Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66941

qualifies and how and to what degree

this rule would economically affect it.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520.).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13132 and have determined

that this rule does not have implications

for federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule 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.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation

because promulgation of drawbridge

regulations have been found not to have

a significant effect on the environment.

A written ‘‘Categorical Exclusion

Determination’’ is not required for this

rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.599 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.599 Fort Point Channel.

The draw of the Northern Avenue

Bridge, mile 0.1, at Boston, shall operate

as follows:

(a) From May 1 through October 31,

the draw shall open on signal from 7

a.m. to 11 p.m. From 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.

the draw shall open on signal if at least

a two-hour advance notice is given by

calling the number posted at the bridge. (b) From November 1 through April

30, the draw shall open on signal from

7 a.m. to 3 p.m. From 3 p.m. to 7 a.m.

the draw shall open on signal if at least

a twenty-four hours advance notice is

given by calling the number posted at

the bridge.

Dated: October 23, 2000.

Gerald M. Davis,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commander, First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–28648 Filed 11–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

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 fireextinguishing 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

66942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 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 firesuppression 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 fireextinguishing systems. Instead, the

NPRM proposed alternatives that

comprised fire-detection systems, semiportable 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 firesuppression 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 generalalarm 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 firefighting. 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 fireextinguishing 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 firesuppression 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—

• Be fitted with fixed fireextinguishing systems for the protection

of their engine rooms; and

• 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 FireExtinguishing 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 firefighting 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 fireextinguishing 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

66944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 firefighting 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 firefighting by the number of persons

available on the scene. For interior firefighting in particular, the standard

recommends that at least four firefighters 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 FireProtection 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 fireextinguishing 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 fireextinguishing systems instead of manual

fire-fighting equipment, we have

dropped all proposed requirements for

semi-portable extinguishers. The

proposed § 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 fireextinguishing 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—

• Updated charts and publications

concerning the accuracy, dependability,

and functioning of available

navigational aids;

• Identification of environmentally

sensitive areas planned for by Area

Committees formed under 33 U.S.C.

1321(j)(4);

• Bar-crossing procedures that

contain criteria for ‘‘go’’ or ‘‘no go’’ and

that address security of the barge and

towing vessel; and

• 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 voyageplanning 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 fireextinguishing 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.

66946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1Currently, 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.

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 fireextinguishing 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 costeffectiveness of the fixed fireextinguishing systems would be $9,889

per barrel of pollution avoided, while

the net cost-effectiveness of voyageplanning 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 fireextinguishing 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 fireextinguishing 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)

× 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 × 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.

The annual cost of voyage planning

would be $781,725 ($14.58/voyages ×

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 fireextinguishing 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 × $25,000) + (1,101 × $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 × $25,000) + (6 ×

$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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66947

2The 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.

3Because net cost is negative, the voyageplanning requirement has a positive net benefit.

4As 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.

5Recall 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.

6The 12 injuries came from 6 cases.

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):

Number of nonexempted towing

vessels owned

Expected

revenue

lost by

each

small

vessel

Expected

revenue

lost by

each

large

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 nonexempt towing vessels, we found the

following distribution:

Number of nonexempted towing

vessels owned

Expected

revenue

lost by

each

small

vessel

Expected

revenue

lost by

each

large

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.

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

TABLE 1.—COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF

VOYAGE PLANNING—Continued

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 × 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).

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

66948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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.

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).

We would expect fixed fireextinguishing systems to reduce these

injuries by 42 percent. So, they reduce

injuries by $68,380 per year ($162,810 ×

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.

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 fireextinguishing 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 costeffectiveness 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

TABLE 2.—COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF

FIXED FIRE-EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS—Continued

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 fireextinguishing 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 fireextinguishing 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 fireextinguishing 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 fireextinguishing systems, their equipment,

and its operation and maintenance on

towing vessels. We have analyzed these

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 § 164.78 by revising

paragraphs (a)(6) and (7) and adding

paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:

§ 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 speedlimits; and

(8) Monitors the trip or voyage plan

required by § 164.80.

* * * * *

3. Amend § 164.80 by adding

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 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 upto-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:

66950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903(b); 46 U.S.C.

3306, 4302; 49 CFR 1.46.

5. Revise § 25.30–15 to read as

follows:

§ 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.

§ 27.220 [Removed]

7. Remove the heading of § 27.220.

§ 27.221 [Removed]

8. Remove the heading of § 27.221.

§ 27.225 [Removed]

9. Remove the heading of § 27.225.

10. Add § 27.227 to read as follows:

§ 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.

§ 27.235 [Removed]

11. Remove the heading of § 27.235.

§ 27.240 [Removed]

12. Remove the heading of § 27.240.

§ 27.320 [Removed]

13. Remove the heading of § 27.320.

§ 27.321 [Removed]

14. Remove the heading of § 27.321.

§ 27.325 [Removed]

15. Remove the heading of § 27.325.

§ 27.326 [Removed]

16. Remove the heading of § 27.326.

17. Add § 27.327 to read as follows:

§ 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 fireextinguishing 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.

§ 27.345 [Removed]

18. Remove the heading of § 27.345.

§ 27.350 [Removed]

19. Remove the heading of § 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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2364; MM Docket No. 00–204; RM–

9983]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Blairsville, Georgia

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed by M. Terry Carter and Douglas

Sutton, Jr, /dba/ Tugart

Communications requesting the

allotment of Channel 234A to

Blairsville, Georgia as the community’s

first local aural transmission service.

Channel 236A can be allotted to

Blairsville in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements with a site

restriction of 9.9 kilometers (6.2 miles)

north of city reference coordinates. The

coordinates for Channel 236A at

Blairsville are 34–57–51 North Latitude

and 83–37–49 West Longitude.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before December 11, 2000, and reply

comments on or before December 26,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as

follows, John F. Garzilgia, Esq, Pepper &

Corazzini, LLP, 1776 K Street, NW.,

Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006–2334

(Counsel for Tugart Communications,

petitioner)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur D. Scrutchins, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–000; adopted October 11, 2000 and

released October 20, 2000. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Information Center (Room

CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

Part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows: