate the total annual
undiscounted cost to be about $68,687 for all 133 CO2
protected areas on these vessels. The total cost per vessel would be
dependent on the number of areas protected by CO2.
    The total annual undiscounted cost for both lockout valves and
odorizers for new or refurbished vessels is about $233,000 (rounded).
We estimate the total present value 10-year cost of the final rule to
be $1.638 million at a seven percent discount rate. This represents
about an 83-percent cost reduction from the NPRM total present value
10-year cost estimate of $9.8 million. We estimate the annualized cost
of the final rule to be $233,000 compared to $1.4 million for the NPRM
(estimates using a seven percent discount rate).
    This final rule also issues new regulations for installing,
maintaining, and using approved CO2 alternative (clean
agent) fire suppression systems. We believe this promotes safety and is
advantageous to industry since these alternative systems provide
additional flexibility to industry and formalizes the Coast Guard's
policy of approving these alternative systems. Commenters supported the
NPRM provisions for alternative systems (see ``Discussion of Comments
and Changes'').
    As discussed in the NPRM, this rule clarifies Coast Guard approval
of alternatives to using CO2 systems. We estimate that these
provisions will not have an additional cost impact because the Coast
Guard has been approving alternative systems on an ad hoc basis. We
expect these approved installed alternative systems will be compliant
with the requirements for alternative systems proposed in this rule. We
did not receive comments to the NPRM on additional costs for these
regulations for alternative systems. In addition, the use of halocarbon
(one of a number of alternatives) fire suppression systems has been
making steady inroads in recent years (2006-2010). As discussed in the
NPRM, our updated records indicate that industry installed an average
of 32 halocarbon fire suppression systems compared to an average of 65
CO2 fire suppression systems with capacity over 6,000 cubic
feet annually.
Benefits
    The primary benefit associated with this rule is the reduction in
risk of injuries and fatalities related to CO2 exposure.
CO2 exposure has long been recognized as a potential hazard
to human health. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health, in its publication NIOSH 76-194, ``Criteria for a Recommended
Standard--Occupational Exposure to Carbon Dioxide,'' available at
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/76-194.html, has set criteria for a standard
for limits of exposure to CO2 in workplace settings.
    Other Federal and industry agencies and associations have also
recently concluded that CO2 fire suppression systems could
pose a risk. For example, the National Fire Prevention Association
guidance in its 2005 edition for CO2 fire suppression
systems located on land states that ``total flooding CO2
suppression systems shall not be used in normally occupied
enclosures.'' In addition, the EPA, in its 2000 report, ``Carbon
Dioxide as a Fire Suppressant: Examining the Risk,'' has suggested that
clarifying maritime regulation would be beneficial to reducing
accidental exposure.
    We searched the MISLE database for casualty reports between 1996
and 2010 to find personnel casualties related to CO2 fire
suppression systems discharged in areas with personnel. We found one
non-fatal incident in the U.S. commercial fleet during the 15-year
period analyzed for this rulemaking. As previously stated,
CO2 flooding can

cause fatalities to people who are in CO2-protected spaces
when the odorless CO2 gas is discharged accidentally, or
without adequate warning to evacuate. Exposure to an accidental release
of carbon dioxide demonstrates that a risk remains in the regulated
fleet covered by this rule. The danger of CO2 flooding can
be reduced by the use of lockout valves that are locked ``off'' when
someone is conducting maintenance in the CO2 system as well
as the use of odorizers to help the person at risk detect
CO2 discharges.
    In addition, there have been incidents in military and foreign
fleets. Due to these aggregate incidents, we conclude that some
(unquantifiable) risk remains present. Given this situation, wherein we
are not able to quantify the remaining risk and risk reduction for the
purposes of this rulemaking, we used a ``breakeven analysis'' to
understand the benefits of this rule.
    In breakeven analysis, we compare the known costs to an estimate of
a loss to determine a threshold. In safety regulations, it is common to
use the ``value of a statistical life'' (VSL) concept to measure a
loss. The VSL is not meant to be an estimate of the actual value of a
life, but a measure of society's willingness to pay to reduce small
risks of fatalities. Using the annualized costs at a seven percent
discount rate over a ten-year period, or $233,320 for the final rule,
we can compare it to the VSL's $6.3 million.\1\ The final rule would
need to prevent 1 fatality in 27 years, or 0.037 fatalities per year to
break even. The NPRM (which included all new and existing fire
suppression systems on certain classes of commercial vessels) would
have needed to prevent about 0.22 fatalities per year or about 1
fatality every 4-5 years for the benefits of the NPRM to equal or begin
to exceed the costs. The breakeven analysis of the NPRM and final rule
did not include the value of potential non-fatal injuries and secondary
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Homeland Security
Regulatory Analyses'', DHS/CBP, June 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, a secondary benefit of this rule is the expediting of
applications for approval of alternative systems. These systems, using
non-CO2 agents, have been approved on a case-by-case basis
for years. The final rule will make these requirements clearer. These
qualitative changes of reducing transaction costs are not easily
translated into quantitative cost impacts, so none were estimated. In
addition, the increased clarity with regards to the requirements for
alternative systems may foster the increased development and use of
these potentially safer systems.
Regulatory Alternatives
    We considered three alternatives for this rulemaking:
    Alternative One--No action. We rejected this alternative as
unacceptable since risk would remain under the existing regulations.
Also, because the current regulations do not specifically address the
use of alternative ``clean agent'' fire suppression systems, there
would be continued uncertainty in selecting and using these systems as
well as obtaining Coast Guard approval for them. This alternative was
rejected for both the NPRM and the final rule.
    Alternative Two--Ban the use of CO2 fire suppression
systems. While a risk exists, a complete prohibition of CO2
systems could require a complete retrofit of existing commercial
vessels affected and be prohibitively expensive. This alternative was
rejected for both the NPRM and the final rule.
    Alternative Three--Amend Coast Guard regulations to clarify that
approved alternatives to CO2 systems are permissible, to set
general parameters for those alternative systems and for getting them
approved, and to require the use of lockout valves and odorizers in all
spaces protected by CO2 systems on new and refurbished
vessels. In our view, this alternative is the best approach to reducing
risk and minimizing cost to the marine industry as we are aware that
CO2 generally remains the least expensive agent available
for these systems. Consequently, this alternative was used as the basis
for the NPRM for new construction and all existing fire suppression
systems on certain classes of commercial vessels in a retrofit mode.
After reviewing public comment and considering the amended cost basis,
we have amended the rules proposed in our NPRM and will apply this
regulation only to new or refurbished vessels. This final rule
Alternative Three is a modification of the NPRM Alternative Three.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. A final regulatory
flexibility analysis discussing the impact of this final rule on small
entities is available in the docket and contained in the final
regulatory analysis where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    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.
    The entities affected by this proposed rule are generally found
under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes
for water transportation. The most common NAICS codes include the
following 6-digit NAICS codes for marine transportation: 483212-Coastal
and Great Lakes Freight Transportation, 487210-Scenic and Sightseeing
Water Transportation, and 532411-Commercial Air, Rail, and Water
Transportation Equipment Leasing. A complete listing of the relevant
NAICS codes may be found in the NPRM's regulatory analysis. We examined
employment levels and revenue of the entities that will be affected by
this final rule and based on the available data; we estimate that about
56 percent of entities affected by the final rule requirements are
small under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the SBA size standards.
    The final rule's regulatory analysis used a higher unit cost
adjusted as a result of comments received on the NPRM. This higher unit
cost increased the cost impacts on revenue for affected entities. This
did not change our overall finding from the NPRM that this rule did not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As previously explained, we have significantly reduced the
scope of this regulation compared to the proposed rule. We estimated
the proposed rule would have directly regulated approximately 400 small
entities, while we estimate this final rule will directly regulate only
31 small entities.
    As a result of our analysis of 2010 MISLE data on new construction
vessels and refurbishment vessels, we concluded that small entities
likely comprise 56 percent (or approximately 31 unique businesses) of
the total population evaluated. Of these 31 businesses, we found
revenue data on 15 entities. The balance of 16 unknown size entities
was assumed to be small by SBA standards. Under our methodology, we
assume an entity is small unless we can find evidence that indicates it
is not. We determined that 80 percent of

small entities would have an annual revenue impact of less than 1
percent. Further, we estimated that the impact on 93 percent of these
small entities would be less than 3 percent of annual revenue. Table 3
provides details of these conclusions.

                           Table 3--Comparison of NPRM and Final Rule Revenue Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                NPRM result    FR result                        Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Affected............           400            31  Applicability of Vessel Groups.
0% <= Impact <= 1%.................           84%           80%  Unit Cost Increased.
1% < Impact <= 3%..................           16%           13%  ...............................................
3% > Impact <= 5%..................  ............            7%  ...............................................
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................          100%          100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: USCG Calculations.

    The final rule reduced the impact on the number of small entities
affected since the vessels affected are a much smaller group of new
construction and refurbished vessels and excludes the retrofit vessels
originally included in the NPRM. By reducing the scope of this final
rule in response to public comment, we have reduced the revenue impact
not only on the whole industry, but on the small entities as well.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This final rule would not require a new collection of information
or a revision to an existing collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The Coast Guard
did not receive any COI-related comments to the NPRM.
    The Coast Guard has been approving alternatives to CO2
systems under an approved collection, OMB Control Number 1625-0035.
Satisfactory lockout valve and odorizing unit installation will be
confirmed under current Coast Guard inspections.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have evaluated this rule under
E.O. 13132 and have determined that they are preemptive of State law or
regulation in that Congress intended the Coast Guard to regulate the
type and design of fire suppression systems aboard certain vessels. The
regulations listed in this rulemaking are promulgated pursuant to 46
U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4102, 4306, and 4502.
    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)
are within the fields foreclosed from regulation by the States (See the
decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United
States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135
(March 6, 2000)). For those regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C.
3306 and 3703, Congress directed the Secretary to prescribe regulations
that would require equipment used in firefighting and fire prevention
aboard certain inspected vessels. Here, the Coast Guard is promulgating
regulations to require enhanced or alternative safety features on
firefighting systems on board inspected vessels defined in 46 U.S.C.
Chapters 33 and 37, which will improve safety. Because States may not
promulgate rules within this category, preemption is not an issue under
Executive Order 13132.
    Under 46 U.S.C. 4102, Congress mandated certain uninspected
vessels, defined within 46 U.S.C. Chapter 41, to be equipped with fire
extinguishers that meet the requirements prescribed by regulation. The
Coast Guard, in considering the safety features necessary to extinguish
fires promptly and effectively and, to the extent required in
consultation with the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, has promulgated
regulations requiring certain equipment features for uninspected
vessels. These regulations do not raise any preemption concerns under
Executive Order 13132 since States may not promulgate rules within this
category of uninspected vessels.
    Congress mandated the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations
requiring safety standards for fire extinguishers aboard uninspected
commercial fishing vessels defined in 46 U.S.C. Chapter 45. Those
regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 4502 require certain features
to make fire extinguishers readily identifiable and accessible in
accordance with Congress's mandate. Because States may not promulgate
rules within this category, preemption is not an issue under Executive
Order 13132.
    Regulations issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 4302 are preemptive of
State law to the extent outlined in 46 U.S.C. 4306. Under 46 U.S.C.
4306, Federal regulations establishing minimum safety standards for
recreational vessels and associated equipment and the procedures and
tests established to measure conformance with those standards preempt
State law, unless the State law is identical to a Federal regulation,
or a State is specifically provided an exemption to those regulations,
or permitted to regulate marine safety articles carried or used to
address a hazardous condition or circumstance unique to that State.

