cognitive skills (those 12 bulleted items listed above) necessary to
establish and maintain situational awareness. (See Yvonne Harrison &
James A. Horne, ``The Impact of Sleep Deprivation on Decision Making: A
Review,'' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 236-249, Vol. 6
No. 3 (2000).
    The prefrontal region of the brain facilitates the use of cognitive
skills necessary for situational awareness. This region of the brain
may shut down as it experiences daily sleep loss. (See Id.; Paula
Alhola & Paivi Polo-Kantola, ``Sleep Deprivation: Impact on Cognitive
Performance.'' Neuropsychiatric Diseases and Treatment, 553-567, Vol. 5
(2007).)
Effects of Sleep Loss on Situational Awareness: Distractions,
Assimilation, and Judgment
    Appreciation of a complex situation while avoiding distraction
requires assimilation of large amounts of information in a short period
of time. Loss of sleep increases visual and auditory distractions that
decrease focused attention and, therefore, interferes with the
assimilation of rapidly changing information. Daily loss of sleep
results in less discrimination handling ambiguous material, less
confidence, more openness to leading information, and more willingness
to modify recollections of events. These effects also interfere with
the correct assimilation of changing information. Even a single night
of sleep loss can result in less appreciation of a complex situation.
When subjected to sleep loss, study participants consistently applied
more effort to pointless areas of their decision-making, which had
little or no effective outcome in the task at hand. (See Yvonne
Harrison & James A. Horne, ``The Impact of Sleep Deprivation on
Decision Making: A Review.'' Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 236-249, Vol. 6 No. 3 (2000).
Effects of Sleep Loss on the Ability To Track Events and To Develop and
Update Strategies
    One night of sleep loss leads to deterioration of planning skills,
marked perseveration, and failure to revise original strategies in
light of new information. Additionally, people who experience partial
sleep loss are more likely to ``stay the course'' as opposed to
changing strategies, even when it is apparent that the strategies are
no longer appropriate. (See Id.).
    Studies of accidents in maritime operations support the notion that
loss of situational awareness plays a significant role in incidents
attributed to human error. In a report published in 2005, discussed
above in section III.D. of this preamble, TSAC reported that human
factors accounted for 54 percent of the medium and high severity
incidents and about 40 percent of the low severity incidents. Failures
in situational awareness or task performance accounted for 69 percent
of the medium and high severity incidents involving human factors. In a
separate report in 2003, the Coast Guard--American Waterways Operators
(AWO) Bridge Allision Working Group examined 459 bridge allisions (an
allision is contact between a moving towing vessel and a stationary
object such as bridge, dock, or moored vessel) and reported 78 percent
were associated with pilot error and 12 percent with other operational
errors. These reports may be found in the docket for this rulemaking,
where listed above in section I.B. ``Viewing comments and documents.''
Of even greater importance to the association of human error with loss
of situational awareness was the finding that 68 percent of 435 cases
showed critical decision-making errors on the part of the towing vessel
operator.
    These findings support the NTSB findings and recommendations that,
in dynamically evolving operational scenarios, a loss of situational
awareness leads to inadequate decision making and performance errors.
On towing vessels, a typical work schedule alternates between 6 hours
of work and 6 hours of rest, otherwise known as ``6 on/6 off.'' This
schedule consistently restricts daily uninterrupted sleep below 6 hours
(total uninterrupted sleep obtained in a 6 on/6 off watch schedule
cannot exceed 6 hours) and does not deliberately ensure nighttime
physiological adjustment (body clock adjusted for nighttime work and
daytime sleep) when crewmembers work at night. As a result, when
reviewing accidents involving human error, it is not possible to
determine whether the degradation in situation awareness was from
increasing sleep debt or from working against the physiological need to
sleep. (See Yvonne Harrison and James A. Horne, ``The Impact of Sleep
Deprivation on Decision Making: A Review.'' Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 236-249, Vol. 6 No. 3 (2000); Paula Alhola and
Paivi Polo-Kantola, ``Sleep Deprivation: Impact on Cognitive
Performance.'' Neuropsychiatric Diseases and Treatment, 553-567, Vol. 5
(2007).)
