141.340(c) above, we revised the text in paragraph (a)(3) to clarify
that the option to use alternative means to comply with the immersion
suit requirements also applies to non-TSMS vessels and to cross
reference back to Sec.  141.225.
    We received several comments, from maritime companies and others,
requesting proposed Sec.  141.360(a)(1) be deleted because subchapter M
does not apply to vessels less than 26-feet long.
    The Coast Guard does not agree. Section 136.105 makes subchapter M
applicable to towing vessels of less than 26 feet if the towing vessel
is pushing, pulling, or hauling a barge that is carrying oil or
hazardous material in bulk, and the requirement in Sec.
141.360(a)(1)--to carry a minimum of one lifebuoy of not less than 510
millimeters (20 inches) in diameter--applies to those towing vessels.
    We received several comments from maritime companies and
associations suggesting that the required number of lifebuoys on towing
vessels be consistent with industry practice. On towing vessels of less
than 79 feet, they suggested reducing the required number of lifebuoys
to two from the proposed number of three. On towing vessels of more
than 79 feet, they suggested requiring four, in lieu of what we had
proposed, which was four, plus one on each side of the primary
operating station and one at each alternative operating station if the
vessel is so equipped.
    The Coast Guard agrees that two lifebuoys are appropriate for a
towing vessel between 26 and 79 feet in length, and has reduced the
required number accordingly in amended Sec.  141.360(a)(2), consistent
with lifesaving regulations for inspected vessels of similar size.
Similarly, the Coast Guard agrees that the proposed text appears to
require more lifebuoys than is practical on a towing vessel of more
than 79 feet in length, and has amended Sec.  141.360(a)(3) to clarify
the requirement by stating the minimum number of lifebuoys and their
placement independently. Also, we removed reference to primary and
alternative operating stations. Vessels with more than one operating
station will now be required to carry lifebuoys on each side of any
operating station, as practicable. We are aware that some of the
operating stations may have limited space available or may not have a
way to access the sides. In these cases, owners and operators need to
work with the local OCMI to determine an acceptable equivalent for the
operating station concerned.
    As above in Sec. Sec.  141.340(c) and 141.350(a)(3), we revised the
text in Sec.  141.360(a)(4) to clarify that the option to use
alternative means to comply with the lifebuoy requirements also applies
to non-TSMS vessels and to cross reference back to Sec.  141.225.
    Other commenters, including an association and an individual,
recommended that Sec.  141.360 require a specific commercially
available throwable PFD, instead of the traditional ``lifebuoy''
because lifebuoys can only be thrown a relatively short distance.
    The Coast Guard has revised Sec.  141.360 to allow for throwable
devices approved under approval series 160.050 or 160.150 to satisfy
the prescriptive requirements of this section, provided that the vessel
is not subject to SOLAS. An approved lifebuoy, or another throwable PFD
approved under approval series 160.050 or 160.150 as equivalent to a
lifebuoy, would satisfy this requirement. Consistent with specifying
performance objectives when possible, rather than specifying the
behavior or manner of compliance that

regulated entities must adopt, we did not adopt the commenter's
suggestion that we require a specific commercially available throwable
PFD.
    Regarding proposed Sec.  141.360(b), a company suggested that the
reference to release of lifebuoys in Sec.  199.70(a)(1)(v) would not be
necessary for most towing vessels, particularly those operating on
inland waters. Some commenters also felt that the wording for Sec.
141.360(b)(2) should be rewritten but did not provide suggestions.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the requirements of Sec.
199.70(a)(1)(v) is not the most appropriate for towing vessels, and
further notes that the cross reference to Sec.  199.70 in Sec.
141.360(b) creates unnecessary confusion as to which requirements
apply. The Coast Guard has revised Sec.  141.360 to remove the
reference to Sec.  199.70(a) and to include only those requirements
that are intended to apply to lifebuoys on towing vessels.
    Three commenters felt that Sec.  141.360(b)(2) should be amended to
clarify that floating electric water lights are not required for towing
vessels operating solely on Western Rivers.
    The Coast Guard does not agree. The fitting of lights to lifebuoys
increases the likelihood that the person in the water will be located
and retrieved, irrespective of the operating area. However, under
revised Sec.  141.360(c)(2) and (3), the floating electric water light
is not required for towing vessels limited to daytime operations.
    An individual indicated that the proposed rule did not clearly
state the floating electronic water light should not be attached to the
lifeline.
    As noted in Sec.  141.360(c)(4), the floating electric water light
is to be secured around the body of the lifebuoy, which is consistent
with language applicable to other inspected vessels. The Coast Guard
feels that this language in Sec.  141.360(c)(4) is clear.
    One commenter felt that using millimeters in proposed Sec.
141.360(b)(3) was unnecessary and could result in an inspector
rejecting a lifeline if he or she determined it is only 908 mm in
length instead of the required 910 mm. The commenter suggested that we
use meters instead of millimeters.
    The Coast Guard does not agree. The millimeter equivalents to the 3
and 6 foot standards in the corresponding paragraph of this final rule,
Sec.  141.360(c)(3), are consistent with similar regulations for other
inspected vessels. See, for example, 46 CFR 117.70 and 180.70. The more
precise metric equivalent leaves less of a gap between it and the
English units. The Coast Guard does not see a compelling reason to use
a different standard for similar requirements on other types of
inspected vessels.
    One commenter suggested that the number of alternative lifebuoys be
left to the OCMI to decide.
    As noted above, we have reduced the number of lifebuoys below what
we proposed in the NPRM. We do not believe an appropriate level of
safety is met by further reducing that number. Under Sec.  141.225,
however, the OCMI may require additional lifebuoys as deemed necessary
based on the operating area.
    Lastly, an individual asserted that in order to quickly identify
lifebuoys as safety equipment, all lifebuoys should be colored orange.
    The Coast Guard believes that lifebuoys are readily recognized as
lifesaving equipment, regardless of color. However, in Sec.
141.360(b)(5) we require that lifebuoys must be orange on vessels on an
oceans or coastwise route, where visibility could be obscured by white
caps.
    One commenter pointed out that proposed Sec.  141.365 includes
procedures in the TSMS for the prompt recovery of a person from the
water, and for the training of crewmembers responsible for recovery in
effectively implementing such procedures, applies only to towing
vessels under a TSMS and not to vessels that elect Coast Guard
inspection. This commenter recommends that the rule also address this
issue for towing vessel choosing the Coast Guard inspection option.
    The Coast Guard does not agree with requiring these written
procedures for those vessels choosing the Coast Guard option. Vessels
choosing the Coast Guard option will be required to get underway to
conduct drills for a Coast Guard inspector and the retrieval of a man-
overboard may be required as part of these drills. Therefore, the
procedures and training will be examined through practice rather than
through audit of the SMS. However, we did find that proposed Sec.
141.365 was redundant with Sec.  138.215 and removed it from the final
rule.
    We received two submissions from commenters requesting we add a
requirement for specific commercially available person-overboard
recovering equipment. One commenter said that recovery equipment to
receive unconscious personnel from water should be required.
    The Coast Guard is not in the position to require carriage of a
specific commercial product. Based on these comments, however, we have
added text to Sec.  141.200 to allow a towing vessel to carry
additional lifesaving equipment in addition to that required under
subchapter M and that this excess equipment need not be Coast Guard
approved. We do not see a need to require the person-overboard
recovering equipment, in addition to the lifesaving equipment required
in this rule.
    One commenter recommended a public hearing to discuss the
lifesaving equipment approval process within the Marine Safety
Directorate, and to agree on what changes can encourage innovative
lifesaving devices for commercial vessels.
    This recommendation is outside of the scope of this rulemaking, as
this rule applies only to the carriage of approved lifesaving
appliances on towing vessels, and does not address the process by which
that equipment is approved. We have made no changes from the proposed
rule based on this comment.
    We received several comments suggesting edits to the Miscellaneous
Lifesaving Requirements table, Table 141.370. We received two comments
from maritime companies, suggesting amendments to the table clarifying
which vessels require six flares and which require 12. One association
suggested that in order to be consistent with other table styles,
instead of the three columns for Emergency Position Indicating Radio
Beacon (EPIRB) stating ``Yes'', the columns should just indicate ``1''.
    The Coast Guard agrees that our proposed Table 141.370 is
confusing. We have made appropriate revisions to the table and the
regulatory text of the first section it references, Sec.  141.375.
    One commenter recommended that the table in this section include
``Rivers and Canals'' as an area of operation.
    As we said in response to the same comment regarding Table 141.305,
the definition of ``rivers'' in Sec.  136.110, which applies to the
term used throughout subchapter M, includes canals. We have made no
changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    Several commenters suggested that ``excepted towing vessels''
operating solely on Rivers or Western Rivers be exempt from carrying
distress signals. We received several comments, mainly from individuals
and maritime companies, who felt that the visual distress signals
should not apply to Western Rivers or inland river systems. Another
commenter felt that flares and smoke signals required in proposed Sec.
141.375(b) were not needed for vessels operating on rivers one mile
wide. A maritime company disagreed with the requirement for single
flares on harbor and fleeting tugs.

    The Coast Guard does not agree. The carriage, proper stowage,
training, and use of visual distress signals influence survivability of
the crew in the event of an emergency that would require evacuation. As
we noted above, time to rescue is influenced by the ability to detect
persons in distress. If there is insufficient evidence that crewmembers
are in trouble, it is less likely they will receive the assistance they
need.
    One commenter felt that phrases such as, ``approved under 46 CFR
subpart 160.021 or other standard specified by the Coast Guard'' is
vague and should instead reference approval series found in 46 CFR
199.30.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has revised the regulatory text in part
141 to specify the approval series applicable to all lifesaving
equipment required to be approved. The Coast Guard believes that
specifying the appropriate approval series assists the vessel owners
and managing operators in determining whether specific equipment is
approved for a particular application.
    We received several comments, particularly from maritime companies,
suggesting the deletion of Sec.  141.380(c), which requires
identification markings on each EPIRB.
    The Coast Guard does not agree. When we find an unattended EPIRB,
it is important that we know what vessel it came from, so that we can
mount a more focused and effective rescue response.
    One company requested an exception from the EPIRB requirement for
vessels operating within coastal bays or sounds that may occasionally
operate at greater than 3 miles from shore.
    In Sec.  141.380, we did propose to require EPIRBs on vessels
operating upon the Great Lakes beyond 3 nautical miles from shore but
not on vessels operating on lakes, bays, and sounds. The Coast Guard
acknowledges the conflict between Sec.  141.380 and Table 141.370, and
has made the appropriate revisions to the table to exclude vessels on
lakes, bays, and sounds from the EPIRB requirement.
    One commenter stated that the requirement for EPIRBs does not
mention requirements for hydrostatic release.
    We note that Sec.  141.380(b) requires that the EPIRB be mounted
such that it will float free if the vessel sinks. Hydrostatic release
is one of several methods for meeting this requirement. We made no
changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
    One commenter suggested that Sec.  141.380(a) be consistent with
NTSB Recommendations M-10-1 and suggested that each EPIRB installed
after the effective date of these rules should be a type which includes
a satellite position in its distress alert.
    The Coast Guard recognizes the merit of enhanced locating devices,
but the benefit of adding enhanced GPS locating functionality to an
EPIRB does not outweigh the costs associated with making it mandatory
for all towing vessels, particularly before it is mandatory for other
types of inspected vessels. Though the Coast Guard may consider this
matter holistically in the future, we have not made changes to the
proposed rule based on this comment. However, this does not preclude a
vessel operator from optionally carrying such equipment.
    We received comments from three maritime companies that felt that
because a tug is able to retrieve a barge without boarding, and because
boarding a drifting barge is dangerous, the line throwing requirement
in Sec.  141.385 is not needed.
    The Coast Guard notes that the line-throwing appliance was only
proposed to be carried on towing vessels operating on ocean routes, and
is not necessarily intended for boarding a drifting barge. The line-
throwing appliance can be used to pass a line to another vessel if the
towing vessel is incapacitated and needs to be towed.
    One association suggested broadening the line throwing apparatus
requirement to include towing vessels in coastwise service that operate
beyond the boundary line.
    The Coast Guard agrees that vessels in coastwise service will be
subject to similar conditions, and have expanded this requirement to
include them, consistent with other inspected vessels (see 46 CFR
199.170 and 199.610). We have amended Sec.  141.385 accordingly.

L. Fire Protection (Part 142)

    The fire protection standards proposed in Part 142 retained most of
the fire protection regulations that currently apply to towing vessels
and are contained in 46 CFR parts 25 and 27. The public comments
received in response to proposed part 142 provided a number of
suggestions aimed at improving the clarity of the requirements based on
several years of operating experience with the current regulations. We
have incorporated many of these suggestions in an effort to make part
142 more user-friendly, and made additional editorial revisions to
improve clarity and readability. We also received some comments
critical of specific provisions in the NPRM. Most notable are
objections to the requirements for flammable liquid storage cabinets on
inland towing vessels, the use of portable fire pumps, the requirements
for a professional engineer (P.E.) to certify fire detection systems,
and any requirements relating to onboard fire-fighting. Each of these
comments is discussed in greater detail in the following item-by-item
responses.
    In general, the nature of the public comments made it clear to us
that the organization of part 142 was confusing and could be greatly
improved by placing in subpart B all of the general requirements that
are applicable to all towing vessels--such as equipment approvals, fire
hazards to be minimized, storage of flammable liquids, portable fire
extinguishers, firefighter's outfits, fire axes, and maintenance and
training--and placing in subpart C the specific requirements for fire-
extinguishing and fire detection systems applicable only to certain
vessels. Accordingly, we reorganized part 142 by deleting redundant
requirements for fixed fire-extinguishing systems in proposed Sec.
142.235, and moving the requirements for portable fire extinguishers
from proposed Sec.  142.305 to Sec.  142.230(d), the requirements for
firefighter's outfits from proposed Sec.  142.350 to a new Sec.
142.226, and the requirements for fire axes from proposed Sec.  142.350
to a new Sec.  142.227, but we did not change any requirements, except
in response to public comments as discussed in the following
paragraphs. Section 142.235 in this final rule now contains
requirements for vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  142.105 on applicability, one
commenter requested that we add text to indicate that vessels exempted
from 46 CFR part 27--which currently applies to most towing vessels
that will become subject to subchapter M requirements--need not comply
with part 142. We partially agree with this commenter. In Sec.
142.300, we have established that excepted vessels need not comply with
the provisions of subpart C regarding fixed fire-extinguishing
equipment; our definition of ``excepted vessels'' in Sec.  136.110
includes many of the vessels excluded from part 27 applicability by
Sec.  27.100(b).
    But, we do not agree that these vessels should be exempt from the
general fire safety provisions in subparts A and B. These requirements
implement minimum standards for portable fire extinguishers and control
of combustible materials, which we believe are essential on board all
vessels. Accordingly, we did not adopt the broad exemption recommended
by the commenter.

    We revised Sec.  141.205(a) to include a reference to SOLAS Chapter
II-2 as this is where specific fire protection requirements are
contained.
    With respect to Sec.  142.215, one commenter suggested that the
installation of excess fire-fighting and fire detection equipment on a
vessel must be designed, constructed, installed and maintained in
accordance with recognized industry standards acceptable to the Coast
Guard. We agree with this comment and have added a paragraph (c) to
this section to address equipment that is installed but not required by
this subpart. Because there may be existing vessels affected by this,
we have included provisions that allow the local OCMI to accept
existing equipment of any design as long as it is determined to be in
serviceable condition. Additionally, we have clarified the wording
regarding approved equipment in order to standardize this language
throughout the subchapter.
    Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed requirements
in Sec.  142.220 appeared to prohibit the presence of any combustible
and flammable liquids in the bilges at any time. They noted that the
accumulation of some amounts of combustible and flammable liquids in
the bilges is unavoidable during normal operations, and requested
changes to this section. We agree that small amounts of such liquids
are likely to be present; however, we also want to clearly express our
concerns over the accumulation of considerable quantities of liquids
that could be a fire hazard. We therefore modified the text of Sec.
142.220(a) to indicate that the bilges should be kept as clear as
practical.
    Another commenter felt that the proposed requirements in proposed
Sec.  142.220(c) (now Sec.  144.415) for the insulation of exhaust
pipes and galley cooking equipment exhaust ducts should apply only to
new vessels because it would be difficult to retrofit existing vessels,
and the risk does not warrant added protection. We do not agree with
this commenter, and have not changed the requirement. There have been
recent exhaust system fires (discussed in our Safety Alert 05-08, dated
September 17, 2008) in which the cause was attributed to the
installation of new diesel engines that run at hotter temperatures than
previous models. We believe that the potential fire risk is the same on
both new and existing vessels. However, to alleviate concerns about
installing insulation on the exhaust systems of existing vessels, we
have added to Sec.  144.415 two alternate methods of demonstrating
compliance. The revised requirement would accept exhaust systems
designed to either Standard P-1 of the American Boat and Yacht Council
(ABYC) or Standard 302 of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) as equivalent forms of protection. These additional means of
protection will provide operators of existing vessels a wider range of
choices to comply with the rule. As noted above, proposed Sec.
142.220(c) was moved to Sec.  144.415 as this requirement is more
closely related to part 144.
    We received several comments objecting to requirements in Sec.
142.225 for approved flammable liquids storage cabinets on boats
operating on the Western rivers. These commenters appear to have
misinterpreted the proposed rule. We proposed that combustible and
flammable liquids be stored in a controlled area, either a specific
room or a dedicated storage cabinet. An approved storage cabinet is an
option and not a required piece of equipment. Related to this, one
commenter recommended that we also accept flammable liquid storage
cabinets that are Factory Mutual approved. We agree with the commenter
that Factory Mutual cabinets provide an equivalent level of safety as
those approved to UL 1275, a voluntary consensus standard used in the
NPRM and this final rule, and have added a new Sec.  142.225(c)(2) to
accept their use. Another commenter felt that securing the cabinets to
the vessel should not be required on the Western Rivers, but offered no
justification for the comment. We acknowledge that vessels operating on
the river system are subject to less significant wind and wave motions
than are experienced by ocean-going vessels, but do not agree with the
commenter that flammable liquid storage cabinets should be unsecured.
Any sudden acceleration or movement of the vessel could dislodge the
cabinet, causing a flammable liquid spill potentially leading to a
fire. We have not made any changes as a result of this comment.
    Finally, we received one comment suggesting that Sec.  142.225
should contain information on the storage of hazardous material in
ships' stores. We believe these materials are adequately covered by
regulations in 46 CFR part 147, which apply to towing and other vessels
subject to inspection under 46 U.S.C. 3301, and need not be repeated
here.
    In Sec.  142.226 (proposed Sec.  142.345), and throughout this
part, we changed all references from fireman to firefighter. We also
removed the reference to the Mine Safety and Health Administration
because this agency no longer approves self-contained breathing
apparatus for normal use. A variety of comments were submitted
regarding the proposed requirements for the carriage of firefighter's
outfits covered by proposed Sec.  142.345 (now Sec.  142.226 as noted
above). One commenter recommended that the proposed standards should be
enhanced by listing the specific equipment required for each
firefighter's outfit. Others recommended that the requirements for the
carriage of firefighter's outfits should be deleted in their entirety,
since in their opinion it is too dangerous for crewmembers to enter a
burning engine room, and would be better advised to abandon ship in the
event of a serious fire.
    We have not removed the requirements for firefighter's outfits. We
proposed firefighter's outfits for a limited class of vessels. Only
vessels of 79 feet or more, operating on ocean or coastwise routes,
that do not have a fixed fire suppression system in the engine room are
required to carry firefighter's outfits. These vessels are primarily
existing vessels that were contracted for prior to August 27, 2003. The
Coast Guard believes that these vessels, which operate on the open
ocean should have enhanced fire-fighting equipment because timely
outside assistance is unlikely, and in the event of an engine room fire
the crew must be able to provide onboard response. Vessel operators
that believe that fire-fighting poses an unacceptable risk to the crew
have the option of installing a fixed fire-extinguishing system in the
engine room.
    One commenter requested changes to Sec.  142.230 that would allow
two size B-III semi-portable fire extinguishers on smaller vessels to
substitute for the required B-V extinguisher, which in their opinion,
is difficult to handle due to its size. We do not agree with this
comment. As noted in the 2004 Fire-Suppression Systems and Voyage
Planning for Towing Vessels final rule (69 FR 34064, June 18, 2004),
the severity of an engine-room fire is not related to the length of the
vessel, but to the fire hazard present in the engine room. The use of
marine diesel fuel oil poses a sufficient hazard to warrant the higher
fire-suppression capability of a size B-V extinguisher. However, we are
concerned that some operators may be installing semi-portable
extinguishers that are fitted with wheels. These types of extinguishers
are intended for use in shore-side applications and, if used on board
vessels, they need to be secured to prevent possible injury to the
crew. We have consequently added a supplemental provision to Sec.
142.230(e) that requires that any extinguishers fitted with wheels must
be welded or otherwise secured to the vessel.

    Another commenter noted that because the NPRM splits discussion of
the fire extinguisher requirements between Sec.  142.230 and proposed
Sec.  142.305, it was difficult to determine what is actually required;
the commenter requested a single chart with all of the fire
extinguisher requirements in one location. We agree with this commenter
and have relocated all of the portable hand-held fire extinguisher
requirements to Sec.  142.230(d) and deleted proposed Sec.  142.305.
The proposed text in Sec.  142.230(d) relating to extinguisher labeling
and nameplates has also been deleted, since this is an approval
requirement covered by 46 CFR 162.028-3(f) and 162.028-4, and is not
appropriate for inclusion here. Requirements for semi-portable B-V fire
extinguishers remain in Sec.  142.315.
    As previously noted in the general discussion of Part 142, we have
deleted the content of proposed Sec.  142.235 because it contained a
superfluous requirement that fixed fire-extinguishing systems must be
approved by the Commandant, which is already required by Sec.
142.215(a). We also deleted the requirement that carbon dioxide systems
must be designed in accordance with 46 CFR part 76, subpart 76.15,
because this is covered in the definition of ``fixed fire-extinguishing
system'' in Sec.  136.110.
    One commenter suggested that all new installations of fixed fire-
extinguishing systems should be required to undergo plan approval by
the Coast Guard prior to installation. We do not agree with this
comment and have not changed the proposed rule to require plan approval
by the Coast Guard. We believe requirements in Sec.  144.135 are
sufficient. That section requires verification of compliance with
construction and design standards before a new installation that is not
a replacement in kind may be installed. We changed the inspection and
testing criteria in Table 142.240 to harmonize this regulation with the
Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression Systems on Commercial Vessels final
rule (77 FR 33860, June 7, 2012), a separate rule related to fire
suppression systems on commercial vessels that was published after we
published our NPRM. We made reference to that ongoing rulemaking and
its potential impact on this rule in our NPRM. See 76 FR 49985, Aug.
11, 2011. The Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression rule revised the vessel
regulations to require lock-out valves and odorizing units on all new
carbon dioxide extinguishing systems installed or materially altered
after July 9, 2013. That rulemaking also changed each of the vessel
subchapters to allow the use of clean agent fire-extinguishing systems
as an alternative to carbon dioxide systems. Because of this, it was
necessary to change the inspection and testing requirements for fire-
extinguishing systems in Table 142.240 to include criteria for the
inspection and testing of the new clean agents. We have also slightly
modified the definition of ``fixed fire-extinguishing system'' in Sec.
136.110 to comport with the revised definition in new 46 CFR 27.101.
    Additionally, we changed ``maintain'' to ``test and inspect'' in
the water mist ``test'' field in Table 142.240, to more accurately
reflect the intent of this requirement.
    Several comments related to the proposed regulatory text in Sec.
142.240 revealed that this section was confusing and did not clearly
convey our intended requirements. During our further review of proposed
Sec.  142.240 we noted that the NPRM used inconsistent wording and
tended to use the terms ``examination,'' ``test,'' and ``maintenance''
interchangeably, which contributed to the confusion. We have,
therefore, revised the text and format of this section to improve its
clarity and consistency. All testing and inspection requirements are
stated in paragraph (a), all maintenance requirements are in paragraph
(b), and requirements for recordkeeping are in paragraph (c). We have
also replaced the word ``examination'' with ``inspection'' to be
consistent with other Coast Guard regulations.
    We received numerous comments requesting that the proposed text of
this section be modified to require fire suppression and fire detection
systems be inspected or tested annually or in accordance with the TSMS
applicable to the vessel. We agree with this view and have changed
Sec.  142.240(a) to require inspection or testing at least every 12
months--as we proposed in Sec.  142.240(c)--or more frequently, if
required by the vessel's TSMS.
    Several comments also proposed that the TSMS should be the
exclusive form of recordkeeping for test and inspection results. We do
not agree with this comment. For flexibility, we have proposed that the
records may be kept in accordance with an applicable TSMS, the TVR, or
the vessel's logbook, whichever applies. We have also added new
provisions in Sec.  142.240(c)(2) to accept service tags attached to
portable and semi-portable extinguishers by a qualified servicing
organization as an acceptable record that demonstrates the required
tests and inspections have been completed.
    One commenter requested that we replace the phrase ``dampers'' in
proposed Sec.  142.240(c), now Sec.  142.240(a), with ``fire dampers.''
It was not our intent to require the testing of fusible-link fire
dampers. The proposed requirement was directed at pressure-operated
dampers installed in engine room ventilation ducts. These dampers are
automatically operated by the engine room fire-extinguishing system,
and must close prior to system discharge to prevent the leakage and
dilution of the fire-extinguishing agent. To clarify what dampers we
intended to be tested, we have changed ``dampers'' to ``fixed fire-
extinguishing system pressure-operated dampers.'' We have also added
this phrase to Sec.  142.240(a)(5) to clarify that these dampers must
be tested as part of the fire-extinguishing system inspection
procedures.
    One commenter requested a modification to the carbon dioxide
cylinder tests required by Table 142.240 that would remove the
requirement to weigh the cylinders, and in its place permit the use of
liquid level indicators. We do not agree with this requested
modification. The Coast Guard has historically required that carbon
dioxide cylinders must be weighed to determine the amount of
extinguishing agent (see, e.g., 46 CFR 91.25-20(a)(2) and related
table), because weighing is the only reliable method to check the
quantity of carbon dioxide in the cylinders that the Coast Guard
recognizes. Liquid level measuring systems use various types of sensing
elements that show the location of the liquid/gas interface within the
cylinder. With that knowledge, a technician is able to calculate the
quantity of agent. We have no objection to the use of liquid level
indicators for checking the quantity of halocarbon clean agents,
because a liquid/gas interface can be easily determined. This is not
the case with carbon dioxide, however, which has a critical temperature
of 87.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Below the critical temperature, carbon
dioxide in a closed container may be part liquid and part gas. Above
the critical temperature it is entirely gas, making the use of such
measuring devices impractical.
    One commenter requested that we change Sec.  142.245 to require all
records of training and drills to be kept in the TVR. We do not agree
and have made no changes from the proposed rule based on this comment.
For flexibility, we have permitted several acceptable recordkeeping
methods, in accordance with part 140 of this subchapter.
    One commenter questioned the intended extent of the fire detection
and alarm system testing during drills required by proposed Sec.
142.245(c)(3). As proposed, the commenter noted, each