    Additionally, President Obama's Memorandum of May 20, 2009 titled
``Preemption'' states that ``preemption of State law by executive
departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full
consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a
sufficient legal basis for preemption.'' To that end, when a department
or agency intends to preempt State law, it should do so only if
justified under legal principles governing preemption, including those
outlined in Executive Order 13132, and it should also include
preemption provisions in the codified regulation. In accordance with
this memorandum, the Coast Guard has included in the final rule
regulatory text the statutory provisions granting it preemption
authority as well as language indicating its intent to preempt
conflicting state or local regulation, when required.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This 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.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule uses the following voluntary consensus standards:
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standards UL 2127 ``Standard for Inert
Gas Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units,'' and UL 2166 ``Standard
for Halocarbon Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units,'' and National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 2001 ``Standard on Clean
Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems.'' The sections that reference these
standards and the locations where these standards are available are
listed in the regulatory text for 46 CFR 34.01-15, 147.7, and 162.161-
2.
    This rule also uses technical standards other than voluntary
consensus standards. The test described in the regulatory text in 46
CFR 162.161-6 is in accordance with requirements of the International
Maritime Organization, IMO MSC/Circ.848 ``Revised Guidelines for the
Approval of Equivalent Fixed Gas Fire-Extinguishing Systems, as
referred to in SOLAS 74, for machinery spaces and cargo pump-rooms''
and IMO MSC.1/Circ. 1267 ``Amendments to the Revised Guidelines for the
Approval of Equivalent Fixed Gas Fire-Extinguishing Systems, as
referred to in SOLAS 74, for machinery spaces and cargo pump-rooms
(MSC/Circ. 848).'' The remaining requirements and tests were developed
by the Coast Guard and used to evaluate currently approved carbon
dioxide alternative (clean agent) fire suppression systems. These
requirements are described throughout the regulations. They are used
because we did not find voluntary consensus standards that are
applicable to this rule.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2,
figure 2-1, paragraph (34) (d) of the Instruction and 6 (a) of the
``Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures
for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR
48243, July 23, 2002).'' This rule involves regulations concerning
vessel operation safety standards and regulations concerning equipping
of vessels. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 25

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

46 CFR Part 27

    Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 28

    Alaska, Fire prevention, Fishing vessels, Marine safety,
Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 31

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

46 CFR Part 34

    Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine
safety.

46 CFR Part 35

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Occupational
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 62

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 71

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

46 CFR Part 76

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Part 78

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Passenger vessels, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 91

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

46 CFR Part 95

    Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety.

46 CFR Part 97

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 107

    Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 108

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Oil
and gas exploration, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 112

    Vessels.

46 CFR Part 115

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 118

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Part 119

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Part 122

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 131

    Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

46 CFR Part 132

    Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 147

    Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference,
Labeling, Marine safety, Packaging and containers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 162

    Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Oil
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 167

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools, Seamen, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 169

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 176

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 181

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Part 182

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels.

46 CFR Part 185

    Marine safety, Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

46 CFR Part 189

    Marine safety, Oceanographic research vessels, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 190

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health,
Oceanographic research vessels.

46 CFR Part 193

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Oceanographic research vessels.

46 CFR Part 194

    Explosives, Hazardous materials transportation, Marine safety,
Oceanographic research vessels.

46 CFR Part 196

    Marine safety, Oceanographic research vessels, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons listed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46
CFR parts 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, 62, 71, 76, 78, 91, 95, 97, 107, 108,
112, 115, 118, 119, 122, 131, 132, 147, 162, 167, 169, 176, 181, 182,
185, 189, 190, 193, 194, and 196 as follows:

PART 25--REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues 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.

0
2. Revise Sec.  25.30-1 to read as follows:

Sec.  25.30-1  Applicability; preemptive effect.

    This subpart applies to all vessels contracted for on or after
November 19, 1952, except that Sec.  25.30-90 of this subpart applies
to vessels contracted for before that date, and the regulations in this
subpart have preemptive effect over State or local regulations in the
same field.

0
3. Revise Sec.  25.30-15 to read as follows:

Sec.  25.30-15  Fixed fire-extinguishing systems.

    When a fixed fire-extinguishing system is installed, it must be a
type approved or accepted by the Commandant (CG-5214) or the Commanding
Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center.

PART 27--TOWING VESSELS

0
4. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    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.

0
5. In Sec.  27.100, revise the section heading and add paragraph (e) to
read as follows:

Sec.  27.100  Applicability; preemptive effect.

* * * * *
    (e) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State
or local regulations in the same field.

0
6. In Sec.  27.101, revise paragraphs (1) and (3) and add paragraph (4)
to the definition of ``Fixed fire-extinguishing system'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  27.101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Fixed fire-extinguishing system means:
    (1) A carbon dioxide system that satisfies 46 CFR 76.15 and the
system labeling requirements in 46 CFR 78.47-9 and 78.47-11 and that is
approved by the Commandant;
* * * * *
    (3) A manually-operated water-mist system that satisfies NFPA 750
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  27.102) and that is approved by
the Commandant; or
    (4) A clean agent system that satisfies 46 CFR 95.16 and the
labeling requirements of 46 CFR 97.37-9 and 97.37-11 and that is
approved by the Commandant.
* * * * *

PART 28--REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY VESSELS

0
7. The authority citation for part 28 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3316, 4502, 4505, 4506, 6104, 10603;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
8. In Sec.  28.30, revise the section heading and add paragraph (c) to
read as follows:

Sec.  28.30  Applicability; preemptive effect.

* * * * *
    (c) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State
or local regulations in the same field.

0
9. Revise Sec.  28.825(b)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  28.825  Excess fire detection and protection equipment.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The control cabinets or spaces containing valves or manifolds
for the various fire extinguishing systems must be distinctly marked in
conspicuous red letters at least 2 inches high: ``[CARBON DIOXIDE/FOAM/
CLEAN AGENT--as appropriate] FIRE SYSTEM.''
* * * * *

PART 31--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

0
10. The authority citation for part 31 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3205, 3306, 3307,
3703; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 49 U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR
58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1. Section 31.10-21 also issued under the authority of Sect.
4109, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515.

0
11. In Sec.  31.01-1, revise the section heading and add paragraph (d)
to read as follows:

Sec.  31.01-1  Inspections required--TB/ALL, preemptive effect.

* * * * *
    (d) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State
or local regulations in the same field.

0
12. In Sec.  31.10-18, revise Table 31.10-18(c) and paragraph (f) to
read as follows:

Sec.  31.10-18  Firefighting equipment: General--TB/ALL.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                Table 31.10-18(c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Type system                                                 Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam............................................  Systems utilizing a soda solution must have that solution
                                                   replaced. In all cases, ascertain that powder is not caked.
Carbon dioxide..................................  Weigh cylinders. Recharge cylinder if weight loss exceeds 10
                                                   percent of the weight of the charge. Test time delays,
                                                   alarms, and ventilation shutdowns with carbon dioxide,
                                                   nitrogen, or other nonflammable gas as stated in the system
                                                   manufacturer's instruction manual. Inspect hoses for damage
                                                   or decay. Ensure that nozzles are unobstructed. Cylinders
                                                   must be tested and marked, and all flexible connections on
                                                   fixed carbon dioxide systems must be tested or renewed, as
                                                   required by 46 CFR 147.60 and 147.65.
Halon 1301 and halocarbon.......................  Recharge or replace if weight loss exceeds 5 percent of the
                                                   weight of the charge or if cylinder has a pressure gauge,
                                                   recharge cylinder if pressure loss exceeds 10 percent
                                                   adjusted for temperature. Test time delays, alarms, and
                                                   ventilation shutdowns with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or other
                                                   nonflammable gas as stated in the system manufacturer's
                                                   instruction manual. Inspect hoses for damage or decay. Ensure
                                                   that nozzles are unobstructed. Cylinders must be tested and
                                                   marked, and all flexible connections to Halon 1301 and
                                                   halocarbon cylinders must be tested or renewed, as required
                                                   by 46 CFR 147.60 and 147.65 or 147.67.
                                                  NOTE: Halon 1301 system approvals have expired, but existing
                                                   systems may be retained if they are in good and serviceable
                                                   condition to the satisfaction of the Coast Guard inspector.
Inert gas.......................................  Recharge or replace cylinder if cylinder pressure loss exceeds
                                                   5 percent of the specified gauge pressure, adjusted for
                                                   temperature. Test time delays, alarms, and ventilation
                                                   shutdowns with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or other
                                                   nonflammable gas as stated in the system manufacturer's
                                                   instruction manual. Ensure that nozzles are unobstructed.
                                                   Cylinders must be tested and marked, and all flexible
                                                   connections on fixed inert extinguishers must be tested or
                                                   renewed, as required by 46 CFR 147.60 and 147.66.
Water mist......................................  Maintain system in accordance with the maintenance
                                                   instructions in the system manufacturer's design,
                                                   installation, operation, and maintenance manual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (f) The marine inspector must check all fire extinguishing system
piping, controls, valves, and alarms to ascertain that the system is in
good operating condition. For carbon dioxide or clean agent systems as
described in 46 CFR subpart 95.16, the marine inspector must:
    (1) Verify that flow is continuous and that the piping and nozzles
are unobstructed; and
    (2) Verify that any discharge delays and pre-discharge alarms
function properly during the flow test.
* * * * *

PART 34--FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT

0
13. The authority citation for part 34 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3
CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
14. In Sec.  34.01-1, revise the section heading and add paragraph (b)
to read as follows:

Sec.  34.01-1  Applicability--TB/ALL, preemptive effect.

* * * * *
    (b) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State
or local regulations in the same field.

0
15. Revise Sec.  34.01-15 to read as follows:

Sec.  34.01-15  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. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of
change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to
the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available for inspection
at the Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-
521), 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126, telephone
202-372-1405, and is available from the sources listed in this section.
    (b) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, http://www.astm.org.
    (1) ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 1993), Standard Specification for
International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications, 1987, IBR
approved for Sec.  34.10-15 (``ASTM F 1121'').
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, http://www.nfpa.org.
    (1) NFPA 13-1996, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  34.30-1 (``NFPA 13-1996'').
    (2) NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems,
(2008 Edition), IBR approved for Sec.  34.05-5(a)(4) (``NFPA 2001'').

0
16. In Sec.  34.05-5, revise the section heading and paragraphs (a)(3)
through (7) to read as follows:

Sec.  34.05-5  Fire extinguishing systems --T/ALL.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Lamp and paint lockers and similar spaces. A carbon dioxide or
clean agent system as described in 46 CFR subpart 95.16 or a water
spray system must be installed in all lamp and paint lockers, oil
rooms, and similar spaces.
    (4) Pump rooms. A carbon dioxide or clean agent system as described
in 46 CFR subpart 95.16, a foam spray system, or a water spray system
must be installed for the protection of all pump rooms. If a clean
agent system is installed for the pump room of a tank ship carrying
chemical cargos, the amount of extinguishing agent must be determined
by using the agent design concentration determined by the cup burner
method, described in NFPA 2001 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
34.01-15) for the cargo requiring the greatest amount of agent.
    (5) Boiler rooms. On tankships contracted for on or after November
19, 1952, a carbon dioxide or clean agent system as described in 46 CFR
subpart 95.16 or a foam system must be installed to protect any space
containing a main or auxiliary oil fired boiler, the boiler fuel oil
service pump, or any fuel oil units such as heaters, strainers, valves,
manifolds, etc., that are subject to the discharge pressure of the fuel
oil service pumps.
    (6) Machinery spaces. A carbon dioxide or clean agent system as
described in 46 CFR subpart 95.16 must be installed to protect any
machinery space containing an internal combustion-propelling engine
that uses fuel having a flashpoint of less than 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
    (7) Internal combustion installations. A fire extinguishing system
must be provided for an internal combustion installation and:
    (i) The system must be a carbon dioxide or clean agent system as
described in 46 CFR subpart 95.16;
    (ii) On vessels of 1,000 gross tons and over on an international
voyage, the construction or conversion of which is contracted for on or
after May 26, 1965, a carbon dioxide or clean agent system as described
in 46 CFR subpart 95.16 must be installed in any space containing
internal combustion or gas turbine main propulsion machinery,
auxiliaries with an aggregate power of 1,000 b.h.p. or greater, or
their fuel oil units, including purifiers, valves, and manifolds; and
    (iii) On vessels of 1,000 gross tons and over, the construction,
conversion or automation of which is contracted for on or after January
1, 1968, a carbon dioxide or clean agent system as described in 46 CFR
subpart 95.16 must be installed in any space containing internal
combustion or gas turbine main propulsion machinery, auxiliaries with
an aggregate power of 1,000 b.h.p. or greater, or their fuel oil units,
including purifiers, valves and manifolds.
* * * * *

0
17. Add Sec.  34.15-50 to read as follows:

Sec.  34.15-50  Lockout valves--T/ALL.

    (a) A lockout valve must be provided on any carbon dioxide
extinguishing system protecting a space over 6,000 cubic feet in volume
and installed or altered after July 9, 2013. ``Altered'' means modified
or refurbished beyond the maintenance required by the manufacturer's
design, installation, operation and maintenance manual.
    (b) The lockout valve must be a manually operated valve located in
the discharge manifold prior to the stop valve or selector valves. When
in the closed position, the lockout valve must provide complete
isolation of the system from the protected space or spaces, making it
impossible for carbon dioxide to discharge in the event of equipment
failure during maintenance.
    (c) The lockout valve design or locking mechanism must make it
obvious whether the valve is open or closed.
    (d) A valve is considered a lockout valve if it has a hasp or other
means of attachment to which, or through which, a lock can be affixed,
or it has a locking mechanism built into it.
    (e) The master or person-in-charge must ensure that the valve is
locked open at all times, except while maintenance is being performed
on the extinguishing system, when the valve must be locked in the
closed position.
    (f) Lockout valves added to existing systems must be approved by
the Commandant as part of the installed system.

0
18. Add Sec.  34.15-60 to read as follows:

Sec.  34.15-60  Odorizing units--T/ALL.

    Each carbon dioxide extinguishing system installed or altered after
July 9, 2013, must have an approved odorizing unit to produce the scent
of wintergreen, the detection of which will serve as an indication that
carbon dioxide gas is present in a protected area and any other area
into which the carbon dioxide may migrate. ``Altered'' means modified
or refurbished beyond the maintenance required by the manufacturer's
design, installation, operation and maintenance manual.

PART 35--OPERATIONS

0
19. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 6101; 49
U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
20. Revise the subpart 35.01 heading to read as follows:

Subpart 35.01--General Provisions; Special Operating Requirements

0
21. Add Sec.  35.01-2 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.01-2  Preemptive effect.

    The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or
local regulations in the same field.

0
22. Revise Sec.  35.40-7 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.40-7  Carbon dioxide and clean agent alarms--T/ALL.

    Each carbon dioxide or clean agent fire extinguishing alarm
installed after November 19, 1952, must be conspicuously marked: ``WHEN
ALARM SOUNDS VACATE AT ONCE. [CARBON DIOXIDE/CLEAN AGENT--as
appropriate] BEING RELEASED.''

0
23. Add Sec.  35.40-8 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.40-8  Carbon dioxide warning signs--T/ALL.

    Each entrance to a space storing carbon dioxide cylinders, a space
protected by carbon dioxide systems, or any space into which carbon
dioxide might migrate must be conspicuously marked as follows:
    (a) Spaces storing carbon dioxide--``CARBON DIOXIDE GAS CAN CAUSE
INJURY OR DEATH. VENTILATE THE AREA BEFORE ENTERING. A HIGH
CONCENTRATION CAN OCCUR IN THIS AREA AND CAN CAUSE SUFFOCATION.''.
    (b) Spaces protected by carbon dioxide--``CARBON DIOXIDE GAS CAN
CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH. WHEN ALARM OPERATES OR WINTERGREEN SCENT IS
DETECTED, DO NOT ENTER UNTIL VENTILATED. LOCK OUT SYSTEM WHEN
SERVICING.'' The reference to wintergreen scent may be omitted for
carbon dioxide systems not required to have odorizing units and not
equipped with such units.
    (c) Spaces into which carbon dioxide might migrate--``CARBON
DIOXIDE GAS CAN CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH. DISCHARGE INTO NEARBY SPACE CAN
COLLECT HERE. WHEN ALARM OPERATES OR WINTERGREEN SCENT IS DETECTED
VACATE IMMEDIATELY.'' The reference to wintergreen scent may be omitted
for carbon dioxide systems not required to have odorizing units and not
equipped with such units.

0
24. Revise Sec.  35.40-10 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.40-10  Steam, foam, carbon dioxide, or clean agent fire
smothering apparatus--TB/ALL.

    Each steam, foam, carbon dioxide, or clean agent fire fighting
apparatus must be marked ``[CARBON DIOXIDE/STEAM/FOAM/CLEAN AGENT--as
appropriate] FIRE APPARATUS'' in red letters at least 2 inches high.
Branch pipe valves leading to the several compartments must be
distinctly marked to indicate the compartments or parts of the vessel
to which they lead.

PART 62--VITAL SYSTEM AUTOMATION

0
25. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 8105; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
26. In Sec.  62.01-1, revise the section heading and add a second
sentence to read as follows:

Sec.  62.01-1  Purpose, preemptive effect.

* * * The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or
local regulations in the same field.

0
27. In Sec.  62.25-20, revise paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  62.25-20  Instrumentation, alarms, and centralized stations.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Fire, general alarm, carbon dioxide/Halon 1301/clean agent
fire extinguishing system, vital machinery, flooding, engineers'
assistance-needed, and non-vital alarms.
* * * * *

PART 71--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

0
28. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2113, 3205, 3306, 3307;
E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56
FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
29. Revise the subpart 71.01 subpart heading to read as follows:

Subpart 71.01--General Provisions; Certificate of Inspection

Sec.  71.01-1  [Redesignated as Sec.  71.01-2]

0
30. Redesignate existing Sec.  71.01-1 as Sec.  71.01-2, and add new
Sec.  71.01-1 to read as follows:

Sec.  71.01-1  Preemptive effect.

    The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or
local regulations in the same field.

0
31. In Sec.  71.20-20, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  71.20-20  Specific tests and inspections.

* * * * *
    (b) Installation of carbon dioxide or clean agent extinguishing
piping in accordance with 46 CFR 76.15-15 and 46 CFR subpart 95.16.
* * * * *

0
32. In Sec.  71.25-20, revise the section heading and Table 71.25-
20(a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  71.25-20  Fire detecting and extinguishing equipment.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

                                              Table 71.25-20(a)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Type system                                                 Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam............................................  Systems utilizing a soda solution must have that solution
                                                   replaced. In all cases, ascertain that powder is not caked.
Carbon dioxide..................................  Weigh cylinders. Recharge cylinder if weight loss exceeds 10
                                                   percent of the weight of the charge. Test time delays,
                                                   alarms, and ventilation shutdowns with carbon dioxide,
                                                   nitrogen, or other nonflammable gas as stated in the system
                                                   manufacturer's instruction manual. Inspect hoses for damage
                                                   or decay. Ensure that nozzles are unobstructed. Cylinders
                                                   must be tested and marked, and all flexible connections on
                                                   fixed carbon dioxide systems must be tested or renewed, as
                                                   required by 46 CFR 147.60 and 147.65.

Halon 1301 and halocarbon.......................  Recharge or replace if weight loss exceeds 5 percent of the
                                                   weight of the charge or if cylinder has a pressure gauge,
                                                   recharge cylinder if pressure loss exceeds 10 percent,
                                                   adjusted for temperature. Test time delays, alarms, and
                                                   ventilation shutdowns with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or other
                                                   nonflammable gas as stated in the system manufacturer's
                                                   instruction manual. Inspect hoses for damage or decay. Ensure
                                                   that nozzles are unobstructed. Cylinders must be tested and
                                                   marked, and all flexible connections to Halon 1301 and
                                                   halocarbon cylinders must be tested or renewed, as required
                                                   by 46 CFR 147.60 and 147.65 or 147.67.
                                                  NOTE: Halon 1301 system approvals have expired, but existing
                                                   systems may be retained if they are in good and serviceable
                                                   condition to the satisfaction of the Coast Guard inspector.
Inert gas.......................................  Recharge or replace cylinder if cylinder pressure loss exceeds
                                                   5 percent of the specified gauge pressure, adjusted for
                                                   temperature. Test time delays, alarms, and ventilation
                                                   shutdowns with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or other
                                                   nonflammable gas as stated in the system manufacturer's
                                                   instruction manual. Ensure that nozzles are unobstructed.
                                                   Cylinders must be tested and marked, and all flexible
                                                   connections on fixed inert extinguishers must be tested or
                                                   renewed, as required by 46 CFR 147.60 and 147.66.
Water mist......................................  Maintain system in accordance with the maintenance
                                                   instructions in the system manufacturer's design,
                                                   installation, operation, and maintenance manual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
33. In Sec.  71.65-5, revise paragraph (d)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  71.65-5  Plans and specifications required for new construction.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Extinguishing systems, including fire main, carbon dioxide,
clean agent, foam, and sprinkling systems.
* * * * *

PART 76--FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

0
34. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
35. In Sec.  76.01-1, revise the section heading and add paragraph (b)
to read as follows:

Sec.  76.01-1  General; preemptive effect.

* * * * *
    (b) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State
or local regulations in the same field.

0
36. Revise Sec.  76.05-1 to read as follows:

Sec.  76.05-1  Fire detecting systems.

    (a) On the following vessels, approved fire detecting systems must
be installed in the locations indicated by Table 76.05-1(a):
    (1) Any vessel on an international voyage;
    (2) Any vessel, not on an international voyage, of more than 150
feet in length having sleeping accommodations for passengers; and
    (3) Any vessel, not on an international voyage, of 150 feet or less
in length that has sleeping accommodations for 50 or more passengers;
such vessels are not required to have a detecting system in the cargo
spaces.