Work Hours in the Towing Industry
    Licensed crewmembers in the towing industry work approximately 84
working hours in a 7-day work week. See Department of Labor Bureau of
Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11, Water
Transportation Occupations (http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos247.pdf), p.
2. In most segments of the towing industry, towing companies must
sustain 24-hour operations to provide customers with adequate
transportation services and to compete with other carriers. Currently,
a number of requirements governing hours of service for the shipping
industry can be found in Title 46 of the U.S. Code. The law states that
a towing vessel on a trip or voyage of less than 600 miles may divide
its licensed officers and certain crewmembers, while at sea, into at
least 2 watches (46 U.S.C. 8104(g)). The law further requires that
licensed individuals on towing vessels that are at least 26 feet in
length may not work more than 12 hours in a consecutive 24-hour period,
except in an emergency (46 U.S.C. 8104(h)). Additionally, licensed
individuals or crewmembers in the deck or engine departments, operating
on the

Great Lakes, may not work more than 8 hours in one day or more than 15
hours in any 24-hour period, or 36 hours in any 72-hour period (46
U.S.C. 8104(c)).
    As previously stated, the typical work schedule for towing vessels
alternates between 6 hours of work and 6 hours of rest. This work/rest
schedule is repeated every day, when possible, without changing
reporting times. While the 6 on/6 off schedule provides consistent
periods of work and rest from day to day, under the conditions of a 6
on/6 off schedule, sleep is restricted and sleep debt accumulates day
after day, which gradually increases fatigue levels. (See Mikko
Ha[uml]rma[uml], Markku Partinen, Risto Repo, Matti Sorsa, and Pertti
Siivonen, ``EFFECTS OF 6/6 AND 4/8 WATCH SYSTEMS ON SLEEPINESS AMONG
BRIDGE OFFICERS.'' Chronobiology International, 25(2&3): 413-423,
(2008)). Ultimately, under the 6 on/6 off schedule, fatigue is
inevitable.
    Physiological adaptation to nighttime work schedules is required to
prevent crewmember fatigue. During nighttime watch periods, crewmembers
experience the disparity between the need to sleep during the night and
the requirement to work when they would normally be sleeping. (See
Margareta L[uuml]tzh[ouml]ft, Anna Dahlgren, Albert Kircher, Birgitta
Thorslund, and Mats Gillberg, ``Fatigue at Sea in Swedish Shipping--A
Field Study.'' AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE 53:733-740
(2010). Adapting to nighttime work and daytime sleep requires specific
natural and artificial light exposure regimens prior, during, and after
the night watch to re-adjust physiological timing.
    A recent study conducted at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden
demonstrated that maritime officers working the 6 on/6 off schedule,
without the opportunity to adjust their internal physiology to
nighttime work and daytime sleep, consistently obtained less than 4.5
hours of sleep during a 6-hour period off, even when sleeping during
the night (see Figure 1, below) (Claire A. Eriksen, Mats Gillberg &
Peter Vestergren, ``Sleepiness and Sleep in a Simulated `Six Hours on/
Six Hours off' Sea Watch System.'' 23 Chronobiology International: The
Journal of Biological and Medical Rhythm Research 1193-1202, (2006)).
