[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66941-66950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28585]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 164

46 CFR Parts 25 and 27

[USCG 2000-6931]
RIN 2115-AF53


Fire-Suppression Systems and Voyage Planning for Towing Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to improve the safety of towing 
vessels by requiring the installation of fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems in their engine rooms, and by requiring their owners or 
operators, and their masters, to ensure that voyage plans are complete 
before they commence their trips with any barge in tow. These rules 
would reduce the number of uncontrolled fires in engine rooms, and 
other fire-related or operational mishaps on towing vessels. As a 
result, they would save lives, diminish property damage, and reduce the 
associated threats to the environment and maritime commerce.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material do not enter 
the docket [USCG 2000-6931] more than once, please submit them by only 
one of the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590-0001.
    (2) By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments, and documents as indicated in this preamble, will 
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the 
same address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. You may also access this docket on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this proposed rule, 
call Mr. Randall Eberly, P. E., Project Manager, telephone 202-267-
1861. For questions on viewing, or submitting material to, the docket, 
call Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, 
telephone 202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in 
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. 
Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses, 
identify this rulemaking [USCG 2000-6931] and the specific section of 
this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for 
each comment. Please submit all comments and attachments in an

[[Page 66942]]

unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing, to the Docket Management Facility at the 
address under ADDRESSES. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of 
comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or envelopes.
    The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the 
comment period. It may change these rules in view of the comments.

Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard plans to hold a public meeting during the comment 
period for this SNPRM, at a place and time announced in a later notice 
in the Federal Register. Persons may ask for more than one meeting by 
writing to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why more than one 
meeting would be beneficial. If it determines that added opportunity 
for oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will 
hold more than one meeting at places and times announced by a later 
notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On January 19, 1996, the tugboat SCANDIA, towing the oil barge 
NORTH CAPE, caught fire five miles off the coast of Rhode Island. The 
crew could not control the fire, and without power they were unable to 
prevent the barge carrying 4 million gallons of oil from grounding and 
spilling about a quarter of its contents into the coastal waters. The 
spill led Congress to amend 46 U.S.C. 4102, in section 902 of the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-324) (the Authorization 
Act), so as to direct that the Secretary of Transportation prescribe 
rules on fire-suppression systems for vessels towing single-hull non-
self-propelled tank vessels.
    On October 6, 1997, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM), Safety of Towing Vessels [CGD 97-064] (62 FR 52057), 
that proposed fire-suppression measures for all towing vessels but not 
the mandatory installation of fixed fire-extinguishing systems. 
Instead, the NPRM proposed alternatives that comprised fire-detection 
systems, semi-portable fire extinguishers, training of crewmembers, and 
fixed or portable fire pumps for the protection of existing towing 
vessels and for new towing vessels under 24 meters in length, 
regardless of the cargoes transported. The NPRM proposed these measures 
after we had reviewed data on casualties that revealed 105 reported 
fires in the engine rooms of towing vessels between 1992 and 1996. Each 
of these fires represented a potential obstruction to maritime commerce 
and each resulted in property damage. Many in fact resulted in total 
constructive losses of the vessels, and several necessitated the use of 
outside resources to bring the distressed vessels under control. Also, 
the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) recommended that any 
proposed rules apply to all towing vessels, regardless of type of 
cargo, so that operators could maintain flexibility over the cargoes 
that they may tow.
    The TSAC also recommended that the rules apply only to vessels 12 
meters in length or longer. However, application only to such vessels 
did not meet the mandate in the Authorization Act, which did not 
distinguish among vessels by length. The Act, instead, required the 
installation of fire-suppression systems on vessels that tow single-
hull non-self-propelled tank vessels. Vessels less than 12 meters in 
length can and often do tow such tank vessels. Moreover, the Coast 
Guard is concerned that a significant fire could occur on any towing 
vessel, regardless of length or cargo.
    On October 19, 1999, we published an Interim Rule on Fire 
Protection Measures for Towing Vessels [USCG 1998-4445] (64 FR 56257). 
For all towing vessels except those specifically exempted, that Rule 
requires general-alarm systems, internal communication systems, fire-
detection systems, and remote fuel-shutoffs; sets standards for fuel 
systems; and states criteria for monthly drills. It does not address 
the remainder of the fire-protection measures proposed in the NPRM; it 
defers those that relate to manual fire-fighting. Those are the 
subjects of this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). 
The intent of this SNPRM is to reconsider requirements for manual fire-
fighting equipment versus the installation of fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems for all towing vessels. The Coast Guard does not anticipate 
that this SNPRM will delete or modify any of the other measures 
required by the Interim Rule. A separate Final Rule [USCG 1998-4445] 
published on August 28, 2000 (65 FR 52043), accomplished minor changes 
to the Interim Rule.

Statutory Mandate

    Section 902 of the Authorization Act furnishes the authority for 
these proposed rules. It directs the Coast Guard, after consultation 
with the TSAC, and after taking into consideration the characteristics, 
methods of operation, and nature of service of towing vessels, to 
consider requiring the installation, maintenance, and use of a fire-
suppression system or other measures on towing vessels. These measures 
are to provide adequate assurance that fires on board towing vessels 
``can be suppressed under reasonably foreseeable circumstances''. The 
Act further directs that, in particular, the Coast Guard develop rules 
for the installation ``of a fire-suppression system or other measures 
to provide adequate assurance that a fire on board a towing vessel that 
is towing a non-self-propelled tank vessel can be suppressed under 
reasonably foreseeable circumstances''. (46 U.S.C. 4102(f)(1))

Discussion of Requirements

These Rules Would Apply to Most Towing Vessels.

    These rules would prescribe that most towing vessels--
    <bullet> Be fitted with fixed fire-extinguishing systems for the 
protection of their engine rooms; and
    <bullet> Not proceed on trips or voyages before plans for those 
trips or voyages are complete.
    Towing vessels that engage only in assistance towing, pollution 
response, or fleeting duties in limited geographical areas would be 
exempt from the measures in this SNPRM. Yet all other towing vessels, 
not just those over a certain length or those that tow non-self-
propelled tank vessels, would be subject to those measures. Owners of 
existing towing vessels would, nevertheless, have five years after the 
effective date of these rules to install the required fixed fire-
extinguishing systems. The voyage-planning requirement would likely go 
into force on the effective date of these rules.

Requirement for a Fixed Fire-Extinguishing System: What Factors Were 
Considered in Determining This Approach?

    In the NPRM, we proposed several manual fire-fighting measures for 
existing vessels rather than specify fixed fire-extinguishing systems. 
Those measures included semi-portable fire extinguishers, fire pumps 
and hoses, and fire axes. We proposed them because we were concerned 
that gaseous fixed fire-extinguishing systems may not be effective on 
existing vessels. Every one of those systems requires an airtight 
enclosure to build up and maintain the necessary concentration of the 
extinguishing agent. Many existing towing vessels are constructed with 
engine rooms that may not be sufficiently airtight to accomplish this.

[[Page 66943]]

We were also concerned that, without proper containment, the 
extinguishing agent could leak into occupied areas and harm the crew. 
When we published the NPRM, the only approved extinguishing agent 
available was carbon dioxide, which is not acceptable for use in 
occupied areas or in areas where its accidental release could threaten 
adjacent occupied areas. During the comment period for the NPRM, 
however, several respondents reminded us of existing technical criteria 
for the design of total-flooding fire-extinguishing systems to protect 
even enclosed spaces that cannot be made entirely airtight. Partly open 
spaces can be successfully protected by providing enough added 
extinguishing agent to compensate for the quantity of gas that escapes 
from uncloseable openings during the discharge. Other respondents felt 
that we should require not only fixed fire-extinguishing systems but 
also the necessary bulkheads and decks, or sealing measures, to 
properly enclose engine rooms and make the systems effective.
    After both a review of the public comments and our further 
analysis, we have decided to change our approach to fire protection, 
and propose to require fixed fire-extinguishing systems, instead of 
manual fire-fighting equipment, for the protection of all engine rooms. 
We decided this out of concern for the safety of the crews of towing 
vessels. If we had continued with our original approach, we would have 
made it necessary for the crews to enter burning engine rooms for 
manual fire-fighting. Towing vessels normally operate with minimal 
manning. There might not be enough crewmembers available to effectively 
and safely fight a fire, and those that tried would be exposed to an 
environment that is dangerous to their health. We discuss this concern 
further when we explain why we would apply these rules to all vessels. 
Also, training in basic and advanced marine fire-fighting is essential 
for anyone fighting a fire on any vessel. Anyone assigned to such a 
duty would need to complete periodic refresher-training courses as 
well.
    We propose the use of any one of three types of fixed fire-
extinguishing systems. We are specifically inviting the public to 
comment on this approach. By allowing a choice among the three, we 
expect, we will enable operators of towing vessels to select a form of 
protection that will be effective onboard their vessels.

Alternative Agents: Why Are We Proposing new Types of Extinguishing 
Systems?

    Our further review of the proposed rules for fixed fire-
extinguishing systems led us to carefully examine the possibility of 
exposing the crew to harmful extinguishing agents. Since publishing the 
NPRM, we have issued type approvals to several manufacturers whose 
systems use FM-200 and Inergen as the extinguishing agents. These 
agents serve as replacements for Halon 1301, previously in use onboard 
ships. The use of Halon 1301 presented an acceptable risk to human 
exposure. Despite this, its use was restricted in 1987 because, being 
an ozone-depleting substance, it presented an unacceptable risk to the 
atmosphere. Each of the new agents that we are proposing is both 
harmless to the atmosphere and safe for human exposure. Engine rooms 
protected by any of them would pose less risk to the crewmembers in 
adjacent areas in case of an accidental release. Technical information 
explaining the design and installation of fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems that use them appears in Standard 2001 of the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA).
    Water-mist fire-extinguishing systems are another alternative that 
we are considering for engine rooms of towing vessels. These systems 
represent recent technology that uses very fine droplets of water as 
the extinguishing agent. Unlike traditional automatic sprinkler 
systems, these systems spray water as droplets, and leave very little 
residual water after the fire is extinguished. The fire-extinguishing 
ability of these systems is comparable or superior to that of 
traditional sprinkler systems. They are also safe for human exposure. 
Technical information explaining their design and installation appears 
in NFPA Standard 750. We are proposing standards for them based on 
full-scale tests we conducted to develop the criteria for protecting 
engine rooms. We expect that, by the time these rules become final, 
water-mist systems approved by the Coast Guard will be commercially 
available. Our proposed design criteria are based on selected parts of 
Circular 913 of the Maritime Safety Committee of the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO MSC/Circ. 913), ``Guidelines for the 
Approval of Fixed Water-based Local Application Fire-fighting Systems 
for Machinery Spaces of Category A,'' supplemented by technology 
developed in our research. Public comment on these criteria is 
especially welcome. Our current intent is to approve water-mist systems 
that meet the following criteria:
    1. The water-mist system must be a local-application system that 
covers the entire engine room with a uniform grid of pendant nozzles 
located about 1 meter below the topmost grating or overhead, as 
applicable. The distance from the nozzles to the deck plating of the 
engine room must be within the tested limits for separation between 
hazard and nozzle.
    2. More nozzles must be installed to protect obstructed hazards 
such as fuel lines and fittings, as specified by the manufacturer.
    3. More nozzles must be installed to protect bilges greater than 
0.75 meter in depth, as specified by the manufacturer.
    4. The system must be an open-head, deluge-type one with a manual 
release. This release must be located outside a main exit from the 
engine room, and another must be located at the engineering control 
booth or station, if there is one.
    5. The storage cylinders and controls of the system must be located 
outside the engine room, or, if inside, at a site shielded from direct 
exposure to fire from below.
    6. The system must be self-contained and must require no external 
source of power.
    7. Operation of the system must cause the ventilation fans and fuel 
pumps of the engine room to shut down.
    8. Release of the system must involve two separate acts: break 
glass--pull handle; open door--pull handle; or equivalent.
    9. The system must successfully pass the fire-test protocols in IMO 
MSC/Circ. 913, ``Guidelines for the Approval of Fixed Water-based Local 
Application Fire-fighting Systems for Machinery Spaces of Category A.''
    10. Testing of components must accord with the following provisions 
of Appendix A of IMO MSC/Circ. 728, ``Revised Test Method for 
Equivalent Water-Based Fire-extinguishing Systems for Machinery Spaces 
of Category A and Cargo Pumprooms contained in MSC/Circ. 668'':

3.4  Water flow and distribution.
3.6  Strength of body.
3.11  Corrosion.
3.16  Resistance to vibration (Plus functional test in 3.5.2 only).
3.22  Clogging.