                                                Table 76.05-1(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Space                             Detecting systems             Fixed extinguishing systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety areas:
    Wheelhouse or fire-control room........  None required \1\................  None required.\1\
    Stairway and elevator enclosures.......  None required \1\................  None required.\1\
    Communication corridors................  None required \1\................  None required.\1\
    Lifeboat embarkation and lowering        None required \1\................  None required.\1\
     stations.
    Radio room.............................  None required \1\................  None required.\1\
Accommodations:
    Staterooms, toilet spaces, isolated      None required \1\................  None required.\1\
     pantries, etc.
    Offices, lockers, and isolated           Electric, pneumatic, or automatic  None required. \1\
     storerooms.                              sprinkling \1\.
    Public spaces..........................  None required with 20-minute       None required.\1\
                                              patrol. Electric, pneumatic, or
                                              automatic sprinkling with 1 hour
                                              patrol \1\.
    Open decks or enclosed promenades......  None required....................  None required.
Service spaces:
    Galleys................................  None required \1\................  None required.\1\
    Main pantries..........................  None required \1\................  None required.\1\
    Motion picture booths and film lockers.  Electric, pneumatic, or automatic  None required.\1\
                                              sprinkling \1 2\.
    Paint and lamp rooms...................  Smoke detecting \2\..............  Carbon dioxide \3\ or clean
                                                                                agent system as described in 46
                                                                                CFR subpart 95.16.
    Inaccessible baggage, mail, and specie   Smoke detecting \2\..............  Carbon dioxide.\3\
     rooms and storerooms.
    Accessible baggage, mail, and specie     Electric, pneumatic, or automatic  None required.\1\
     rooms and storerooms.                    sprinkling.
    Refrigerated storerooms................  None required....................  None required.
    Carpenter, valet, photographic, and      Electric, pneumatic, or automatic  None required.\1\
     printing shops, sales rooms, etc.        sprinkling.
Machinery spaces:

    Coal fired boilers: Bunker and boiler    None required....................  None required.\1\
     space.
    Oil fired boilers: Spaces containing     None required....................  Carbon dioxide or clean agent
     oil fired boilers either main or                                            system as described in 46 CFR
     auxiliary, their fuel oil service                                           subpart 95.16 or foam.\4\
     pumps, and/or such other fuel oil
     units as the heaters, strainers,
     valves, manifolds, etc., that are
     subject to the discharge pressure of
     the fuel oil service pumps, together
     with adjacent spaces to which oil can
     drain.
    Internal combustion or gas turbine       None required....................  Carbon dioxide or clean agent
     propelling machinery spaces.                                                system as described in 46 CFR
                                                                                subpart 95.16.\5\
    Electric propulsive motors or            None required....................  None required.
     generators of open type.
    Enclosed ventilating systems for motors  None required....................  Carbon dioxide or clean agent
     and generators of electric propelling                                       system as described in 46 CFR
     machinery.                                                                  subpart 95.16 (in ventilating
                                                                                system).\6\
    Auxiliary spaces, internal combustion,   None required....................  Carbon dioxide or clean agent
     or gas turbine.                                                             system as described in 46 CFR
                                                                                subpart 95.16.\7\
    Auxiliary spaces, electric motors, or    None required....................  None required.
     generators.
    Auxiliary spaces, steam................  None required....................  None required.
    Trunks to machinery spaces.............  None required....................  None required.
    Fuel tanks.............................  None required....................  None required.\8\
Cargo spaces:
    Inaccessible during voyage (combustible  Smoke detecting..................  Carbon dioxide.\3\
     cargo), including trunks (excluding
     tanks).
    Accessible during voyage (combustible    Smoke detecting, electric,         Automatic or manual sprinkling.
     cargo).                                  pneumatic or automatic
                                              sprinkling.
    Vehicular deck (except where no          None required....................  Manual sprinkling.
     overhead deck is 30 feet in length or
     less).
    Cargo oil tanks........................  None required....................  Carbon dioxide or foam.\3\
    Specially suitable for vehicles........  Smoke detecting, electric,         Carbon dioxide, automatic or
                                              pneumatic or automatic             manual sprinkling.
                                              sprinkling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes to Table 76.01-5(a)
\1\ Vessels of 100 gross tons and over contracted for, on, or before May 27, 1936, and having combustible joiner
  work must be fitted with an automatic sprinkling system, except in relatively incombustible spaces.
\2\ On vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952, electric or pneumatic detecting may be substituted.
\3\ On vessels contracted for prior to January 1, 1962, a steam smothering system may be accepted. However,
  although existing steam smothering systems may be repaired, replaced, or extended, no new system contracted
  for on or after January 1, 1962, will be permitted.
\4\ Protection of auxiliary boilers, fuel oil units, valves, and manifolds are not required on vessels
  contracted for prior to November 19, 1952.
\5\ Not required on vessels less than 300 gross tons (except on an international voyage) using fuel with a
  flashpoint higher than 110[deg] F., where the space is normally manned.
\6\ Not required on vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952.
\7\ Not required on vessels less than 300 gross tons nor on vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952,
  except when fuel, including starting fuel, has a flashpoint of 110 [deg]F. or less.
\8\ When fuel with a flashpoint of 110 [deg]F. or lower is used, the space containing the fuel tanks must be
  protected by a carbon dioxide or clean agent system as described in 46 CFR subpart 95.16.

    (b) The arrangements and details of the fire detecting systems must
meet the requirements in 46 CFR subparts 76.25 through 76.33.

0
37. In Sec.  76.10-5, revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  76.10-5  Fire pumps.

* * * * *
    (h) If a vessel uses main or auxiliary oil fired boilers or
internal combustion propulsion machinery, and is required to have two
fire pumps, the pumps must be in separate spaces and the arrangement of
pumps, sea connections, and sources of power must be arranged to ensure
that a fire in any one space will not put all of the fire pumps out of
operation. However, in vessels of less than 300 feet in length, when it
is shown to the satisfaction of the Commandant that it is unreasonable
or impracticable to meet this requirement due to the size or
arrangement of the vessel, or for other reasons, the installation of a
total flooding carbon dioxide or clean agent extinguishing system may
be accepted as an alternate method of extinguishing any fire that
affects the powering and operation of at least one of the required fire
pumps.

0
38. Add Sec.  76.15-50 to read as follows:

Sec.  76.15-50  Lockout valves.

    (a) A lockout valve must be provided on any carbon dioxide
extinguishing system protecting a space over 6,000 cubic feet in volume
and installed or altered after July 9, 2013. ``Altered'' means modified
or refurbished beyond the maintenance required by the manufacturer's
design, installation, operation and maintenance manual.
    (b) The lockout valve must be a manually operated valve located in
the discharge manifold prior to the stop valve or selector valves. When
in the closed position, the lockout valve must provide complete
isolation of the system from the protected space or spaces, making it
impossible for carbon dioxide to discharge in the event of equipment
failure during maintenance.
    (c) The lockout valve design or locking mechanism must make it
obvious whether the valve is open or closed.
    (d) A valve is considered a lockout valve if it has a hasp or other
means of attachment to which, or through which, a lock can be affixed,
or it has a locking mechanism built into it.
    (e) The master or person-in-charge must ensure that the valve is
locked open at all times, except while maintenance is being performed
on the extinguishing system, when the valve must be locked in the
closed position.

    (f) Lockout valves added to existing systems must be approved by
the Commandant as part of the installed system.

0
39. Add Sec.  76.15-60 to read as follows:

Sec.  76.15-60  Odorizing units.

    Each carbon dioxide extinguishing system installed or altered after
July 9, 2013, must have an approved odorizing unit to produce the scent
of wintergreen, the detection of which will serve as an indication that
carbon dioxide gas is present in a protected area and any other area
into which the carbon dioxide may migrate. ``Altered'' means modified
or refurbished beyond the maintenance required by the manufacturer's
design, installation, operation and maintenance manual.

PART 78--OPERATIONS

0
40. The authority citation for part 78 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 6101; 49
U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
41. In Sec.  78.01-1, revise the section heading and add paragraph (b)
to read as follows:

Sec.  78.01-1  General; preemptive effect.

* * * * *
    (b) The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State
or local regulations in the same field.
0
42. Revise Sec.  78.47-9 to read as follows:

Sec.  78.47-9  Carbon dioxide and clean agent alarms.

    Each carbon dioxide or clean agent fire extinguishing alarm must be
conspicuously marked: ``WHEN ALARM SOUNDS VACATE AT ONCE. CARBON
DIOXIDE OR CLEAN AGENT BEING RELEASED.''.

0
43. Add Sec.  78.47-11 to read as follows:

Sec.  78.47-11  Carbon dioxide warning signs.

    Each entrance to a space storing carbon dioxide cylinders, a space
protected by carbon dioxide systems, or any space into which carbon
dioxide might migrate must be conspicuously marked as follows:
    (a) Spaces storing carbon dioxide--``CARBON DIOXIDE GAS CAN CAUSE
INJURY OR DEATH. VENTILATE THE AREA BEFORE ENTERING. A HIGH
CONCENTRATION CAN OCCUR IN THIS AREA AND CAN CAUSE SUFFOCATION.''.
    (b) Spaces protected by carbon dioxide--``CARBON DIOXIDE GAS CAN
CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH. WHEN ALARM OPERATES OR WINTERGREEN SCENT IS
DETECTED, DO NOT ENTER UNTIL VENTILATED. LOCK OUT SYSTEM WHEN
SERVICING.'' The reference to wintergreen scent may be omitted for
carbon dioxide systems not required to have odorizing units and not
equipped with such units.
    (c) Spaces into which carbon dioxide might migrate--``CARBON
DIOXIDE GAS CAN CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH. DISCHARGE INTO NEARBY SPACE CAN
COLLECT HERE. WHEN ALARM OPERATES OR WINTERGREEN SCENT IS DETECTED
VACATE IMMEDIATELY.'' The reference to wintergreen scent may be omitted
for carbon dioxide systems not required to have odorizing units and not
equipped with such units.

0
44. Revise Sec.  78.47-17 to read as follows:

Sec.  78.47-17  Fire extinguishing system controls.

    Each control cabinet or space containing valves or manifolds for a
fire extinguishing system must be distinctly marked in conspicuous red
letters at least 2 inches high: ``[CARBON DIOXIDE/STEAM/FOAM/WATER
SPRAY/MANUAL SPRINKLING/AUTOMATIC SPRINKLING/CLEAN AGENT--as
appropriate] FIRE SYSTEM.''.

PART 91--INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

0
45. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3205, 3306, 3307; 46
U.S.C. Chapter 701; Executive Order 12234; 45 FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980
Comp., p. 277; Executive Order 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
46. In, revise the subpart 91.01 subpart heading to read as follows:

Subpart 91.01--General Provisions; Certificate of Inspection

Sec.  91.01-1  [Redesignated as Sec.  91.01-2]

0
47. Redesignate existing Sec.  91.01-1 as Sec.  91.01-2, and add new
Sec.  91.01-1 to read as follows:

Sec.  91.01-1  Preemptive effect.

    The regulations in this part have preemptive effect over State or
local regulations in the same field.

0
48. In Sec.  91.20-20, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.20-20  Specific tests and inspections.

* * * * *
    (b) For installation of carbon dioxide fire extinguishing system
piping, see 46 CFR 95.15-15. For clean agent fire extinguishing piping,
see 46 CFR 95.16-15.
* * * * *

0