Officers sleeping during the night were not able to sleep longer than 5
hours per night, while officers sleeping during daytime hours slept
less than 4 hours per sleep period. These data demonstrate that even
when officers slept in comfortable bedrooms on shore, as was the case
in this study, lack of physiological adaptation to the night work
schedule resulted in further restrictions of sleep duration during
daytime hours. Participants in this study share with crewmembers aboard
domestic towing vessels both the 6 on/6 off watch schedule and the lack
of opportunity to physiologically adapt to working nights and sleeping
during the day.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AU11.000

    The Coast Guard provides training and information on fatigue
management through the Crew Endurance Management Systems (CEMS)
program. While this training and information has been available to the
industry-at-large,

companies report difficulty in providing appropriate artificial
lighting for crewmember nighttime adaptation. Under the 6 on/6 off
watch schedule, crewmembers work at night, against the natural
physiological need to sleep, and under the influence of increasing
sleep debt. Under these operational conditions, reduced situational
awareness is inevitable. (See Yvonne Harrison and James A. Horne, ``The
Impact of Sleep Deprivation on Decision Making: A Review.'' Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 236-249, Vol.6 No.3 (2000); Paula
Alhola and Paivi Polo-Kantola, ``Sleep Deprivation: Impact on Cognitive
Performance.'' Neuropsychiatric Diseases and Treatment, 553-567, Vol. 5
(2007)).
    The nexus between daily sleep restriction, relevant to the 6 on/6
off watch schedule, and cognitive impairment vital to the maintenance
of situational awareness is demonstrated in a study conducted in 2002
at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Researchers examined
performance degradation and restoration in 66 research volunteers who
were allowed 3, 5, 7, and 9 hours of continuous time in bed, each night
for 7 consecutive days. Results of the study can be found in an article
titled ``Patterns of Performance Degradation and Restoration During
Sleep Restriction and Subsequent Recovery: A Sleep Dose-Response
Study.'' This article may be found in the docket for this rulemaking,
where listed above in section I.B. ``Viewing comments and documents.''
    As noted in the article, baseline performance was measured after
participants were allowed 8 continuous hours of time in bed.
Participants who had 9 consecutive hours of time in bed each night
showed no impairment in performance. By contrast, participants who had
5 or 7 hours of time in bed showed slower reaction speeds. Participants
in the 5-hour time in bed condition exhibited greater alertness deficit
than in the 7-, 8-, and 9-hour time in bed conditions.
    This study also highlighted the importance of recovery sleep on
performance. After the 7 days of sleep restriction, participants were
allowed 8 consecutive hours of time in bed for 3 days. During this 3-
day recovery period, participants underwent neurobehavioral tests while
awake. The 9-hour time in bed group showed no significant differences
from the baseline. By contrast, the 3-hour time in bed group rapidly
recovered when allowed 8 hours of time in bed on the first night,
though their performance did not recover to baseline levels (8-hour
time in bed). In fact, during the 3 days of sleep recovery, this
group's performance levels never rose higher than those of participants
whose sleep was restricted to 5 or 7 hours.
    Disturbingly, while participants who had less than 8 continuous
hours of time in bed did not report feeling sleepy, this group's
performance and alertness levels decreased significantly, especially in
the 5-hour and 3-hour time in bed groups. These data illustrate that
people experiencing partial sleep deprivation do not easily recognize
their own performance impairment.
    A more recent study observed 48 healthy adults whose sleep was
restricted to 4, 6, and 8 hours of time in bed per night for 14 days.
The results are published in an article titled ``The Cumulative Cost of
Additional Wakefulness: Dose-Response Effects on Neurobehavioral
Functions and Sleep Physiology From Chronic Sleep Restriction and Total
Sleep Deprivation.'' In this study, participants underwent
neurobehavioral tests, while awake, every 2 hours to determine the
effects of sleep restriction on their daytime performance. These tests
included measures of attention/reaction time, working memory, mental
agility, and subjective sleepiness. Taken together, the tests measured
participants' cognitive abilities while they performed tasks requiring
vigilance and mental tracking of critical information. Results showed
that performance deteriorated significantly, as sleep loss accumulated
over the 14 days.
    Remarkably, the performance levels of participants who received
less than 6 hours of time in bed per day, for 14 days, degraded as much
as those of participants who had no time in bed for 2 days.
Paradoxically, none of the sleep-restricted participants reported
feeling sleepy.