drill could be understood to require a complete test of the system.
This is not our intent. We anticipate that during drills, only the test
switch or a single detector needs to be activated to familiarize the
crew with the system's operation, and have changed the text of Sec.
142.245(c)(3) to require that only one device needs to be tested.
    One commenter requested that the proposed requirements in this
section for training crews to respond to fires should be removed from
the rule, as the limited scope of the training would not afford crew
members with the necessary skills and knowledge to safely engage in
fire-fighting activities. The commenter anticipated that this may
result in a false sense of security, leading to injuries for
crewmembers attempting to fight engine room fires. Further supporting
this argument, it was suggested that the typical practice on inland
towing vessels in response to a fire is to attempt ``first-aid''
firefighting using portable extinguishers or fire hoses. If this fails
to contain the fire, the crew would abandon ship to the tow or the
riverbank.
    Another commenter requested that we strengthen the training
requirements by mandating that all licensed officers, apprentice mates,
steersmen, and engineers complete formal fire-fighting training
courses.
    We considered comments on these same issues in a previous
rulemaking, the Fire-Suppression Systems and Voyage Planning for Towing
Vessels interim rule (68 FR 22607, April 29, 2003), and believed at
that time that the level of training proposed in our Inspection of
Towing Vessels NPRM would provide crew members with adequate knowledge
of the procedures and equipment on board their vessels needed to
respond to fires; we have not changed our opinion on this issue based
on these comments on Sec.  142.245. In support of our previous
rulemaking, TSAC had performed an independent analysis of our casualty
data, which showed that over 80 percent of the reported fires on inland
vessels had been extinguished by the crewmembers with only seven
reported injuries. (See USCG-2000-6931-0046, available on
www.regulations.gov). Further review of the Coast Guard casualty
reports on the vessels where injuries were reported revealed that most
of the seven injuries were the result of conditions in the engine room
(e.g., burns from the fire outbreak) and were not attributable to fire-
fighting efforts.
    As previously discussed, in order to make this regulation more
user-friendly, we have made various editorial changes here such as
moving the portable fire extinguisher requirements previously proposed
in Sec.  142.305 to Sec.  142.230(d). We also revised the section
heading of Sec.  142.315 to ``Additional fire-extinguishing equipment
requirements,'' and amended that entire section to make clear which
provisions did not apply to certain towing vessels. In order to account
for those vessels operating within 3 nautical miles from shore on the
Great Lakes, we revised paragraph (a)(1) of Sec.  142.315. These
revisions did not change any substantive requirements proposed in the
NPRM.
    We received numerous comments requesting that we modify proposed
Sec.  142.325(c) to clarify that sufficient hydrants and hoses must be
provided to allow ``a stream of water from'' a single length of hose to
reach any part of the machinery space. We concur with these comments
and have changed the text accordingly. Associated with this were
several comments that the requirement for a single length of hose
should be deleted. We do not concur with this, because the single, 15-
meter-length-of-hose requirement ensures that a sufficient number of
fire hydrants with attached hoses are installed in or close to the
engine room. If the fire-fighting water could be provided by multiple
sections of hose linked together, (i.e., a segmented hose of unlimited
length) a single remote hydrant might satisfy the rule, but the length
of hose required would either be too cumbersome to handle in an
emergency, not provide the necessary amount of firefighting water due
to friction loss, or both.
    One commenter urged us to add a new Sec.  142.325(g) requiring a
minimum fuel supply stowed onboard to enable 4 hours of operation of
the portable fire pump. We do not agree with this suggestion. Paragraph
(b) of 46 CFR 27.211 prohibits the carriage of portable fuel tanks and
related hardware except when used for outboard engines or when
permanently attached to portable equipment such as fire pumps. Most
commercially available portable fire pumps have a fuel tank capable of
operating the pump for at least 1 hour. The carriage of supplemental
fuel supplies to allow 4 hours of operation would conflict with the
provisions of 46 CFR 27.211(b).
    Another commenter requested that we remove the requirement for a
``self-priming'' portable fire pump and require, as an alternative,
that a minimum time period be specified during which the crew must be
able to demonstrate that their portable pump can be deployed. We do not
agree with this comment and have not removed the requirement for self-
priming pumps, as non-self-priming pumps are extremely difficult to
successfully operate under emergency conditions.
    A third commenter noted that in his experience, many crews have
difficulties getting the self-priming feature of portable fire pumps to
function. We believe this commenter raises a valid point, and have
added a new paragraph (c)(5) to Sec.  142.245 to require regular
training on the self-priming feature during fire drills to ensure crew
familiarity its operation, on vessels equipped with portable pumps.
    Another commenter requested that we not accept the use of portable
pumps at all, as they are not comparable to fixed fire main systems,
and the amount of time it takes to assemble and deploy the pump in
darkness or rough weather could compromise mariner safety. We do not
concur with this comment because portable pumps were previously allowed
for uninspected towing vessels and we do not have data supporting the
removal of the option of using cost-effective portable fire pumps.
Operators with vessels on routes or in services where the ability to
deploy and operate portable pumps could be difficult may choose to
install a fixed fire main system as an option.
    One commenter recommended that we specify the type of fire hoses
required by this section, and urged that we adopt UL 19 as the required
standard. We believe that the existing requirement for lined commercial
fire hose provides suitable fire-fighting equipment for this purpose.
Firehose meeting UL 19 is constructed to a higher standard that would
impose unnecessary costs on the industry.
    One commenter suggested that Sec.  142.325 require a dedicated sea-
chest for the installed fire main. We do not agree with this comment,
because a dedicated sea-chest would likely be used only during drills
and in emergencies. If the fire main system is connected to a sea-chest
that is regularly used for shipboard services, there is a greater
chance that it will be clear of debris or fouling when needed.
    During our review of the public comments on Sec.  142.330, we noted
that the proposed introductory paragraph of this section was confusing
in regard to the fire detection system requirements for towing vessels
constructed on or after January 18, 2000. We have clarified and
improved the structure of this section by addressing vessels whose
construction was contracted for prior to January 18, 2000, separately
in paragraph Sec.  142.330(a)(8).
    One commenter requested clarification as to whether the audible and
visual alarms at the operating station required by proposed

Sec.  142.330(c) must be integral to the fire alarm control panel. The
Coast Guard's response is that the operating station must have a fire
detection control panel installed within the space. However, in the
years since the Fire-Suppression Systems and Voyage Planning for Towing
Vessels final rule was published (69 FR 34064, June 18, 2004) and
incorporated into existing 46 CFR subchapter C regulations, we have
become aware that there may be cases where this is a problem on towing
vessels with more than one operating station because the fire detection
system control panel is not installed at each operating station. We did
not intend to impose an undue economic burden on vessels of this design
type by requiring fire detection control panels at each operating
station. Rather, one operating station must be outfitted with the fire
detection control panel while any others could be outfitted with either
fire detection control panels or a remote indicator with audible and
visual alarms. We amended the regulatory text of this section to
reflect this intent (see new Sec.  142.330(a)(3)).
    Another commenter requested that we remove reference to a circuit-
fault detector test-switch in Sec.  142.330(a)(4)(v) because currently
available fire alarm control panels use internal supervision instead of
a test switch to verify circuit integrity. We agree with this comment
and have changed this paragraph to accept control panels with internal
circuit supervision as equivalent to those having a test switch. We
have elected to retain a reference to panels with a test switch to
allow flexibility in meeting this provision.
    Various commenters suggested that proposed Sec.  142.330(g), which
we redesignated as Sec.  142.330(a)(7) in the final rule, should be
amended to allow certification of fire detection systems by the
National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies
(NICET) Level IV technicians in addition to registered P.E.s. We concur
with this view and have changed the text of Sec.  142.330(a)(7)
accordingly. Level IV technicians are required to have at least 10
years' experience in fire alarm installation and testing and must pass
a comprehensive written exam to demonstrate their knowledge. Other
commenters requested that we add a qualifying statement to the
requirement for a P.E., to ensure that the engineer is qualified to
review and certify fire detection systems. We agree and have changed
Sec.  142.330(a)(7) to require that any P.E.s or authorized
classification society reviewing the system have experience in fire
detection system design. It is important to note that all required fire
detection systems must be certified and inspected by a P.E., a NICET
Level IV Technician, or an authorized classification society including
those on vessels that elect or are subject to the Coast Guard
traditional inspection scheme under Sec.  137.200. When the Coast Guard
inspects the vessel, it will look for evidence that the vessel owner or
managing operator has had all required fire detection systems on the
vessel certified and inspected by a P.E., a NICET Level IV Technician,
or an authorized classification society. We also edited Sec.
142.330(a)(7) to clearly require the system and its installation to be
both certified and inspected.
    One commenter requested clarification of proposed Sec.  142.330(g),
specifically, whether the certifying engineer or technician must review
only the detection system equipment and layout drawings, or whether it
is necessary to inspect the installation of the fire detection system
on board the vessel. We clarified the language in Sec.  142.330, and
specify that the fire detection system must be both: Certified by a
P.E., NICET technician, or an authorized classification society
surveyor to comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of Sec.  142.330;
and inspected by a Coast Guard marine inspector or a TPO surveyor,
depending upon which inspection regime applies to the vessel, to comply
with Sec.  142.330(a)(2). This last reference requires the system to be
installed, tested and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
design manual.
    We have substituted the term independent testing laboratory in
Sec.  142.330(a)(1) and (8) with Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL) as defined in 29 CFR 1910.7. The proposed term
independent testing laboratory is ambiguous and will be replaced with
NRTL throughout title 46 CFR upon the finalization of a concurrent
regulatory project (see the Harmonization of Standards for Fire
Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment notice of proposed
rulemaking (79 FR 2254, January 13, 2014)).
    Please note that we have redesignated Sec.  142.335, Smoke alarms
in berthing spaces, and Sec.  142.340, Heat detector in galley as Sec.
142.330(b) and (c), respectively, in the final rule. Multiple
commenters urged us to remove from proposed Sec.  142.335 (now Sec.
142.330(b)) any requirements for battery operated smoke detectors in
berthing spaces, and instead require smoke detectors that are part of
an installed fixed fire-detection system. We do not concur with this
suggestion. Battery-operated smoke detectors are not required, but
detectors that meet UL 217 may be used as an alternative to satisfy the
requirements in new Sec.  142.330(b). We have retained this option in
the final rule because it offers a low cost alternative to installing a
fixed detection system in these areas.
    A commenter requested changing proposed Sec.  142.340 regarding a
heat detector in the galley to require only heat detectors that comply
with UL 521. We have not specified a specific performance standard for
the required heat detectors; however, we agree with the commenter that
only restorable heat sensing type detectors may be used (i.e.,
detectors that automatically reset to operating condition when the heat
source is removed), and have changed the requirements in redesignated
Sec.  142.330(c) accordingly.
    In the NPRM we discussed comments submitted in response to seven
questions we posed in a December 30, 2004, Inspection of Towing Vessels
notice. In response to that portion of the NPRM, one of these
commenters recommended applying grandfathering to structural fire-
protection requirements. The commenter also felt that existing vessels
should be treated differently from newly constructed vessels because of
the likelihood that fire standards will make it difficult to retrofit
existing vessels. We have made no changes to the final rule in response
to this comment. The fire protection standards proposed in this part
retain most of the fire protection regulations that currently apply to
existing towing vessels and are contained in Title 46 CFR parts 25 and
27. Only three new requirements have been added. Section 142.227
requires all vessels to have a fire axe, Sec.  142.330(b) (proposed
Sec.  142.335) requires smoke detectors in berthing areas, and Sec.
142.226 (proposed Sec.  142.345) requires firefighter's outfits on
certain ocean-going vessels. Battery-operated smoke detectors will be
permitted, and the addition of fire axes and firefighter's outfits does
not require any modifications to the vessel; therefore, we do not agree
that either requirement would be difficult to implement onboard
existing vessels.

M. Machinery and Electrical (Part 143)

    In this final rule, we made substantive changes in response to
specific comments on the NPRM, and we also made significant
organizational changes. Because of the organizational changes, subpart
headings and section numbers in this part no longer correspond to those
used in the NPRM. Much of the content of proposed part 143 has been
removed or reordered, and several provisions have been changed to apply
to new vessels only. The requirements

of proposed subpart C, deferred requirements for existing vessels, and
proposed subpart D, for oil and hazardous material in bulk, have been
divided among the other subparts. This derivation table lists part 143
section numbers in this final rule and the corresponding part 143
section from the NPRM:

        Table 1--Derivation of Sections of Part 143 From the NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Final rule  section No.                NPRM section No.(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
143.100...................................  143.110.
143.105...................................  143.105.
143.115...................................  143.115.
143.200...................................  143.200, 143.325, 143.330,
                                             143.335.
143.205...................................  143.220.
143.210...................................  143.110, 143.215.
143.215...................................  143.210.
143.220...................................  143.235.
143.225...................................  143.240.
143.230...................................  143.245.
143.235...................................  143.250.
143.240...................................  143.330.
143.245...................................  143.260.
143.250...................................  143.270.
143.255...................................  143.275.
143.260...................................  143.280.
143.265...................................  143.285.
143.270...................................  143.290.
143.275...................................  143.295.
143.300...................................  143.320, 143.520, 143.525.
143.400...................................  143.300.
143.410...................................  143.310.
143.415...................................  143.315.
143.450...................................  143.210, 143.325, 143.515,
                                             143.520.
143.460...................................  143.330.
143.500...................................  143.500, 143.505.
143.505...................................  143.505.
143.510...................................  143.510.
143.515...................................  143.515.
143.520...................................  143.520.
143.540...................................  143.535.
143.545...................................  143.540.
143.550...................................  143.545.
143.555...................................  143.340.
143.560...................................  143.345.
143.565...................................  143.350.
143.570...................................  143.355.
143.575...................................  143.360.
143.580...................................  143.550.
143.585...................................  143.405.
143.590...................................  143.410.
143.595...................................  143.420.
143.600...................................  143.430.
143.605...................................  143.435.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In several provisions in the NPRM, we offered two different options
for complying with design or operational standards in certain areas.
These sections were divided up into ``functional requirements'' and
``prescriptive options'' for complying with the functional
requirements. The prescriptive options represented one way to comply
with the functional requirements, but an owner or managing operator
could choose another way to comply so long as the alternative method
was approved by the OCMI or an approved third party. On further
consideration, we have consolidated the functional requirements with
other language about when and how exceptions from the baseline standard
may be granted (see Sec.  143.210).
Changes to Subpart A, ``General''
    The applicability of the subparts within this part has changed. The
specific changes are discussed elsewhere in this preamble, but we have
revised the discussion of applicability in subpart A to provide an
overview of the entire part for readers. Most notably, subpart A now
specifies that existing vessels (which includes those vessels already
under construction that do not meet our definition of ``new towing
vessel''), have 2 years to comply with the rule; for certain listed
provisions, the delay is longer. Additionally, because the structure of
part 143 has changed, new vessels must comply with subparts B and C of
part 143 except as noted in specific sections in subpart C instead of
the proposed subpart E. Under our ``new towing vessel'' definition, no
vessel would be subject to new vessel requirements until at least July
20, 2017.
    Because of the additional discussion of the applicability of each
subpart and the changes to the discussion of functional requirements
with prescriptive options for compliance, we removed proposed Sec.
143.110. The content specific to OCMI or third-party acceptance of
alternative methods is relocated to Sec.  143.210 and consolidated.
However, we will address here the comments received on proposed Sec.
143.110. One commenter suggested adding the word ``company'' to the
entities named in Sec.  143.110(c) on alternatives to the prescriptive
option. The Coast Guard declines to make this change, because an
``owner or managing operator'' may be a company. Another commenter
suggested replacing OCMI or third-party acceptance with a TSMS accepted
by the third party. This change would remove the option of OCMI
acceptance and would not be appropriate for vessels not covered by a
TSMS, so the Coast Guard declines to make the change.
    As previously discussed in this preamble, we relocated the
definition of ``independent'' to part 143 in response to a comment
pointing out that the definition was specific to vessel arrangements
described in this part.
    Several commenters noted that that the phrase ``replacement in
kind'' should not be construed too narrowly, so as to avoid subjecting
existing towing vessels to unnecessary additional requirements. One
commenter suggested that where a piece of equipment such as a generator
is replaced with another that has the same function and similar
characteristics but is not the exact same model, such replacement
should be considered ``replacement in kind.'' Another commenter
suggested that proposed Sec.  143.220 (now incorporated into Sec.
143.205) would prevent vessels from upgrading to more efficient
equipment.
    We added a definition of ``replacement in kind'' to Sec.  136.110
in response to numerous comments requesting clarification of this term,
which is used in parts 143 and 144. When equipment needs to be
replaced, it may be replaced by the same or similar equipment, or it
may be upgraded. It is certainly acceptable to upgrade, but an upgrade
is not considered a replacement in kind because the maintenance and
operation of the new equipment may require operator training, new
maintenance schedules, OCMI approval of equipment arrangement, and an
update to the vessel's TSMS.
    Finally, the Coast Guard removed the list of material incorporated
by reference specifically for part 143 (proposed Sec.  143.120) and
moved that content to a consolidated list for the entire subchapter at
Sec.  136.112. The Coast Guard received one comment on the
incorporation of standards by reference in part 143; the comment
appeared to indicate that new incorporations are not necessary because
there are existing, currently applicable standards elsewhere in title
46. The standards incorporated in part 143 are necessary because towing
vessels represent a unique class of vessel design, and other standards
incorporated in various CFR sections are not currently applicable to
towing vessels. The engineering standards incorporated in subchapters
F, J, and Q, for instance, are generally applicable to much larger
ships with different risk profiles, such as passenger ships or large
tank vessels.
Changes to Subpart B, ``Requirements for All Towing Vessels''
    The organization of subpart B remains largely the same as in the
NPRM, although the section numbers have changed. We removed proposed
Sec.  143.230, ``Guards for exposed hazards,'' as it was duplicative of
proposed Sec.  144.345. For more on this, see discussion of changes to
part 144 below. We also added two sections from proposed subpart C--
pilothouse alerter

systems and towing machinery--which have delayed application dates for
existing vessels. An existing vessel must comply not later than 5 years
after the issuance of the first COI for the vessel. This delayed
compliance date is reflected in Sec.  143.200(c) and is the same length
of time as was proposed in the NPRM at proposed Sec.  143.320. The
details of these requirements, and other changes to proposed subpart C,
are discussed later in this preamble.
General
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.220 as Sec.  143.205. The Coast
Guard received a suggestion that we insert the phrase ``in accordance
with their responsibilities'' in proposed Sec.  143.220(b). The Coast
Guard agrees with the general approach and has revised the paragraph to
clarify that crewmembers must demonstrate ability to operate the
machinery and electrical systems for which they are responsible.
    Another commenter suggested changing the requirements in proposed
Sec.  143.220(c)(3) to apply to all control stations (operating
stations) instead of just the primary one. The Coast Guard agrees and
has removed the word ``primary'' from this requirement. The Coast Guard
understands that certain vessels have more than one operating station;
in such cases, each operating station would need to comply with revised
and redesignated Sec.  143.205(c)(3).
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard insert the phrase
``with respect to the installation in question'' in the sentence in
proposed Sec.  143.220(d) that requires installations to comply with
subpart C for new vessels if the installation is made after this rule
becomes effective and is not a replacement in kind on an existing
towing vessel. The Coast Guard declines to make that change because the
original language was unambiguous and the addition unnecessary.
    Another commenter asked the Coast Guard to change proposed Sec.
143.220 to ``clarify that replacements mandated by regulation will not
trigger the referenced follow-on regulations . . . .'' The Coast Guard
disagrees. If equipment requires replacement and the owner or managing
operator chooses not to make a replacement in kind, it is considered an
upgrade and subpart C may apply. Depending on the significance of the
replacement (whole system versus one particular piece), newer standards
may be applicable. Applying subpart C to replacement equipment will not
result in the same cost as applying subpart C to existing equipment,
and is appropriate because the maintenance and operation of the new
equipment may differ.
Alternate Design
    We combined proposed Sec.  143.215 on alternate design
considerations with the functional requirements provisions of proposed
Sec.  143.110 that called for OCMI or third-party acceptance; these are
now located in Sec.  143.210, and have been further condensed to refer
to similar provisions in Sec.  136.115. As noted earlier in this
preamble, these changes do not alter the availability of approval for
alternate designs.
    The Coast Guard received several comments requesting that we add
``company'' after ``owner'' in proposed Sec.  143.215. The Coast Guard
partially agrees. In Sec.  143.210(a), we inserted ``or managing
operator'' after ``owner'' to be consistent with other sections where
we list both. The definition of ``managing operator'' in Sec.  136.110
includes organizations, and if a company owns the vessel, it would be
covered by the definition of ``owner.''
TSMS
    We removed proposed Sec.  143.205, as it was duplicative of part
138. With respect to the content of that proposed section, one
commenter had suggested the Coast Guard include ``guidelines'' in
paragraph (a), along with policies and procedures to ensure compliance.
The Coast Guard declines to make such a change in the provisions
discussing TSMSs, because the purpose of the TSMS is to help ensure
compliance with all parts of this subchapter, and the inclusion of
guidelines is not necessary to that minimum standard. Nothing prohibits
the inclusion of guidelines in individual TSMSs, however.
Existing Vessels Built to Class
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.210 as Sec.  143.215. Proposed
Sec.  143.210 had provided that vessels classed by the American Bureau
of Shipping (ABS), or built to ABS rules, would be considered in
compliance with part 143 if they met certain additional requirements.
However, we determined that the requirements for existing and new
vessels need to be further distinguished.
    This final rule creates flexibility for existing vessels: Existing
towing vessels currently classed by any recognized classification
society, or determined compliant with any recognized classification
society's appropriate rules, are equivalent to nearly all of the
requirements of subpart B. We have reduced the list of additional
requirements originally proposed in Sec.  143.210(b), so that existing
vessels that are classed or built to class rules only need to meet the
pilothouse alerter requirement (by the delayed effective date, 5 years
after the issuance of the first COI for the vessel) and readiness and
testing requirements. These fundamental safety provisions replace the
longer list that we had proposed. In particular, proposed paragraph
(b)(2) on potable water was removed because, as a number of commenters
noted, proposed Sec.  143.225 was ``reserved'' and listed no
requirements. The Coast Guard agrees with the suggestion to remove this
reference to potable water requirements; we note that Food and Drug
Administration requirements in 21 CFR 1250.82 already apply to potable
water systems for most towing vessels engaged in interstate commerce.
In addition, in Sec.  140.510(a)(14) an owner or managing operator must
identify and mitigate health and safety hazards related to the towing
vessel's potable water supply.
    Also, with regard to proposed Sec.  143.210(a), the Coast Guard
received several comments suggesting we change the phrase ``mechanical
standards'' to ``machinery standards.'' The Coast Guard agrees that
``machinery standards'' is the industry accepted term, and amended the
section accordingly. In what is now paragraph (b), the Coast Guard
clarified that the OCMI or a third party would deem the vessel to be in
compliance.
    As is discussed later in this preamble, new towing vessels meeting
ABS rules in accordance with Sec.  143.515, or classed by ABS, are
considered to be in compliance with part 143 except for the pilothouse
alerter and readiness and testing sections that are described below.
New towing vessels classed by other recognized classification societies
may also be compliant with part 143 if approved by the Coast Guard.
This final rule offers more flexibility than the proposed rule, in that
it provides for Coast Guard approval of other class standards, but does
not automatically accept all classed vessels as compliant with part
143. In light of the wide range of possible class standards in the
future, we believe this is the correct balance between safety and
feasibility.
Machinery Space Fire Prevention
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.235 as Sec.  143.220. One
commenter suggested the Coast Guard change ``flammable liquid'' to
``flammable or combustible liquid'' in proposed paragraphs (a) and (c),
to cover diesel fuel. The Coast Guard agrees that most grades of diesel
fuel are considered ``combustible liquids'' as opposed to more volatile
``flammable liquids'' such as gasoline, and amended the section
accordingly to indicate the