    11. The storage cylinders of the system must hold enough water to 
let the system operate at full flow for at least 10 minutes.
    12. The system must have a backup 40-mm (1.5-inch) fire-department 
connection somewhere on the open

[[Page 66944]]

deck not likely to be exposed to a fire in the engine room.
    13. An independent laboratory must approve the water-mist system.
    The rules proposed here would require that a fixed fire-
extinguishing system be installed in the engine room. They would not 
specify the types of systems that are acceptable. Instead, they would 
rely on the definition for the term ``fixed fire-extinguishing system'' 
that was previously stated in the Interim Rule on Fire Protection 
Measures for Towing Vessels [USCG 1998-4445] (64 FR 56257). The 
definition does not appear in the regulatory text of this SNPRM, 
because it has already been adopted in final form. It is repeated here, 
however, for continuity:
    Fixed Fire-Extinguishing System means a carbon-dioxide system that 
satisfies 46 CFR subpart 76.15; a manually-operated clean-agent system 
that satisfies NFPA 2001 and is approved by the Commandant; or a 
manually-operated water-mist system that satisfies NFPA 750 and is 
approved by the Commandant.

Safety of Crewmembers of Towing Vessels: What About the Use of Manual 
Fire-Fighting on Towing Vessels?

    Many of the respondents who submitted comments on the NPRM 
criticized our proposed requirements for manual fire-fighting 
equipment. Their primary concern was for the safety of the crewmembers 
expected to fight the fires. They argued that manual fire-fighting 
would meet with limited success on engine-room fires, for a number of 
reasons. To begin with, the crew would need self-contained breathing 
apparatus and personal protective gear (which the proposed rule would 
not have required). Beyond this, the crew would need practical training 
in marine fire-fighting, including the use of semi-portable fire 
extinguishers and manual hose-streams. Then, effective fire-fighting 
would entail a minimum of trained fire-fighters on board the vessel 
whenever it is operating. Our review of typical manning on towing 
vessels indicates that there are too few people on board the vessels to 
both fight expected fires and safely operate the vessels. NFPA Standard 
1500, ``Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program,'' 
recommends limiting fire-fighting by the number of persons available on 
the scene. For interior fire-fighting in particular, the standard 
recommends that at least four fire-fighters be available. Many towing 
vessels do not carry crews of four or more persons. A fire in the 
engine room of a towing vessel presents a higher risk than a typical 
fire in a building because of the presence of combustible liquids 
within the steel casing of the engine room. Unlike a typical fire in a 
building, which can be attacked from the street level, a fire in the 
engine room of a towing vessel must be attacked from above. A fire 
party trying to enter an engine room from above to extinguish such a 
fire will encounter extremely high temperatures and vision-obscuring 
smoke and toxic gases. By contrast, a fixed fire-extinguishing system 
is installed with its operating controls located outside the engine 
room. The crew does not need to enter the burning space to activate it.
    Ultimately, this SNPRM proposes that all towing vessels--other than 
those exempted by 46 CFR 27.100(b)--carry fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems after the effective date of any eventual rules, to protect 
their engine rooms.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received a total of 54 letters to the docket, and 
remarks at the public meetings in St. Louis, MO, and Newport, RI, which 
generally reiterate the written comments. Taken together, there are 
about 208 comments to the public docket of the NPRM on the Safety of 
Towing Vessels. The 67 comments relating to systems for anchoring and 
barge retrieval we addressed in an Interim Rule (63 FR 71754 (December 
30, 1998)) on Emergency Control Measures for Tank Barges (USCG 1998-
4443). Comments relating to fire-protection measures we addressed in 
another Interim Rule (64 FR 56257 (October 19, 1999)), on Fire-
Protection Measures for Towing Vessels (USCG 1998-4445). We received 
comments related to this SNPRM, though not submitted to this docket, 
from six respondents who submitted comments relating to the Interim 
Rule on fire-protection measures. We address their comments here. The 
remaining comments concerned methods and equipment for suppressing 
fires: fixed fire-extinguishing systems; fire pumps, hydrants, and 
hoses; semi-portable fire extinguishers; fire axes; and muster lists. 
We address them, as well as voyage planning, here as well.

Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems

    Some public respondents argue that the proposed requirements should 
apply only to certain towing vessels. They believe that only towing 
vessels that transport barges laden with oil or similar hazardous 
substances, or that travel on routes where ecologically sensitive areas 
are under threat, should have to install fire-extinguishing equipment.
    The nature of the cargo being transported on a barge does not 
affect the likelihood of its towing vessel's suffering an engine-room 
fire with associated risk to the crew. Also, towing vessels may take 
turns transporting barges laden with different materials or may travel 
on different routes. It is neither practical nor feasible to restrict 
their service in accordance with the commodities transported on their 
barges or the routes they may travel. It is therefore necessary to 
protect the engine rooms on all towing vessels against fire.
    Another respondent stated that the proposed requirement for a fixed 
fire-extinguishing system that stops the main engines could cause 
greater danger than allowing the master to ground the vessel. He notes 
that, in inland service, a controlled grounding can safely situate the 
vessel before fire-fighting begins.
    We agree that, in certain instances, emergency maneuvering of the 
vessel may be necessary before fire-fighting begins; but that does not 
mean these proposed rules should change. There is no way to predict 
exactly how a fire will develop. The master and crew must respond to it 
as it does develop. The immediate concern may well be to move the 
vessel to a different heading or a safe site before trying to 
extinguish the fire. In other cases the first step may be to try to 
control or extinguish the fire. If some means of fire suppression is 
installed on the vessel, the master is free to respond in the sequence 
he or she decides is best.