intent of preventing fires. We also refer to 46 CFR subpart 30.10 for
definitions of those terms. Similarly, one commenter suggested we add
``and other flammable liquids'' to the restriction on oil in proposed
paragraph (b). The Coast Guard agrees with the underlying concern, but
has removed proposed paragraph (b) because it was duplicative of the
fire hazards provision in part 142.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.235(c), several commenters said
that the temperature threshold required, 65.5 [deg]C
(150[emsp14][deg]F), is too low to be practical. The Coast Guard agrees
that the temperature specified in the NPRM was impractical, and amended
what is now Sec.  143.220(b) to adopt the SOLAS requirements for
insulation of hot surfaces: 220 [deg]C (428[emsp14][deg]F) as was
suggested by several commenters. SOLAS is an established,
internationally recognized set of rules developed and ratified by
maritime nations worldwide, and the Coast Guard determined that this
was the most appropriate reference.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.235(d), one commenter suggested
the Coast Guard change ``materials'' to ``products.'' The Coast Guard
agrees that the suggested change is necessary to achieve uniformity
between parts 142 and 143, and amended Sec.  143.220(c) accordingly. In
the same section, one commenter suggested that the Coast Guard include
the amounts of flammable and combustible materials that can be safely
stored in machinery spaces under this section. The Coast Guard declines
to do so because, under the original proposed language, the limits
would be determined by the size of the designated areas defined in
Sec.  142.225 or the size of the flammable storage cabinet that
satisfies UL 1275. In addition, because available storage areas will be
limited by prohibitions on ignition sources in those areas, we believe
that operators will carry only the amounts of products necessary for
the vessel mission.
    The Coast Guard received several comments recommending adding the
language from proposed Sec.  144.360(c) to proposed Sec.  143.235,
because it pertains to machinery space fire prevention. The Coast Guard
declines to add the language to part 143 because the provisions of
Sec.  144.605 address this topic for all towing vessels.
Control and Monitoring Requirements
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.240 as Sec.  143.225. The Coast
Guard received several comments requesting that we change ``thrust'' to
``RPMs'' in proposed paragraph (a).
    The Coast Guard does not agree with these comments because the use
of the word ``thrust'' is intended to cover other propulsion systems in
use today, including varying propulsion and steering control designs,
as well as indicators. An example would be a shaft tachometer as an
acceptable means of monitoring the vessel's propulsion thrust.
    The Coast Guard received several comments asking if the position of
the rudder joystick is sufficient to meet the requirements of proposed
paragraph (b). The position of the rudder joystick does not provide a
positive position of the rudder and is not acceptable. The rudder
joystick simply provides an indication of the commanded position of the
rudder.
Alarms and Monitoring
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.245 as Sec.  143.230. The Coast
Guard received several comments suggesting that the panel in the
wheelhouse needs only to alarm and should not be required to identify
the piece of equipment that has tripped the alarm. The Coast Guard
agrees that specifying the exact piece of equipment that is in an alarm
condition is not necessary in the wheelhouse. Rather, a summary alarm
in the wheelhouse is considered sufficient. We amended Sec.  143.230
accordingly. The Coast Guard also received comments concerning the
intent of requiring alarms to function when primary power is lost. We
agree that it is impractical that alarms on existing vessels have a
backup source of power in addition to the primary power supply, because
the primary concern on a loss of main electrical power is restoring the
main power source.
    The Coast Guard received several comments requesting whether
certain alarms should signal high or low levels; the Coast Guard agrees
that clarification is needed, and amended the section to specify which
alarm settings are based on high or low conditions. Several commenters
suggested that the requirement for a ``main engine fuel oil pressure''
alarm should be removed. One commenter indicated that requiring fuel
oil pressure alarms was unnecessarily rigorous and would have a
disproportionate effect on small businesses. We agree that a wide range
of diesel engine fuel pressures may be acceptable depending on the
manufacturer, and that fuel oil pressure is not normally considered a
mandatory parameter to be monitored; these levels may be checked each
watch. We therefore removed proposed Sec.  143.245(a)(3) and (6) when
drafting the final version of Sec.  143.230.
    One commenter requested a high level alarm requirement on day
tanks, stating that a number of spills have occurred as the result of
day tanks being overfilled. The Coast Guard agrees that a high level
alarm could be beneficial. However, we do not have spill data to
justify such a requirement and there are other acceptable means to
ensure the day tank is not overfilled (for example, routing the
overfill line to a storage tank, physically observing the level of the
tank during filling operations, monitoring quantity of fuel transferred
so it does not exceed available capacity). In the future, we may
propose requiring this alarm if spill data suggests overfilling of the
day tank could have been avoided by such an alarm.
    The Coast Guard also received several comments stating that
proposed Sec.  143.245(a)(9) (now designated Sec.  143.230(a)(6))
addressing low fuel level alarms repeats proposed Sec.  143.275(d) and
that one of the two sections should be removed. The Coast Guard agrees,
and removed proposed Sec.  143.275(d).
    One commenter suggested removing the requirement for hydraulic
level alarms.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. There is a need to monitor the hydraulic
fluid in the steering hydraulic tank in the event of leaks or pipe/hose
rupture, because it is essential for maneuvering.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.245(b)(3), the Coast Guard
received several comments in favor of a self-monitoring alarm system.
    The Coast Guard agrees that a self-monitoring alarm system is a
practical alternative to manual testing of the alarm system, and
amended Sec.  143.230(b)(2) accordingly.
    The Coast Guard received several comments suggesting deletion of
the requirement at proposed Sec.  143.245(c) that gauges be visible at
the operating station. The Coast Guard agrees that gauges are not
required at the operating station, provided that there are alarms or a
summary of alarms at each operating station. We amended this section
for clarification.
    One commenter suggested that several provisions of the NPRM,
including gauges for engines at proposed Sec.  143.245(c), should not
be required because they are not required of passenger vessels in
subchapter T.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the suggestion that that no gauges
should be provided, although we agree that subchapter T vessels and
subchapter M vessels could have similar systems. The gauges required by
proposed Sec.  143.245(c) are considered minimum requirements for
monitoring engine

performance. However, in the final rule, the number of gauges required
has been reduced to only those considered essential to engine
monitoring, and which normally are provided by the manufacturer with
all engine installations regardless of the vessel type.
    With respect to paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) one commenter suggested
that the Coast Guard add the engine RPMs to these sections. The Coast
Guard agrees that the main engine(s) and auxiliary generator engines
should be equipped with RPM indicators, and amended the sections
accordingly.
    We deleted proposed paragraph (d) because summary alarms are
already allowed under revised Sec.  143.230(b)(1), so there is no need
for a separate section allowing this on excepted vessels. With respect
to proposed paragraph (d) one commenter suggested that the Coast Guard
add ``crewmembers responding to the alarm(s).'' The Coast Guard agrees
with the comment in that the proposed text could have been more
specific regarding communications between crewmembers. However,
proposed paragraph (d) was applicable only to excepted vessels, and
given the traditional size and service of excepted vessels, we
ultimately determined that a separate paragraph was not necessary.
General Alarms
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.250 as Sec.  143.235. One
commenter suggested that the Coast Guard clarify the applicability of
this section. That commenter also recommended requiring the public
address system on towing vessels be equipped with ``talk-back''
capability.
    The Coast Guard has modified the applicability section to be
clearer, and has made similar clarifying changes to Sec.  143.240(a).
As for adding a requirement for ``talk-back'' capability, we disagree.
This capability is not required on any commercial vessel and would be
unnecessary for the usual purposes of a public address system.
Readiness and Testing
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.260 as Sec.  143.245 and, as
described earlier in this preamble, removed the functional and
prescriptive designators in favor of a unified section on alternatives
at the beginning of the part. One commenter suggested that the Coast
Guard remove ``(if available)'' from proposed Sec.  143.260(a).
    The Coast Guard agrees that manufacturer's instructions are
normally available, and removed the phrase ``if available.''
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.260(b), the Coast Guard received
several comments to amend parts of the table to clarify that the intent
is for a crew change and not a watch or shift change. The Coast Guard
agrees that testing the propulsion and steering controls is not
necessary with every shift change, and amended the section to clarify
that the test is only necessary prior to getting underway, but not more
often than once every 24 hours. In the same section, one commenter
suggested changing the required testing frequency of alarm setpoints
and pressure safety valves from annually to every 2 years or longer.
    The Coast Guard agrees and has amended Table 143.245(b) to make
these requirements more consistent with similar requirements in
subchapter F. Finally, one commenter suggested the Coast Guard change
``pressure vessel safety valves'' to ``pressure vessel relief valves.''
The Coast Guard agrees that relief valve is the more common terminology
and amended the section accordingly.
System Isolation and Markings
    We have redesignated proposed Sec.  143.270 as Sec.  143.250. The
Coast Guard received a number of comments suggesting that ``graywater
lines need not be fitted with isolation valves or marked if all piping
is contained inside a fuel tank or void.'' The Coast Guard disagrees.
It is not possible for ``all piping'' to be contained in a tank, and it
is important for the piping system to be identified. However, the
intent of the requirement is for crew members to be able to identify
piping systems used in normal, everyday operations, and therefore it is
not essential that systems in normally inaccessible spaces be
identified.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard add a new paragraph
(e) to proposed Sec.  143.270 to cover sanitary discharges, and add
``Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section'' to the
beginning of this section. The Coast Guard declines to do so because
the requirements in this section would apply to any system piping
penetrating the hull beneath the waterline. However, variations could
be accommodated through the provision for alternate design approvals
that has already been discussed in this preamble.
    With regard to proposed Sec.  143.270(e), one commenter stated that
the use of ``either'' ISO Standard 14276 or marking in accordance with
the TSMS applicable to the vessel would lead to a lack of uniformity
between towing vessels and is counterproductive. The Coast Guard agrees
that one standard for industry color-coding of piping is preferred, but
lacks the casualty data to support a mandate for one particular
standard. Another commenter suggested that the Coast Guard identify the
basic colors used to mark piping.
    The Coast Guard declines to do so because the international
standard referenced in this section already identifies basic piping
colors.
Fuel System Requirements
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.275 as Sec.  143.255. The Coast
Guard received several comments suggesting that the requirement at
proposed Sec.  143.275(c) to replace fuel filters be based more on
``performance requirements'' as opposed to manufacturer
recommendations. The Coast Guard partially agrees and amended the
section, but considers manufacturer recommendations to be based already
in part on performance requirements, such as differential pressure and
time in service. We also amended proposed Sec.  143.275(a) to clarify
that the term ``be maintained'' used in the proposed rule means a
documented maintenance plan. We also made nonsubstantive changes to
proposed Sec.  143.275(b) for brevity and clarity.
    As previously discussed, we removed proposed Sec.  143.275(d) in
response to comments stating it was duplicative of proposed Sec.
143.240(a)(9). We then added a new paragraph (d) that requires the use
of diesel fuel unless approval for another fuel is obtained pursuant to
Sec.  143.210 or Sec.  143.520. We did this because diesel fuel is
considered the standard for marine fuels, and the use of more volatile
fuels such as liquefied natural gas or propane requires approval by the
MSC.
Fuel Shutoff Requirements
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.280 as Sec.  143.260. The Coast
Guard received a comment suggesting that we define ``near the source of
supply'' as used in proposed Sec.  143.280(c). The Coast Guard agrees
with this commenter. To clarify the section, we drafted Sec.
143.260(c) to require that the valve be installed in the fuel piping
directly outside of the fuel oil supply tank. We also received a
comment suggesting that the use of extra heavy piping should be
explicitly allowed as an alternative to situating the valve near the
source.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. While such arrangements may be
acceptable with proper piping materials or other design choices,
locating the valve directly after the fuel supply source is the most
effective way to stop a leak.
    The Coast Guard received one comment suggesting that we remove the
words ``outside the space where the

valve is installed'' from proposed Sec.  143.280(d) and instead
specifically require that the valve be located on the weather deck.
    The Coast Guard disagrees because a safe place outside the
machinery may not always be located on the weather deck.
    The Coast Guard also received one comment stating, in part, that
the ``requirement for remote shutdown of each engine outside the
machinery space is unworkable'' and suggesting the requirement should
be removed.
    The Coast Guard does not agree: The remote shutdown outside the
machinery space is necessary in the event that the engine space is not
accessible due to fire.
Additional Fuel System Requirements for Towing Vessels Built After
January 18, 2000
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.285 as Sec.  143.265. With
respect to proposed Sec.  143.285(b), the Coast Guard received several
comments requesting clarification on the proposed regulations regarding
``portable bilge pumps.'' A ``portable bilge pump'' as specified in
paragraph (b) is a dewatering pump. We received a comment suggesting
that the proposed rule would limit an operator's ability to dewater a
damaged tow. We disagree. The regulation allows for proper stowage and
use of portable tanks or cans for portable bilge pumps. The rules for
the barge itself are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but
``portability'' of fuel is allowed in the circumstances specified by
this section. If an operator is safely able to reach a towed unit,
there is no prohibition on using portable equipment to dewater or fight
a fire on that unit.
    The Coast Guard received a comment suggesting that the proposed
regulations did not consider a ``closed loop'' ventilation system
option for venting. The Coast Guard does not agree with this
characterization of the proposed rule, because proposed Sec.
142.285(c)(1), now designated Sec.  143.265(c), allows tank vents to be
combined, as long as there is ultimately a vent to the outside. We
received a comment suggesting revisions to the required size of the
vent piping. We partially agree, and the paragraph (c) has been amended
for clarity on this issue.
    One commenter expressed concern with the use of flexible fuel
lines, noting that the use of flexible hose in the industry was
``rampant,'' and also suggested requiring containment systems beneath
oil purification equipment. This rule allows for flexible hose that
meets certain incorporated standards, meaning the hose has passed
pressure and fire testing. The rule also addresses the containment
concern by requiring that gaskets and seals be maintained, and bilges
kept free of accumulated oil.
Bilge Pumps or Other Dewatering Capability
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.295 as Sec.  143.275. The Coast
Guard received several comments suggesting ``prescriptive''
regulations, such as those for larger ships in 46 CFR 56.50, be applied
to proposed Sec.  143.295. The Coast Guard decided not to impose a
prescriptive requirement for bilge pumping systems in this regulation
because of the extremely large number of different configurations
possible for towing vessels. A commenter said that proposed Sec.
143.295 was not specific enough with regard to dewatering capability,
noting that potentially ineffective dewatering methods such as
``buckets'' could be acceptable under the proposed text. We agree and
have amended the section to emphasize that an installed or portable
bilge pump must be available.
    One commenter suggested that only ``installed'' (not portable)
bilge piping should be required to have a check/foot valve to prevent
unintended flooding. The Coast Guard agrees because a permanently
installed, power-operated bilge pump is not the equivalent of a
portable pump. We amended the text accordingly, as the use of a
portable pump implies constant operator monitoring, which would
normally prevent improper flow (backflooding).
Pressure Vessels on Existing Vessels
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.300, the Coast Guard received
several comments suggesting the application of existing pressure vessel
requirements in 46 CFR subchapter F and the ASME Code. Although these
are certainly acceptable for pressure vessel installations on all
vessels, the Coast Guard does not have casualty data to support the
mandatory use of the rigorous requirements of subchapter F by existing
towing vessels. Similarly, one commenter suggested the incorporation of
the ASME Code Section IV for heating boilers. The Coast Guard agrees
that the ASME Code is a preferable design standard for heating boilers,
and considers it acceptable for power or heating boilers on any vessel.
However, the Coast Guard has no significant reportable casualty data
with a root cause of boiler or pressure vessel design that justifies
the increased cost of requiring all towing vessels to use the ASME Code
for towing vessel boilers.
    The Coast Guard received several comments suggesting that proposed
Sec.  143.300(b) be clarified with regard to examination requirements.
The Coast Guard agrees and amended paragraph (b) so that pressure
vessels are externally examined annually, along with relief valve
testing twice every 5 years. These changes make inspection requirements
for pressure vessels and relief valves more consistent with the
inspection requirements in subchapter F for pressure vessels on larger
ships. Because of these changes we added a new paragraph (c) to require
the maximum allowable working pressure be indicated on all pressure
vessels.
    The Coast Guard received a question concerning the pressure vessel
requirements of proposed Sec. Sec.  143.300 and 143.540: ``Could a
towing vessel also meet the requirements of 46 CFR 61.10 in lieu of the
ABS Rules as prescribed in 143.540?'' The Coast Guard agrees that
compliance with 46 CFR 61.10 is acceptable and equivalent to (or
exceeds) the requirements in this rule. However, Sec.  61.10 generally
is applicable to large ships and the Coast Guard does not require
towing vessels to meet subchapter F engineering requirements.
Electrical Systems
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.305 as Sec.  143.400. The Coast
Guard received several comments suggesting the Coast Guard remove the
requirement at proposed Sec.  143.305(d) that switchboards and
distribution panels be labeled with a description of the loads they
serve. The Coast Guard partially disagrees. For proper circuit
identification during operations and maintenance, labels must be
provided for the equipment served. However, the Coast Guard has removed
the requirement that equipment be marked with the location of the
isolating switch of circuit breaker, because the panel should indicate
that information.
    The Coast Guard received several comments on proposed Sec.
143.305(i) expressing confusion on the use of male receptacle outlets
when transmitting power between two receptacles. The requested changes
were in line with the Coast Guard's original intent, but we decided the
clearest revision would be to remove the provision about male outlets.
As long as the plugs, cables, and receptacles are compatible and
designed for the power to be transmitted, specifying a particular
configuration is not necessary.
Shipboard Lighting
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.310 as Sec.  143.410. One
commenter argued

that the requirement for emergency lighting in proposed Sec.  143.310
would be prohibitively expensive for small businesses and is neither
necessary nor of any value on smaller towing vessels where the crew
typically knows the vessel intimately.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. With respect to the cost, there are
three different options for compliance, some as inexpensive as
phosphorescent lighting strips. With respect to the utility this
requirement in Sec.  143.410 for internal crew working and living
areas, we consider this lighting essential--even on smaller vessels--to
facilitate egress in emergency situations when normal lighting is not
working and dense smoke may be present.
    The Coast Guard received several comments asking whether berthing
spaces were required to have emergency lighting under proposed Sec.
143.310(a). Specific berthing spaces are not required to have emergency
lights. However, in the event of power loss there must be sufficient
illumination in living areas to enable personnel egress from the living
space. One commenter suggested adding a requirement for one flashlight
per bunk. The suggestion is a good practice for mariners but the Coast
Guard declines to make it mandatory.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.310(b)(2), the Coast Guard
received several comments suggesting we lower the required automatic
battery-operated emergency lighting capability from 3 hours to 30
minutes. The Coast Guard partially agrees with these comments, and has
modified the requirement in Sec.  143.410(b)(1) to 2 hours, consistent
with subchapter T. The requirement of 2 hours will ensure the
availability of battery-powered lights when needed, along with ample
battery capacity. Emergencies that require egress from a space, such as
a living space, do not necessarily mean abandoning the vessel: The crew
may need to assemble on deck to fight a fire or flooding, or restart
the main electrical plant. We confirmed that, for the second option,
phosphorescent strips are available that provide illumination for more
than 2 hours.
    In addition, the Coast Guard removed proposed Sec.  143.310(b)(1)
because it was redundant with a related subparagraph in proposed Sec.
143.340(b)(9).
Pilothouse Alerter System
    The pilothouse alerter requirements are now located in Sec.
143.450. In the NPRM, we proposed a pilothouse alerter system
requirement for all vessels (see proposed Sec.  143.210, as well as
Sec. Sec.  143.325, 143.515, and 143.520), with a deferred compliance
date for existing vessels. We proposed this requirement in response to
the NTSB report on the Robert Y Love allision with the I-40 Bridge, as
well as eight incidents where the operator died while navigating the
vessel and other cases that indicated probable incapacitation of the
operator. The Coast Guard received comments supporting and opposing the
inclusion of the deferred requirements proposed in Sec.  143.325.
    After considering public comments, as well as the traditional
service and limited manning of towing vessels 65 feet or less in
length, we determined that a pilothouse alerter system is not necessary
for towing vessels 65 feet or less and have eliminated the alerter
requirement for this category of vessels. This is accomplished in Sec.
143.450(e).
    We received a comment suggesting the alerter could become a
distraction for harbor assist vessels. We disagree, because a compliant
system could be set up to reset, for instance, each time the throttle
or steering was changed. We also received comments that the alerter
should not be required when a vessel had overnight accommodations but
those accommodations were not in use. We decline to make a regulatory
exception for this scenario, but this subchapter allows the OCMI the
discretion to waive certain requirements on a case-by-case basis when
appropriate.
    We received a comment suggesting that requirements for systems such
as pilothouse alerters should be performance-based, and flexible with
regard to rapid developments in technology. The Coast Guard agrees. We
have not specified a particular design for an alerter system, only that
such system must meet certain performance requirements with regard to
time limits and adjustability of the alarm time to suit the vessel
mission.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.325(a)(3), imposing a 10-minute
maximum acknowledgment time for the alerter, the Coast Guard received
several comments suggesting that the acknowledgment time for the
pilothouse alerted should be less than 10 minutes. The Coast Guard
partially agrees. New paragraph (b) of Sec.  143.450 provides that the
time may be reduced by the owner or managing operator in the TSMS but
must not be in excess of 10 minutes. We received a comment suggesting
that the Robert Y Love incident would not have been prevented by an
alerter set at 10 minutes. We acknowledge that it is possible that an
alerter set at 10 minutes may not have prevented the incident. It is
also possible that an operator could become incapacitated at any time
within a 10-minute alerter reset period. In the Robert Y Love incident,
had the pilot become incapacitated 1 minute before the alarm was
scheduled to sound, it is possible another crew member could have made
it to the pilothouse and averted the allision. As a reference point, we
note that SOLAS requirements for larger vessels (MSC.128(75)) require a
bridge watchstander alarm with an elapsed time between resets of 3-12
minutes.
    We received a comment stating that ``fans with paper streamers
effectively fool motion detector systems.'' The Coast Guard notes that
a motion detector-type system is but one of many options to comply with
the alerter requirement. An attempt to interfere with any system
installed to meet the requirements of Sec.  143.450 would be
investigated. And as stated in Sec.  140.1000, there are statutory
penalties for violating the provisions of this subchapter.
    The Coast Guard received several comments suggesting that a second,
adequately rested crewmember should be required in the pilothouse at
all times, as well as comments suggesting a second crewmember is an
unnecessary expense. The Coast Guard partially agrees with both
comments. A second adequately rested crewmember in the pilothouse of a
towing vessel, while not required by this section, is an acceptable
alternative to the pilothouse alerter system as stated in Sec.
143.450(d). We chose not to require that a second crewmember be in the
pilothouse because, in light of the thousands of vessels of all sizes
that safely operate with a single crew member on the bridge or
operating station, depending on maneuvering circumstances, we could not
justify the significant cost of requiring an additional watchstander on
all towing vessels. However, under 46 U.S.C. 8104 and 46 CFR 15.705, it
remains the master's responsibility to provide an adequate watch.
    The Coast Guard received a comment requesting clarification of the
pilothouse alerter requirements for vessels with more than one
operating station. Because the alerter is required to detect
incapacitation of the vessel pilot, the system must be arranged to
alarm at each operating station. There may be various system
configurations that meet the intent of this requirement.
Towing Machinery
    The towing machinery requirements are now located at Sec.  143.460
and apply to all vessels, with a deferred compliance date for existing
vessels. In connection with proposed Sec.  143.330(b) the Coast Guard
received several comments requesting an example of an

acceptable safeguard against the towing machinery becoming disabled if
the tow gets out of line. The Coast Guard agrees, and added an example
of a common safeguard to this section. We also received a comment
suggesting that the ``winch slippage alarm'' sound in the pilothouse.
The Coast Guard agrees such an alarm would be beneficial to operations,
but we do not have the casualty data to support the mandate of such a
system.
Deferred Requirements for Existing Vessels (Proposed Subpart C)
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, we removed proposed subpart
C. We relocated to subpart B the requirements for pilothouse alerter
systems and towing machinery, and retained the deferred compliance date
for existing vessels: These requirements are discussed earlier in this
preamble. We removed proposed Sec.  143.335 on remote shutdowns because
a similar effect is accomplished through proposed Sec.  143.280 (now
Sec.  143.260) on fuel oil shutoff, and because remote fuel shutoff is
already required by 46 CFR subchapter C.
    The remaining deferred provisions of proposed subpart C--Sec. Sec.
143.340 through 143.360 on specific electrical arrangements for
existing towing vessels--have been moved to subpart C for new vessels.
They do not apply to existing vessels. We made this change in response
to comments indicating these provisions were not appropriate for
existing vessels. Specifically, the Coast Guard received many comments
recommending the deletion of the prescriptive requirements in proposed
Sec. Sec.  143.340 through 143.360. Commenters characterized the
proposed requirements as burdensome, costly, requiring extensive
modifications, and not justified by risk.
    The Coast Guard does not agree that the proposed requirements were
unjustified. Part 143 was developed in response to the recommendations
in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the ABSG Consulting report, which were based
on the risk analysis results in Section 4.3 of the report. See
Uninspected Towing Vessel Industry Analysis Project Final Report,
issued August 2006 and prepared by ABSG Consulting Inc., and Section
III.C of the NPRM (76 FR 49978). An industry analysis project team
performed a detailed analysis of the towing industry data from a number
of data sources, such as MISLE and site visits. The team also used
industry data provided by AWO as part of the Coast Guard-AWO Safety
Partnership. Two previous examinations of towing vessel accident
studies were also considered: The TSAC Towing Vessel Inspection Working
Group report (TSAC 2005) and a report by the Coast Guard Allision
Working Group (BAWG 2003). These risk analyses support characterizing
the proposed requirements as risk-based.
    However, several comments asserted that the functional requirements
in proposed subpart B, ``Requirements for All Towing Vessels,'' are
sufficient for all existing towing vessels. These commenters
recommended the removal of proposed subpart C, ``Deferred Requirements
for Existing Towing Vessels.'' Further, the Coast Guard believes that
many existing towing vessels were originally built to acceptable
national or marine standards. Those would already be in substantial
compliance with many of the requirements of subpart B of part 143 of
the final rule.
    The machinery and electrical requirements in subpart B will provide
the owners or managing operators of existing towing vessels with the
standards that existing equipment and installations must meet or should
have met during the construction of towing vessels. Third-party
inspections and eventual certification of electrical and machinery
systems of existing towing vessels that are in marginal condition or
poorly maintained may require some upgrades but may not necessarily
need extensive modifications of the vessel's systems. Commenters
provided estimates of the cost of extensive retrofits to existing
vessels in the range of $75,000 to $300,000 per vessel, considerably
higher than the cost estimated in the NPRM Regulatory Analysis ($5,000
to $20,000 per individual requirement). Further, comments indicated
that the need for retrofits to comply with the regulatory requirements
in proposed Sec. Sec.  143.340-143.360 would impact more than the
generally less than 5 percent of vessels per requirement estimated in
the NPRM Regulatory Analysis. The net result in total costs could
exceed $300 million (10-year, undiscounted). For these reasons, the
requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.  143.340-143.360 that were proposed
to apply to all towing vessels will now apply only to newly built
towing vessels, which includes vessels undergoing a major conversion.
Comments pertaining to the substance of those standards are discussed
later in this preamble.
Requirements for Oil or Hazardous Material in Bulk (Proposed Subpart D)
    The proposed rule included deferred requirements for vessels that
tow oil or hazardous material in bulk. In response to comments
indicating these provisions were not appropriate for existing vessels,
we removed these requirements from existing vessels and relocated the
provisions to subpart C on new towing vessels. Comments pertaining to
the substance of those standards are discussed later in this preamble.
Subpart C, ``Requirements for New Towing Vessels''
    Because of the organizational changes discussed earlier in this
preamble, proposed subpart E for new towing vessels is now designated
subpart C. We revised the applicability section in line with the
organizational changes described in our discussion of subpart A, and
made nonsubstantive editorial changes. We also removed proposed Sec.
143.505, as its content is now covered by the applicability section at
Sec.  143.500. In Sec.  143.510, we replaced the phrase ``plan
approval'' with the more accurate language ``verification of compliance
with design standards.'' We removed Sec.  143.530 as unnecessary in
light of other revisions to the part.
    The ``classification option'' has changed little between the NPRM
and the final rule. For a new towing vessel, the same three options
apply in the final rule as in the proposed rule: New vessels may be
built to recognized classification society standards (Sec.  143.515);
to ABYC standards (Sec.  143.520) for smaller towing vessels; or to
neither standard, but instead be subject to the requirements set out in
subparts B and C of part 143. As an alternative to complying with the
electrical system requirements that are now listed in subpart C, the
vessel may instead comply with certain ABS rules as set out in Sec.
143.580; this alternative is substantively the same as was proposed in
the NPRM.
    As was the case in proposed Sec.  143.515, even vessels built to
ABS rules or classed by ABS must comply with specific provisions of
part 143. In this final rule, those provisions are the requirements for
vessels that move tank barges carrying oil or hazardous material in
bulk (Sec. Sec.  143.585 through 143.595), the readiness and testing
requirements of Sec.  143.245, and the pilothouse alerter requirements
of Sec.  143.450. The readiness and testing requirements of Sec.
143.245 help verify proper in-service operation and safety of main and
emergency systems, above and beyond the initial design requirements of
part 143. As discussed above, the proposed potable water requirements
have been removed, but they remain a health and safety requirement
under Sec.  140.510(a)(14). Also, in this final rule we created
flexibility by providing for approval of towing vessels built to

recognized classification society rules other than ABS's.
    Section 143.520(a) remains substantially as proposed, but paragraph
(b) has been revised to remove several requirements. New towing vessels
of 65 feet or less in length that are built to the ABYC standards
listed in paragraph (a) need only comply with the readiness and testing
requirements of Sec.  143.245, and with the requirements for vessels
that move tank barges carrying oil or hazardous material in bulk
(Sec. Sec.  143.585 through 143.595) if applicable. Other requirements
have been removed for these vessels, including the pilothouse alerter
requirements.
Pressure Vessels on New Vessels
    We redesignated Sec.  143.540 as Sec.  143.545. With respect to
proposed Sec.  143.540(b), the Coast Guard received several comments
requesting alternate standards to the ABS rule referenced for pressure
vessels. While the ABS rules referenced are an industry standard for
pressure vessels, the Coast Guard may determine other design standards,
such as the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, to be equivalent as
described in Sec.  143.210. Therefore, we made no changes to this
paragraph in response to this comment.
Electrical Engineering Systems
    Several comments also recommended the proposed prescriptive
requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.  143.340-143.360 should not apply to
new towing vessels. The Coast Guard does not agree. The proposed
requirements of these sections are based on the present acceptable
national or marine electrical engineering standards. As explained in
Section IV of the preamble to the proposed rule, the Coast Guard
developed part 143 after considering the reports provided by ABSG
Consulting and TSAC, which were generated from marine casualty cases
and risks. Also, as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
Coast Guard conducted its own in-depth analysis of the cases reviewed
for the ABSG report, along with deficiency reports from examinations of
towing vessels during compliance exams conducted pursuant to 33 CFR
part 104 as part of the implementation of the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) (46 U.S.C. Chapter 701). These reports
provided evidence that substandard machinery installation and
maintenance is a concern on towing vessels. For example, from January
2006 through August 2008, the Coast Guard conducted 768 of these MTSA
compliance examinations of towing vessels and issued 2,949
deficiencies. Electrical deficiencies involving installation and
maintenance accounted for 8 percent (226) of the deficiencies. This 8
percent deficiency rate highlights the need to establish more specific
standards for electrical installations on towing vessels. The current
regulations in subchapter C for electrical installations on uninspected
vessels are minimal and not adequate for towing vessels. In addition,
the incremental cost to incorporate the new standards into the design
and construction of a new vessel are low in comparison of the total
construction costs of the vessel and the potential reduction in risk of
fire.
    Several commenters provided cost estimates to retrofit an existing
vessel to comply with the proposed requirements in Sec. Sec.  143.340-
143.360 that range from $75,000 to $300,000. These estimates are higher
than the cost estimated by Coast Guard in the NPRM Regulatory Analysis
(which ranged from $5,000 to $20,000 per requirement ($60,000 per
vessel if all of the requirements are incurred). The comments also
indicated that far more vessels would require the retrofits than was
estimated in the NPRM Regulatory Analysis. The NPRM estimated
annualized costs of part 143 at $3.2 million and the benefits at $5.7
million. If the high end of the costs per vessel of $300,000 were used,
the annualized costs could as much as triple. Increasing the affected
population for the retrofits as per the comment would increase the
costs even more. Given the new information on the potential range of
costs and affected population, the Coast Guard has determined that the
benefits of the NPRM's proposed deferred requirements for existing
vessels will not outweigh the costs. Given the potential cost burden of
retrofitting existing vessels, the baseline electrical requirements for
existing towing vessels in the final rule, coupled with a robust
inspection regime, will establish an adequate safety environment for
towing vessels.
    The electrical requirements in this final rule will provide the
owners or managing operators the design and engineering standards for
equipment and installations for new construction. The prescribed
electrical power and distribution system designs are based on proven
electrical recommendations, practices, and consensus-based standards.
Electrical Power Sources, Generators, and Motors
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.340 as Sec.  143.555, and made
nonsubstantive changes to simplify and shorten the section. The Coast
Guard received several comments suggesting that proposed Sec.  143.340
be clarified so that a backup generator could be used as a secondary
power source. The Coast Guard agrees, and amended the text in paragraph
(a)(3) to better explain the requirements for backup power source.
    We also received a comment suggesting the proposed Sec.  143.340
may be interpreted as requiring duplicate essential systems such as
radar or emergency lighting. We did not intend the original language to
be read that way, and have amended the corresponding section of the
final rule to clarify that emergency communications and navigation
equipment must be provided with a backup power source.
    We received a comment stating that the electrical load analysis
requirements of proposed Sec.  143.340 were ``excessive and
unnecessary''. Although the Coast Guard believes that a load analysis
is required for nearly all vessels with generators, we presume that
load analysis has already been done for existing vessels and is
therefore applicable only to new towing vessels. This change is
reflected in this final rule. We also simplified the analysis
requirement by removing proposed paragraph (b)(2).
    The Coast Guard received several comments suggesting we include the
specific NEC reference in article 430 in this section. The Coast Guard
agrees and amended the section by specifying that Parts I through VII
of article 430 are required. These Parts of Article 430 further define
the scope of motor overcurrent protections required. We also received
comments suggesting that the proposed requirements in Sec.  143.340
will require ``complete rewiring'' of inland towing vessels. This
comment is addressed by our decision to apply these requirements only
to new vessels.
    The Coast Guard received several comments suggesting we lower the
ambient temperature rating at paragraph (b)(7) of this section from 50
[deg]C to 40 [deg]C, similar to ABS rules. The Coast Guard partially
agrees. The Coast Guard amended the section so that the generator does
not need to be certified to operate in an ambient temperature of 50
[deg]C if it can be shown that the space the generator is in does not
exceed 40 [deg]C. This reduction in minimum ambient temperature rating
reflects an established normal ambient temperature allowance, even for
large vessels currently regulated by the Coast Guard.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.340(b)(9) (now designated Sec.
143.555(b)(8)) the Coast Guard received several comments suggesting
clarification on what the Coast Guard meant by ``two independent
sources of

electricity'' in this section. To clarify, the prescriptive requirement
in what is now paragraph (b)(8) requires a minimum of two sources of
power. For example, if a generator provides the normal source of power
for navigation lights, there must be another generator or a battery
bank arranged as a secondary power source. One commenter suggested
adding the word ``essential'' to paragraph (b)(8) this section. The
Coast Guard agrees, and has modified the text accordingly. We have also
amended the section to specify the radios and navigation equipment
required in Sec. Sec.  140.715 and 140.725. This change is in line with
other comments suggesting that we include the distress alerting
communications equipment listed in Sec. Sec.  140.715 and 140.725.
These comments also suggested that the backup power source for the
distress alerting communication equipment have a means of monitoring
the voltage available, and the source of supply selected either by an
automatic switchover or a simple switch in the vicinity of the
emergency distress alerting communications equipment. The Coast Guard
agrees that distress alerting equipment should be added to this
section, and also that a means must be provided to monitor the battery
condition, and amended the section accordingly.
    We received a comment suggesting that, if a battery were to serve
as the required secondary power source, it would need to be
unnecessarily oversized for the loads specified. We mostly disagree;
there is no requirement that the secondary power source be a battery
(e.g., the secondary source could be a generator). The electrical loads
specified in this section are not necessarily large consumers, and any
battery sized for these loads needs to be sized proportionally, not
oversized. Also, this requirement in proposed Sec.  143.340 has been
amended to apply only to new towing vessels.
    However, we agree with the commenter that some alarms may not
require a secondary power source, and have amended this section to be
specific as to which alarms require secondary power.
    We received comments suggesting removal of the requirement in
proposed Sec.  143.350 to separate overcurrent protection for essential
and non-essential systems. We disagree, because the intention is to
prevent opening the circuit on essential loads because of a fault in a
non-essential system. This requirement has been amended to apply only
to new towing vessels.
    We received a comment suggesting that ``essential systems'' be
defined to avoid confusion in the inspection process. The Coast Guard
agrees, and notes that a proposed definition of essential system was
included in proposed Sec.  136.110. However, we have amended the
requirements of Sec.  143.555 of the final rule to provide clarity on
this issue.
Electrical Grounding and Ground Detection
    We redesignated Sec.  143.355 as Sec.  143.570. With regard to
proposed Sec.  143.355 the Coast Guard received several comments
stating that most towing vessels are ungrounded, and that the section
should specifically adopt the ground detection requirements of 46 CFR
183.378. Proposed Sec.  143.355 did not prohibit the use of ungrounded
systems. The Coast Guard recognizes that towing vessels can have either
grounded or ungrounded electrical distribution systems. We agree with
the comment, however, and therefore added detection requirements
similar to 46 CFR 183.378. This requirement applies only to new towing
vessels, and the requirements are based on vessels regulated under
subchapter T, which have similar electrical systems. While revising
this section, we modified paragraph (e) to consolidate paragraphs
(e)(1) and (3).
    The Coast Guard also received several comments stating that this
section does not allow the use of common two-prong appliances less than
50 volts or two-prong double-insulated tools. The Coast Guard considers
the use of two-prong double-insulated tools to be an acceptable
industry practice, and amended the section to allow the use of double-
insulated tools, or two-prong appliances of less than 50 volts.
Electrical Conductors, Connections, and Equipment
    We redesignated proposed Sec.  143.360 as Sec.  143.575. As
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we received comments stating that
existing vessel compliance with this section and other electrical
sections in the NPRM would involve substantial costs and retrofitting.
The bulk of these comments are addressed by making these electrical
requirements applicable only to new vessels.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.360, the Coast Guard received
several comments suggesting we clarify paragraph (a)(2) with respect to
overhead wiring. The Coast Guard agrees, and amended the section to
specify that this requirement is applicable to overhead and vertical
cable runs supported by cable hangers.
    We received a comment suggesting the use of a performance standard
rather than a specific cable hanging method. The Coast Guard partially
agrees with the concern, but could not find an acceptable performance
standard, so we have amended the section to allow a 48-inch spacing,
rather than the proposed 24 inches, to be consistent with recognized
electrical-contracting standards.
    In paragraph (a)(3) of that section, one commenter suggested that
wiring be allowed within 24 inches of moving machinery if the wiring is
protected. The Coast Guard agrees, and amended this section to be
applicable to cable and wire runs. We also clarified that cable and
wire runs within 24 inches of moving machinery must be adequately
protected to prevent damage, and added text to clarify what ``moveable
machinery'' means.
    In paragraph (b), one commenter suggested replacing the phrase
``may not'' with ``must not''; the Coast Guard agrees that this
language is clearer. This requirement is consistent with the permitted
use of flexible cords or extension cords in Section 400.7 of the
National Electrical Code (NEC), and Section 24.6.1 of IEEE 45-2002.
    In paragraph (c), the Coast Guard received several comments stating
that this section prohibits the use of power strips. The intent of this
section is not to prohibit the use of multi-outlet adapters (power
strips), but to prevent ``daisy-chaining'' of power strips, which may
overload the circuit. We have amended this section to clarify the
requirement to prevent circuit overload when using power strips.
Towing Vessels That Tow Oil or Hazardous Material in Bulk
    Because of the reorganization discussed earlier, a separate subpart
for towing vessels that tow oil or hazardous material is no longer
required. Proposed Sec. Sec.  143.405 through 143.435 have been
incorporated into the final rule's subpart C for new vessels. The
requirements of proposed subpart D will not apply to existing towing
vessels. This change responds to many comments arguing that proposed
subpart D should not apply to existing vessels.
    Commenters who opposed the application of proposed subpart D to
existing vessels argued that the proposed requirements were not based
on risk; would require unjustified or wholesale retrofitting; would
cause severe economic penalty, disproportionate financial hardship for
small towing companies, and might eliminate certain classes of towing
vessels. Also, several comments asserted

that the Coast Guard ignored the decline in the frequency and amount of
oil spills from tank barges over the last twenty years. Other comments
mentioned that the proposed requirements in subpart D will have little
impact on the prevention of oil spills in the tank barge sector
because, as noted by TSAC, ``Current industry best practices have
produced a dramatic reduction in oil spills from tank barges over the
last decade and a half, with a record low 919 gallons spilled (out of
nearly 65 billion gallons transported) in 2010, the last year for which
complete Coast Guard statistics are available.'' Also, industry
comments mentioned that the preamble cites S. 1892, a bill introduced
into the 110th Congress, as a reason for including the proposed subpart
D in part 143, and note that this bill never became law.
    We proposed subpart D based on the statistics from the ABSG report,
which included high and low consequence incidents. Given the casualty
history presented in the ABSG report, the Coast Guard determined that
the proposed requirements could reduce the ongoing risk of oil spills
and the resulting consequences. Data on oil spills through 2014 shows a
continual pattern of a few major spills contributing to the majority of
the volume spilled each year. Even though a recent TSAC report notes a
dramatic reduction in oil spills from tank barges over the last decade
and a half, the casualty data through 2014 indicates that minimum
safety standards for engineering system design, coupled with a robust
inspection regime, would maintain or even further reduce the risk of
spills.
    Several commenters provided information on the cost to retrofit
existing vessels to comply with the Subpart D requirements. The
estimates range for all of the deferred requirements from $75,000 to
$300,000 per vessel, higher than the Coast Guard estimates in the NPRM
Regulatory Analysis. Existing vessels are already designed and
constructed, so requiring a complete replacement of some vital
engineering systems is neither practical nor justified by the safety
benefit achieved.
    In light of the new information on the costs for retrofitting
existing vessels, the requirements of the proposed Sec. Sec.  143.340
through 143.435 have been removed for existing vessels. The
requirements are retained in the final rule for new towing vessels, as
there is a smaller incremental cost to incorporate the design features
in a new vessel.
    Several commenters misinterpreted the proposed requirements in
proposed Sec. Sec.  143.405, 143.410, and 143.420 (now Sec. Sec.
143.585, 143.590, and 143.595) regarding the installation of a second
main engine. The intention of the proposed rule was to require
redundancy of necessary auxiliaries, allowing a sustained or restored
propulsion capability of the towing vessel--not to require redundant
engines. The proposed requirements did not prohibit a towing vessel
with single propulsor, but only placed requirements for support
equipment (auxiliaries) on vessels with one propulsor. The requirements
differentiate between independent and/or redundant control systems and
the propulsion systems under remote control. For example, on a vessel
with two propulsion engines, the proposed rule requires the remote
control of one engine to be independent of the remote control of the
other engine. For risk reduction, the proposed requirements would
ensure that when one engine remote control fails, remote control of the
other engine would remain operable. We have also modified what is now
Sec.  143.595 for vessels with one propulsor, to clarify which
equipment is considered a vital auxiliary, and eliminated the
requirement that this equipment ``automatically'' assume the function
of the failed unit. Although it is acceptable for vessels to have
equipment that automatically starts when other equipment fails, it is
not absolutely necessary, and in fact it may be preferred for crew
members to visually assess a failure or impending failure of the
primary equipment before deciding to manually start the redundant
equipment.
    In proposed Sec.  143.405 (now Sec.  143.585), one commenter
suggested preventative maintenance schedules and additional required
training in lieu of some of the requirements in this section. The Coast
Guard disagrees. While an attentive operator may notice problems before
the associated alarms and redundancy requirements are triggered, the
alarms (with appropriate delays) are required as a means to alert the
operator. We received a comment suggesting separation of the propulsion
and steering requirements in this section. The Coast Guard acknowledges
that propulsion and steering are two separate and vital systems, but
the requirements for alternate arrangements and independence for these
systems as specified apply to both propulsion and steering. Additional
propulsion requirements are also specified in Sec. Sec.  143.590 and
143.595.
    We also received a comment suggesting the use of a ``bow steering
module,'' which is essentially an assist vessel attached to a barge
propelled by a traditional towboat. Although the Coast Guard agrees
that a bow steering module may be considered equivalent to the
requirements of an alternate means of propulsion and/or steering, this
type of arrangement would need to be determined in particular cases by
the OCMI or the Commandant for equivalency.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.405 (now Sec.  143.585), one
commenter asked whether paragraph (k) requires automatic starting of a
standby generator or if the loads referenced should be on battery
backup. The Coast Guard agrees that the proposed section was unclear
and amended the section by specifying a second source of supply that is
capable of automatically starting, and of helping to restore or
maintain power to propulsion, steering and related controls when the
main power source fails. This requirement will provide continued or
restored operation of a towing vessel that moves tank barges carrying
oil and hazardous material in bulk, even if the primary systems fail.
One commenter was confused about what the Coast Guard meant by ``stored
energy'' in paragraph (l). The Coast Guard clarified this section by
providing examples of ``stored energy systems'' that are generally used
onboard towing vessels. We also simplified this section by removing
paragraph (l)(2) as not necessary for towing vessels.
    With respect to proposed Sec.  143.420 (now Sec.  143.595), we
added a clarifying description of ``vital auxiliaries'' in paragraph
(a).
    One commenter asked if proposed paragraph (d)(2) required two
hydraulic tanks for steering. In response to the commenter, an
acceptable arrangement would consist of two independent hydraulic
tanks, or one hydraulic tank separated by a solid baffle, which is
considered equivalent to two tanks. However, the Coast Guard has
determined that the steering system requirements of Sec.  143.550 are
sufficient, that the requirements of Sec.  143.595 are intended only
for vital auxiliaries for propulsion, and so we have eliminated the
steering system paragraphs from this section. Also, the fuel system
requirements of proposed Sec.  143.420(c) were redundant to current
Sec.  143.265, so we removed that paragraph.
    We received a comment suggesting elimination of proposed
redundancies in systems for vessels towing oil or hazardous material,
and leaving those types of decisions for a case by case determination
in the vessel's TSMS. We disagree, because it is important for vessels
with one propulsor to have redundancies in the vital auxiliaries--such
as fuel, lube oil, and cooling

water--supporting the engine. However, this section has been amended to
apply only to new towing vessels.
    We received a comment suggesting ``grandfathering'' proposed
deferred requirements because of prohibitive costs, and have addressed
this comment by applying these requirements to new vessels only.
Another commenter requested clarification of ``independent'' as opposed
to ``redundant.'' Those terms have distinct meanings, but we agree that
the proposed text could be clearer, and have amended Sec. Sec.
143.115, 143.590, and 143.595 to define and use the term
``independent.'' In this subpart, ``independent'' means the ability to
perform a function regardless of the status of another system, and
``redundant'' is not used in subchapter M.

N. Construction and Arrangement (Part 144)

    We received general comments suggesting the requirements proposed
in part 144 were not justified by risk-based decisions and should
therefore be removed. A commenter felt that some proposed regulations
in this part are too stringent: For example, the commenter felt that
the stability requirements in subparts A, B, and C of part 144 are not
reflective of the loss history for inland vessels.
    We disagree with the characterization of proposed part 144 as not
risk-based and, further, we believe they represent the minimum safety
standard of construction and arrangement that is common to all