Fire Pumps, Hydrants, and Hoses

    The NPRM proposed detailed standards for fire pumps, hydrants, and 
hoses to be installed on board all towing vessels so that their crews 
could manually extinguish engine-room fires. Many respondents 
criticized our standards for fire pumps as ``overstated and * * * 
difficult to comply with.'' Many feared that our stringent standards 
for rates of both waterflow and pressure would entail the replacement 
of numerous existing smaller pumps that have proved adequate thus far. 
Still others recommended against the use of portable pumps because of 
difficulties stowing, deploying, and operating them. Many correctly 
pointed out that the proposed fire pump or the generators used to power 
it would have to be stowed or even installed in the engine room. If a 
significant fire occurred there, the pump or the generator would be 
damaged before fire-fighting commenced. Finally, some expressed the 
opinion that towing vessels with approved fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems are adequately protected and should not also have to carry fire

[[Page 66945]]

pumps. Because we agree with this view, we have dropped all proposed 
requirements for fixed and portable fire pumps, hydrants, and hoses.

Semi-Portable Fire Extinguishers

    The NPRM would have required either a B-III or B-V semi-portable 
fire extinguisher on every towing vessel, linked to the size of the 
vessel. Many respondents criticized the use of manual equipment over 
their concerns for the crewmembers' safety. Others argued that, unless 
the semi-portable extinguisher were located outside the engine room, a 
fire would damage it before it could be used. Still others recommended 
that several small extinguishers could substitute for a single large 
one. Because we have decided to require fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems instead of manual fire-fighting equipment, we have dropped all 
proposed requirements for semi-portable extinguishers. The proposed 
Sec. 27.325 would have required that every new towing vessel 24 meters 
or longer in length must have a fixed fire-extinguishing system and an 
approved B-V semi-portable extinguisher. Because of our misgivings over 
the use of manual fire-fighting equipment by the crewmembers, we have 
also dropped the proposal for semi-portable fire extinguishers for this 
category of new vessels.

Fire Axes

    The NPRM would have required that fire axes be available on board 
all towing vessels. These axes help in manual fire-fighting and 
overhaul. Yet several respondents questioned the need for them.
    We have reconsidered, and have concluded that, because this rule 
proposes the use of fixed fire-extinguishing systems instead of manual 
fire-extinguishing measures, fire axes are no longer necessary. These 
rules would not require them.

Muster Lists

    The NPRM called for muster lists that would assign specific duties 
to each crewmember during a fire. In the Interim Rule, we instead 
decided to require, and did require, that crewmembers participate in 
regular drills. This ensures that crewmembers know the locations and 
operations of all onboard fire-extinguishing equipment and of related 
shutdowns of fuel and ventilation.
    We suspect that the requirement for periodic drills will prove more 
beneficial than one for mere muster lists would, because crewmembers 
will learn the locations and operations of the equipment and shutdowns 
installed aboard their vessels. This SNPRM, therefore, proposes no 
requirements for muster lists.

Voyage Planning

    Six letters included comments from respondents about voyage 
planning. We will address all of them here.
    One respondent recommended that the Coast Guard require that up-to-
date copies of tables of tides and currents be available for ready 
reference during every voyage. These and several others are already 
mandatory under 33 CFR 164.72(b).
    Two respondents doubted whether we could adequately address voyage 
planning by a Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC). Their 
skepticism is well-founded. Since a NVIC is unenforceable, it affords 
none of the needed leverage over the operators who do not observe these 
basic requirements of good marine practice. Therefore, with this SNPRM, 
the Coast Guard is proposing an actual requirement. However, we do plan 
to work with the TSAC in developing a NVIC on voyage planning to 
provide guidance to assist with thorough implementation of this 
requirement.
    One respondent suggested adding to voyage plans for every towing 
vessel--
    <bullet> Updated charts and publications concerning the accuracy, 
dependability, and functioning of available navigational aids;
    <bullet> Identification of environmentally sensitive areas planned 
for by Area Committees formed under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(4);
    <bullet> Bar-crossing procedures that contain criteria for ``go'' 
or ``no go'' and that address security of the barge and towing vessel; 
and
    <bullet> Appropriate checks of navigational equipment before 
getting under way and entering pilotage waters.
    The Coast Guard partly agrees. A requirement for the carriage of 
updated charts and publications on towing vessels already exists, in 33 
CFR 164.72(b), and we are here proposing a requirement for their use. 
Each owner or operator, and each master, would have to consider charted 
hazards to navigation and known environmentally sensitive areas (noted 
on charts or maps) in voyage and trip plans under these rules. Any such 
requirement by its very nature should be broadly applicable 
(nationwide) and general. A NVIC developed in cooperation with the TSAC 
would provide details for trip and voyage plans as guidelines.
    Two respondents stated that the proposed voyage-planning 
requirements would neither promote consistency nor be enforceable.
    We disagree. This SNPRM proposes a general rule applicable 
nationwide. A NVIC would address specific regional circumstances. A 
rule and a NVIC together, widely disseminated and available for all 
companies and masters to use and follow, would render voyage-planning 
standards enforceable and consistent. The Ports and Waterways Safety 
Act contains the legislative authority to require voyage planning on 
uninspected towing vessels. That statute allows the Coast Guard to 
promulgate such a requirement for vessels operating on the navigable 
waters of the United States. In 1998, Congress amended the definition 
of ``navigable waters of the United States'' to include the waters of 
the territorial sea out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline. (33 
U.S.C. 1222(5), 43 U.S.C. 1331) We would change the applicability of 
proposed rule 33 CFR 164.80 to require voyage plans on all uninspected 
towing vessels operating on the navigable waters of the United States.

Fuel Systems for Portable Pumps on Existing Vessels

    During the comment period for the NPRM, we received a comment 
regarding proposed 46 CFR 27.340(c), Fuel restrictions. This paragraph 
would have restricted towing vessels, except for outboard engines, to 
the use of bunker C or diesel fuel. The comment urged us to allow the 
use of gasoline as fuel for portable fire pumps.
    We do not want to encourage the use or storage of gasoline onboard 
towing vessels, because of its low flashpoint and potential for 
ignition. Anyway, the rules proposed here no longer contemplate 
portable fire pumps for the protection of engine rooms. Instead, they 
contemplate fixed fire-extinguishing systems for that. We have, 
therefore, not done what the comment urged.

Incorporation by Reference

    The material that we would incorporate by reference appears in 
proposed 46 CFR 27.227. It is already available for inspection at room 
1308 of Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, 
DC, 20593-0001. Copies of it would be available from one of the sources 
listed in 46 CFR 27.102. Before publishing a binding rule, we would 
submit this material to the Director of the Federal Register for 
approval of the incorporation by reference.

[[Page 66946]]

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under that Order.
    A draft Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the 
Evaluation follows:
    This Evaluation addresses rules mandated by Section 902 of the 
Authorization Act. This SNPRM would require the installation of fixed 
fire-extinguishing systems on board towing vessels. Such systems would 
serve to reduce the number of uncontrolled engine-room fires. This 
SNPRM would also require voyage plans for all transits of towing 
vessels with any barges in tow. When fully implemented, the measures 
outlined in this SNPRM should significantly reduce the likelihood of 
deaths, injuries, and environmental and property damage resulting from 
fires on board and other casualties to towing vessels.
    The net cost-effectiveness of this SNPRM would be $5,754 per barrel 
of pollution avoided. The net cost-effectiveness of the fixed fire-
extinguishing systems would be $9,889 per barrel of pollution avoided, 
while the net cost-effectiveness of voyage-planning would be -$70 per 
barrel of pollution avoided.

Summary of Costs

    The present value of the total cost of these rules over the 13-year 
period of analysis would be $115,915,169 ($109,809,202 for fixed fire-
extinguishing systems + $6,105,967 for voyage planning = $115,915,169). 
The present value of the total benefit (or avoided costs) would be 
$30,007,645 ($23,467,869 from fixed fire-extinguishing systems and 
$6,539,776 from voyage planning). Therefore, the net cost would be 
$85,907,525 in 2000 dollars ($115,915,169 minus $30,007,645 = 
$85,907,525). In return, the measures contained in this SNPRM would 
prevent 14,925 barrels of pollution.

Cost for Voyage Planning

    This SNPRM would require the master of a non-exempted towing vessel 
to complete a voyage plan before he or she made a voyage, transit, or 
trip (lasting at least 12 hours from homeport or point of origin) on 
navigable waters of the United States. Voyage planning is already 
mandatory for vessels towing oil-laden tank barges within the First 
Coast Guard District and, to some extent, for other towing vessels.
    The master of the towing vessel validates the voyage plan before 
the voyage, transit, or trip. He or she ensures that the voyage plan is 
followed, or, if changes to the plan are considered during the voyage, 
that the plan is modified or updated before the changes are carried 
out.
    We estimate that it would take the master of the vessel, on 
average, around 30 minutes (or 0.5 hour) to prepare a voyage plan for 
each transit. The average daily billing rate for the master is $350, 
based on a twelve-hour day. This translates to a cost of $14.58 to 
prepare a voyage plan. [($350/12 hours)  x  0.5 hour = $14.58.] An 
average towing vessel (with barge in tow) completes about 120 non-
exempt trips each year. Thus, the 4,467 non-exempt towing vessels 
complete about 536,040 trips each year (4,467 vessels  x  120 trips/
vessel = 536,040 trips).\1\ The Coast Guard estimates that 90 percent 
of towing vessels (and consequently, 90 percent of voyages) already are 
in compliance with the voyage-planning requirement. Therefore, we 
estimate that 10 percent (or 53,604) of the voyages currently are not, 
and without the requirement would continue to not be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Currently, vessels that tow oil-laden tank barges in the 
First District must complete voyage plans. Although we could 
subtract the 250 towing vessels that operate in the First District 
from the total population, we do not, because we assume that those 
250 may tow freight barges as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual cost of voyage planning would be $781,725 ($14.58/
voyages  x  53,604 voyages = $781,725). Over the 13-year period of 
analysis, the total cost of voyage planning is $6,105,967 in 2000 
dollars.

Cost for Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems

    The total cost of the requirement for a fixed fire-extinguishing 
system is the sum of the cost to purchase and install the system, the 
cost to annually maintain and test the system, and any revenue that may 
be lost while a vessel is out of service to have the system installed. 
The present value of the total cost of the requirement of the fixed 
fire-extinguishing system would be $109,809,202 ($93,686,251 for 
purchase and installation + $11,119,576 for annual maintenance and 
testing + $5,503,375 for lost revenue = $109,809,202).

Cost To Purchase and Install

    Using our database, the Marine Safety Management System (MSMS), we 
estimate that there are 6,421 documented towing vessels; from there, we 
further estimate that 4,467 of those are not exempt from this 
rulemaking. From sources in industry, we estimate that 77 percent (or 
3,440) of the 4,467 non-exempt vessels do not have fixed fire-
extinguishing systems (FFES). Consequently, we estimate that during the 
5-year phase-in period 3,440 towing vessels would have to purchase and 
install FFESs.
    The cost to purchase and install a FFES varies with the length of 
the vessel. We estimate that the average cost to each of the 2,339 
small vessels (less than 24 meters in length) would be $25,000. The 
average cost to each of the 1,101 large vessels (greater than or equal 
to 24 meters in length) would be $55,000. We recognize that the cost to 
retrofit some of the large vessels may be over $100,000; however, the 
average would be $55,000. The combined cost to the 3,440 vessels would 
be $119,009,814 [(2,339  x  $25,000) + (1,101  x  $55,000) = 
$60,536,784 + $58,473,030 = $119,009,814].
    The 3,440 vessels would have five years each to purchase and 
install a FFES; and the average annual cost for a vessel from 2002 
through 2006 to purchase and install one would be $23,801,963 
($119,009,814/5 = $23,801,963).
    Each year, we expect, 18 new vessels would purchase and install 
FFESs. We also expect that 68 percent (or 12) of the new vessels would 
be small and that 32 percent (or 6) would be large, for a total cost of 
$622,800 [(12  x  $25,000) + (6  x  $55,000) = $622,800]. However, we 
also expect that the population of vessels would remain constant. 
Consequently, each year during the 5-year phase-in period, we expect 
that 670 existing vessels and 18 new vessels would purchase and install 
them (670 + 18 = 688). Over the 13-year period of analysis, therefore, 
the present value of the total cost for towing vessels to purchase and 
install them would be $93,686,251 (in 2000 dollars).

Cost To Maintain and Test

    A FFES needs maintenance and testing in accordance with the 
manufacturer's design manual. This maintenance and testing would 
involve an overall check of the system, functional testing of the 
system's operating controls and alarms, and a check of the cylinders 
that supply the fire-extinguishing agent, to verify that

[[Page 66947]]

the weight and pressure of the stored agent fall within prescribed 
limits.
    The Coast Guard estimates that the average cost for maintenance and 
testing of a FFES would be $600 per year. Over the 13-year period of 
analysis, therefore, the present value of the total cost to maintain 
and test these systems annually would be $ 11,119,576 in 2000 dollars.

Cost of Revenue Lost

    Although there would be a 5-year phase-in period, which should give 
each owner the flexibility to schedule the installation of a FFES, some 
owners may lose revenue. However, the ability to avoid losing revenue 
on the flexibility may depend upon the number of towing vessels owned 
as well. While a vessel is out of service to have an FFES installed, an 
owner of more than one towing vessel may be able to put another vessel 
into service. Thus, the revenue lost by one vessel could become the 
revenue gained by another vessel, and the owner might not lose revenue.
    Thus, we estimated that the expected revenue lost by each vessel 
depends upon the size of the vessel and the number of vessels owned. 
See the following Table (we assume that new vessels would not lose 
revenue, because each would have a FFES installed before going into 
service):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Expected   Expected
                                                     revenue    revenue
                                                     lost by    lost by
   Number of non- exempted towing  vessels owned       each       each
                                                      small      large
                                                      vessel     vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................      4,000      9,000
2.................................................      3,200      7,200
3.................................................      1,600      3,600
4.................................................        800      1,800
5 or more.........................................          0          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that, during each year of the 5-year phase-in period, 
670 existing vessels would each purchase and install a FFES. From a 
sample of 3,328 non-exempt towing vessels, we found the following 
distribution:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Expected   Expected
                                                     revenue    revenue
                                                     lost by    lost by
   Number of non- exempted towing  vessels owned       each       each
                                                      small      large
                                                      vessel     vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................       60.5       21.6
2.................................................       14.6       10.4
3.................................................        8.7        9.3
4.................................................        3.9        5.5
5 or more.........................................       12.3       53.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................................      100.0      100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From our MSMS database, we expect that 68 percent of these vessels 
are small and 32 percent are large. Furthermore, we expect that 21.6 
percent belong to fleets of one, 10.4 percent to fleets of two, 9.3 
percent to fleets of three, 5.5 percent to fleets of four, and 53.2 
percent to fleets of five or more. From all this, we estimate that 670 
vessels altogether would lose revenue of $1,305,696 each year during 
the 5-year phase-in period. Over the period of analysis, the present 
value of the total revenue lost would be $5,503,375.

Summary of Benefits

Benefits for Voyage-Planning

    A team of analysts identified cases between January 1, 1992, and 
December 31, 1996, that involved the grounding, sinking, capsizing, 
allision, or loss of control of towing vessels. The team determined 
that 40 of those cases could have had their losses reduced with voyage 
planning.\2\ These 40 provided the pool from which the team estimated 
the expected benefits. On average, voyage planning would have reduced 
the probability of a casualty by 15 percent. We used that percentage to 
estimate the losses avoided by the voyage planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The small number of cases during the five-year period 
supports the Coast Guard's estimate that 90 percent of the vessels 
currently prepare and follow voyage plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the 13-year period of analysis (2002-2014), we estimate that 
the present value of damages, deaths, and injuries avoided would be 
$6,539,776 in 2000 dollars ($5,263,336 for damages avoided + $1,265,364 
for deaths or missing persons avoided + $11,076 for injuries avoided = 
$6,539,776).
    Given that the present value of the total cost of voyage planning 
would be $6,105,967, the total cost of pollution avoided by voyage 
planning would be $986 per barrel ($986/barrel = $6,105,967/6,194 
barrels = $986 per barrel). With the present value of the net cost of 
voyage planning being -$433,809, the net cost of pollution avoided 
would be -$70 per barrel [-$70/barrel = ($6,105,967-$6,539,776)/6,194 
barrels]. See Table 1.

             Table 1.--Cost-Effectiveness of Voyage Planning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Cost of Voyage Planning................      $6,105,967
Barrels of Pollution Avoided by Voyage Planning.........           6,194
Cost Per Barrel of Pollution Avoided....................            $986
Present Value of Avoided Costs of Voyage Planning.......      $6,539,776
Net Cost of Voyage Planning.............................   -$433,809 \3\
Net Cost per Barrel of Pollution Avoided................        -$70 \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits for Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems

    Before estimating the damages avoided by fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems, we subtracted voyage-planning benefits for any case of a 
casualty that involved an engine-room fire and that would have realized 
benefits from voyage planning in order to avoid double-counting of 
benefits. To estimate the average annual damages avoided by fixed fire-
extinguishing systems for those cases where voyage planning would 
confer a first-tier benefit, we multiplied the average annual damages 
of $3,550,058 by 0.85, then by 0.42, and obtained a figure of 
$1,267,371 per year.\5\ In those cases where fire suppression would 
confer the first-tier benefit, average annual damages avoided by fixed 
fire-extinguishing systems would be $2,464,958 ($5,868,947/year  x  
0.42 = $2,464,958/year). The combined average annual damage avoided by 
the systems would be $3,732,329 ($1,267,371 in cases when voyage 
planning would come first + $2,464,958 in those when the systems 
themselves would come first = $3,732,329).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because net cost is negative, the voyage-planning 
requirement has a positive net benefit.
    \4\ As the present value total benefit of voyage planning is 
greater than the present value total cost of voyage planning, the 
net cost is negative, at -$433,809. In turn, the net cost per barrel 
of pollution avoided is negative. When net cost per barrel of 
pollution avoided is -$70, that means each barrel of pollution 
avoided is associated with a net benefit of $70.
    \5\ Recall that voyage planning reduces potential benefits by 15 
percent; thus, only 85 percent remains. On average, a fixed fire-
extinguishing system should reduce damages by 42 percent when 
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We assume that 20 percent of the vessels would purchase and install 
fixed fire-extinguishing systems each year over the five-year phase-in 
period, so the annual benefit in damages avoided would increase from 
$746,466 the first year to $3,732,328 in the fifth and later years. 
Over the 13-year period of analysis, the present value of the total 
benefit from damage avoided to vessels and property would be 
$23,045,648 in 2000 dollars.
    From 1992 through 1996 there were 7 minor injuries and 5 serious 
ones.\6\ The amount society would be willing to pay

[[Page 66948]]

to avoid these injuries is $814,050 ($37,800 to avoid the 7 minor 
injuries + $776,250 to avoid the 5 serious injuries = $814,050). As 
these injuries occurred over a five-year period, their average annual 
value was $162,810 ($814,050/5 = $162,810).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The 12 injuries came from 6 cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We would expect fixed fire-extinguishing systems to reduce these 
injuries by 42 percent. So, they reduce injuries by $68,380 per year 
($162,810  x  0.42 = $68,380).\7\ Over the 13-year period of analysis, 
the present value of the total benefit from injuries avoided would be 
$422,221 in 2000 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Voyage planning would not confer a first-tier benefit in 
these cases. Consequently, we do not subtract voyage-planning 
benefits before estimating fire-suppression benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSMS database contains a table that shows the gallons of oil 
and other hazardous materials spilled ``out of water'' and ``in 
waterways''. Of the 105 cases used to determine the benefits of fixed 
fire-extinguishing systems, 5 involved pollution. A total of 19,791 
barrels were spilled during the five-year period from 1992 through 
1996.
    We estimate that fixed fire-extinguishing systems would reduce 
these spills by 42 percent. Before we calculated benefits from the 
systems, we deducted the benefits from voyage planning (when 
appropriate, to avoid double counting). Over the 13-year period of 
analysis, the systems should reduce pollution by 8,731 barrels.

Total Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness of Fixed Fire-Extinguishing 
Systems

    Over the 13-year period of analysis, the present value of the 
avoided costs of fixed fire-extinguishing systems would be $23,467,869 
in 2000 dollars ($23,045,648 for damages avoided + $422,221 for avoided 
injuries = $23,467,869).
    The present value of the total cost of fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems would be $109,809,202. Because, we estimate, the requirement 
would reduce pollution by 8,731 barrels, the cost per barrel of 
pollution avoided would be $12,577 ($12,577/barrel = $109,809,202/8,731 
barrels). The net cost of the requirement would be $86,341,334 
($109,809,202-$23,467,869 = $86,341,334). Thus, the net cost-
effectiveness would be $9,889 per barrel ($9,889/barrel = $86,341,334/
8,731 barrels). See Table 2.

     Table 2.--Cost-Effectiveness of Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Cost of Fixed Fire-Extinguishing Systems (PV)..........    $109,809,202
 Barrels of Pollution Avoided...........................           8,731
 Cost per Barrel of Pollution Avoided...................          12,577
 Cost Avoided of Systems (PV)...........................      23,467,869
 Net Cost of Systems....................................      86,341,334
 Net Cost per Barrel of Pollution Avoided...............           9,889
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Avoided Cost of Rule

    The present value of the total avoided cost of this rulemaking, we 
estimate, would be $30,007,645 in 2000 dollars ($6,539,776 from voyage 
planning + $23,467,869 from fixed fire-extinguishing systems = 
$30,007,645).

Cost-Effectiveness of Rule

    Over the 13-year period of analysis, we estimate, the present value 
of the total cost of these rules would be $115,915,169 ($109,809,202 
for fixed fire-extinguishing systems + $6,105,967 for voyage planning = 
$115,915,169). These rules would reduce pollution by 14,925 barrels 
(8,731 barrels avoided by the systems + 6,194 barrels avoided by voyage 
planning = 14,925 barrels). Consequently, the cost per barrel of 
pollution avoided by these rules (or the cost-effectiveness of these 
rules) would be $7,766 ($7,766 = $115,915,169/14,925 barrels).
    Over the 13-year period of analysis, the present value of the total 
avoided cost of these rules would be $30,007,645 ($23,467,869 for the 
fixed fire-extinguishing systems + $6,539,776 for voyage planning = 
$30,007,645). The net cost of these rules would be $85,907,525 
($115,915,169--$30,007,645 = $85,907,525). The net cost per barrel is 
$5,756 = $85,907,525/14,925 barrels. See Table 3.

                  Table 3.--Cost-Effectiveness of Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Rule (PV).......................................    $115,915,169
Barrels of Pollution Avoided by Rule....................          14,925
Cost per Barrel of Pollution Avoided....................           7,766
Avoided Cost of Rule (PV)...............................      30,007,645
Net Cost of Rule........................................      85,907,525
Net Cost per Barrel of Pollution Avoided................           5,756
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601-612], the Coast 
Guard considers the economic impact on small entities of each proposed 
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required. 
``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000.
    From our analysis (copy available in the docket), we concluded that 
the requirement of fixed fire-extinguishing systems might have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Consequently, by establishing a five-year phase-in period for the 
systems, we would provide flexibility and accommodation for small 
entities affected. This would give small entities the time needed to 
explore markets, plan, and schedule installations during normal 
downtimes.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard wants to assist 
small entities in understanding this SNPRM so they can better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If these 
proposed rules would affect your small business or organization, and if 
you have questions about their provisions or your options for 
compliance, please call Mr. Randall Eberly (for questions on fire-
extinguishing systems), telephone 202-267-1861, or Mr. Robert Spears 
(for questions on voyage planning), telephone 202-267-1099.
    The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments 
from small businesses about enforcement by Federal agencies. The 
Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate 
each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment 
on enforcement by the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-
3247).

Collection of Information

    These proposed rules would not provide for a collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520].

Federalism

    These proposed rules would revise the rules at 33 CFR part 164 that 
address voyage planning for towing vessels. They would also revise 
those at 46 CFR parts 25 and 27 that address fixed fire-extinguishing 
systems, their equipment, and its operation and maintenance on towing 
vessels. We have analyzed these

[[Page 66949]]

rules under Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
    It is well settled that States are precluded from regulation in 
categories that are 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(a), 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, 
repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and 
manning of vessels) are within the field foreclosed from State 
regulation. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated 
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 120 S. Ct. 
1135, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 1895 (March 6, 2000).) These rules fall into 
those covered categories, thereby precluding States from regulation. 
Because States may not promulgate rules within these categories, 
preemption is not an issue under E.O. 13132.

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 regulatory 
actions not specifically required by law. In particular, the Act 
addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by State, local, 
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
    While several State and local governments operate some towing 
vessels, entities in the private sector own and operate most of the 
affected ones. This SNPRM would not directly affect tribal governments. 
The total burden of Federal mandates that these rules would impose 
would be about $115,915,169 (present value of the total cost over the 
13-year period of analysis). Therefore, these rules would not impose an 
unfunded mandate. Although they would not result in an annual 
expenditure of $100,000,000, we do discuss their effects elsewhere in 
the preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    These proposed rules would not effect a taking of private property 
or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

Reform of Civil Justice

    These proposed rules meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed these proposed rules under E.O. 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. These 
rules are not economically significant and do not concern an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Environment

    The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of these 
proposed rules and concluded that under Figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(c) 
and (d) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, these rules are 
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A 
Determination of Categorical Exclusion is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part, 164

    Equipment, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Navigation 
safety, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 25

    Fire-extinguishing equipment, Incorporation by reference, Life 
preservers, Marine safety, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 27

    Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 164, and 46 CFR parts 25 and 27, as follows:

PART 164--NAVIGATION SAFETY REGULATIONS

    1. Revise the citation of authority for part 164 to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1222(5), 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703; 
49 CFR 1.46. Sec. 164.13 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 
164.61 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 6101.

    2. Amend Sec. 164.78 by revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) and 
adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:


Sec. 164.78  Navigation under way; Towing vessels.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Knows the speed and direction of the current, set, and drift, 
and knows the tidal state for the area to be transited;
    (7) Proceeds at a speed prudent for the weather, visibility, 
density of traffic, draft of tow, possibility of wake damage, speed of 
the current, and local speed-limits; and
    (8) Monitors the trip or voyage plan required by Sec. 164.80.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec. 164.80 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 164.80  Tests, inspections, and voyage planning.

* * * * *
    (c) The owner or operator, and the master, of each towing vessel 
employed to tow a barge or barges must ensure the development of a 
voyage plan for each intended trip or voyage with the barge or barges, 
on the navigable waters of the United States, as defined in 33 U.S.C. 
1222(5). The voyage plan must take into account all pertinent 
information, and be complete before the vessel embarks on a trip or 
voyage of more than 12 hours. The master must check the planned route 
for proximity to hazards and known environmentally sensitive areas 
(noted on charts or maps) before the trip or voyage starts. During a 
trip or voyage, if anyone in authority decides to deviate substantially 
from that route, then the master or mate must ensure the development of 
a plan for the new route before the vessel does deviate from the plan 
for the current route. Each plan must consider--
    (1) Applicable information from up-to-date nautical charts and 
publications including Coast Pilot, Coast Guard Light List, and Coast 
Guard Local Notice to Mariners for each port of departure and for each 
port of call (destination);
    (2) Current and forecasted weather, including visibility, wind, and 
sea state from each port of departure to each port of call;
    (3) Data on tides and tidal currents for each port of departure and 
destination, as well as for ports of call, and on river stages, with 
forecasts, if applicable;
    (4) Forward and after drafts of the barge or barges and under-keel 
and vertical clearances (air-gaps) for all bridges, ports, and mooring 
or berthing areas;
    (5) Appropriate pre-departure checks;
    (6) Calculated speeds and estimated times of arrival at proposed 
waypoints;
    (7) Communication contacts at Vessel Traffic Services (if 
applicable), bridges, and facilities, and port-specific requirements 
for VHF radio;
    (8) Any standing orders (for instance, closest points of approach, 
special conditions, and critical maneuvers); and
    (9) Whether the vessel has sufficient power to control the tow 
under all foreseeable circumstances.

PART 25--REQUIREMENTS

    4. The citation of authority for part 25 continues to read as 
follows:


[[Page 66950]]


    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4302; 49 CFR 1.46.

    5. Revise Sec. 25.30-15 to read as follows:


Sec. 25.30-15  Fixed fire-extinguishing systems.

    (a) When a fixed fire-extinguishing system is installed, it must be 
of a type approved or accepted by the Commandant (G-MSE) or the 
Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center.
    (b) If the system is of a carbon-dioxide type, then it must be 
designed and installed in agreement with the applicable provisions of 
subpart 76.15 of part 76 of subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of this 
chapter.

PART 27--TOWING VESSELS

    6. Revise the citation of authority for part 27 to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4102 (as amended by Pub. L. 104-324, 
110 Stat. 3947); 49 CFR 1.46.


Sec. 27.220  [Removed]

    7. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.220.


Sec. 27.221  [Removed]

    8. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.221.


Sec. 27.225  [Removed]

    9. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.225.
    10. Add Sec. 27.227 to read as follows:


Sec. 27.227  What type of fire-extinguishing equipment is required on 
an existing towing vessel?

    (a) Each existing towing vessel must comply with subpart 25.30 of 
this part.
    (b) By [Insert date 5 years after the effective date of the final 
rule] you must have a fixed fire-extinguishing system in the engine 
room of your vessel. You must keep the system tested and maintained in 
accordance with the manufacturer's approved design manual. An existing 
fire-extinguishing system satisfies this requirement if--
    (1) It uses carbon dioxide as an extinguishing agent and has been 
inspected and certified as meeting subpart 76.15 of part 76 of this 
subchapter or NFPA 12, ``Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems,'' by a 
Registered Professional Engineer or by a classification society 
recognized under 46 CFR part 8, subpart B; or
    (2) It uses Halon 1301 as an extinguishing agent and has been 
inspected and certified as meeting either guidance of the Coast Guard 
for such systems onboard inspected vessels or NFPA 12A, ``Halon 1301 
Fire Extinguishing Systems,'' by a Registered Professional Engineer or 
by a classification society recognized under 46 CFR part 8, subpart B.


Sec. 27.235  [Removed]

    11. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.235.


Sec. 27.240  [Removed]

    12. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.240.


Sec. 27.320  [Removed]

    13. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.320.


Sec. 27.321  [Removed]

    14. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.321.


Sec. 27.325  [Removed]

    15. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.325.


Sec. 27.326  [Removed]

    16. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.326.
    17. Add Sec. 27.327 to read as follows:


Sec. 27.327  What type of fire-extinguishing equipment is required on a 
new towing vessel?

    (a) Each new towing vessels must comply with subpart 25.30 of part 
25 of this subchapter.
    (b) You must have a fixed fire-extinguishing system in the engine 
room of your vessel. You must keep the system tested and maintained in 
accordance with the manufacturer's approved design manual.


Sec. 27.345  [Removed]

    18. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.345.


Sec. 27.350  [Removed]

    19. Remove the heading of Sec. 27.350.

    Dated: October 13, 2000.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and 
Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 00-28585 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U