    The results of both studies highlighted here are important to
towing operations, and as such were taken into consideration when we
considered hours-of-service performance standards. While they cannot be
said to prove without a doubt that when given less than 8 hours time in
bed per night, a crewmember's alertness and cognitive abilities, and
thus overall situational awareness, will decline, they do suggest that
this is the case. Compounding the problem is the fact that sleepiness
is unlikely to be reported, even when cognitive abilities are impaired.
    In addition to reviewing the studies cited above, we used the
Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool (FAST) to determine the effects of
sleeping less than 7-8 hours per day, even when considering two
separate sleep periods. The FAST is the result of coordinated
Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Defense (DOD)
research efforts to develop and validate a comprehensive model to
assess the effects of work and rest schedules on human health and
performance. The Coast Guard also uses the FAST to assess, identify,
and mitigate operational risks inherent in its own afloat, aviation,
and ashore missions. Other agencies such as the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) use the FAST for similar purposes. A full
assessment, when applying the FAST, may be found in the docket for this
rulemaking, where listed above in section I.B. ``Viewing comments and
documents.''
    Figures 2 through 10 in the assessment, which can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking, show results from modeling changes in human
alertness and cognitive performance effectiveness as a result of
working a variety of schedules. Figure 2 shows the impact of restricted
sleep on performance and alertness of a crewmember working nights from
12 midnight-6 a.m. and during the day from 12 noon-6 p.m., simulating a
two-watch system. In this case, the crewmember sleeps a total of 6
hours per day in two separate sleep periods, one occurring from 8 a.m.-
10 a.m. and the other from 7 p.m.-11 p.m. All sleep considered in this
example is of the highest quality, without any interruptions of any
kind. This example simulates the crewmember sleeping 4 consecutive
hours just prior to reporting for the night watch and 2 consecutive
hours after the end of the watch. The FAST calculations reveal a
pattern of degraded performance throughout the 30-day simulation. Under
these circumstances, the daily alertness and performance function shows
a degrading trend with alertness and performance levels comparable to
someone with Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) levels of 0.05 percent,
0.08 percent, and 0.1 percent throughout the watch period.
    Figure 3 shows the effect of interrupted sleep under the same
schedule as the one used for the calculations depicted on figure 2. In
this case, the FAST simulation includes two short interruptions of
sleep per hour. This scenario simulates occasional sleep disruptions
due to environmental noise, and results in brief wakefulness periods
during every hour of sleep. In this instance, minor disruptions of the
sleep period causes a rapid decrease in the performance efficiency
curve. This

decrease reaches levels comparable to performance below the 0.1 percent
BAC level after only 3 consecutive days. Performance does not recover
above the 0.1 percent BAC level throughout the 30-day assessment.
    Figure 4 models the performance and alertness functions of a
crewmember working 6 hours during the night (midnight-6 a.m.) and 6
hours during the day (noon-6 p.m.), but sleeping a total of 8 hours per
day, 4 hours between 7 a.m.-11 a.m. and 4 hours between 7 p.m.-11 p.m.
All sleep in this example is of the highest quality, without any
interruptions. Examining the performance effectiveness function on
Figure 4 reveals a daily degradation in alertness and performance that
is comparable to 0.05 percent and 0.08 percent BAC levels throughout
the night watch period. However, unlike the example shown on Figure 2,
performance effectiveness begins a recovery trend on the seventh day.
Recovery is not complete, as performance effectiveness does not climb
above the 0.05 percent BAC performance level. This provides evidence
that increasing daily sleep from 6 to 8 hours did improve performance
efficiency, but it was not sufficient to prevent degradation of
performance throughout the 30-day assessment.
    Figure 5 shows the impact of minor interruptions of sleep per hour
(two awakenings less than 1 minute long). The FAST algorithm reveals
that, although this model iteration affords 8 total hours of sleep
(adding both sleep periods), minor sleep disruptions result in
significant degradation of performance. Performance effectiveness
degrades below the 0.1 percent BAC level after the third day and
remains below the 0.05 percent BAC level for the rest of the 30-day
period of assessment. Both models explored in Figures 4 and 5 provide
evidence that performance efficiency depends on the interaction between
daily sleep duration and quality of sleep.
    Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 provide results from modeling longer
work and sleep periods in a two-watch system. The results shown in
these models indicate that it is possible to prevent performance
degradation in the two-watch system, but it requires the extension of
the rest periods. The placement of the longest sleep period relative to
the night watch is also important. Sleeping 6 hours soon after the
night watch and 4 hours during the afternoon maintains performance
efficiency within safe levels. Day watch models also showed high
performance efficiency when consecutive sleep durations reached 6.5
hours.
    Considering together the results from the FAST modeling, the
scientific evidence showing that restricted sleep degrades performance
via a degradation of cognitive abilities supporting situational
awareness, and evidence of sleep restriction under the 6 on/6 off
schedule, the Coast Guard believes that insufficient time off to allow
for at least 7 hours of uninterrupted, daily sleep degrades cognitive
abilities. Thus, the Coast Guard seeks additional data, information and
public comment on potential requirements to increase uninterrupted
sleep duration to a threshold of at least 7 consecutive hours in one of
the two available off periods in the two-watch system to increase the
probability that crewmembers will have the opportunity to restore the
cognitive abilities necessary to maintain situational awareness, even
if the sleep environment is not optimal.
    The Coast Guard expects that any hours of service limitations,
either adopted by industry or imposed through regulation, would address
the need for inspected towing vessel operators to gradually alter the
traditional 6 on/6 off watch schedules. The Coast Guard acknowledges,
however, that requiring organizations and/or individuals to change
behavior or adopt new behavioral patterns quickly, in response to
abrupt regulatory requirements, can cause unintended disruptions in
operation and service while the organizations and individuals adapt.
The Coast Guard is thus requesting public comments on the appropriate
phase-in period for a potential hours-of-service standard or
requirement.
    The Coast Guard is also considering the use of the light management
process outlined in the Coast Guard's Crew Endurance Management System
(CEMS) to gradually adapt crewmembers' physiology to early morning
reporting times and to night work. Crewmembers' physiology would then
allow them to sleep longer during the off watch periods. This gradual
change would take place as crewmembers take advantage of the
physiological adaptation to early morning reporting times and to night
work afforded through the CEMS light management process.
    The Coast Guard welcomes public comment on the issues addressed in
this section related to potential hours of service standards and
requirements.
Crew Endurance Management Programs
    As discussed above, the CGMTA 2004 granted the Coast Guard
authority to update the maximum hours of service standards currently
regulating the towing industry. The CGMTA 2004 states that ``the
Secretary may prescribe by regulation, requirements for maximum hours
of service (including recording and recordkeeping of that service) of
individuals engaged on a towing vessel that is at least 26 feet in
length measured from end to end over the deck (excluding the sheer).''
46 U.S.C. 8904(c). This Act authorized the Coast Guard to draft
regulations to ensure that shipboard work practices do not compromise
the safety of navigation and/or crewmembers due to unmitigated fatigue
incidence. H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-617, 2004 U.S.C.C.A.N. 936, 951, 953.
However, Congress directed the Coast Guard to carry out a demonstration
project with the purpose of assessing the effectiveness and feasibility
of the previously established Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS)
on towing vessels, and report the results to Congress (Pub. L. 108-293,
Sec.  409(b), 118 Stat. 1044).
    The Coast Guard developed CEMS in 1999 as a voluntary program to
assist the commercial maritime industry in managing shipboard fatigue
by coordinating improvements to shipboard diet, sleep, work
environments, and watch schedules. CEMS established practices to
protect crewmember health and performance. In developing CEMS, the
Coast Guard recognized that a crewmember's physical endurance depends
on efficient physiological energy production and management of risk
factors such as poor diet, lack of exercise, and personal stress.
Onboard access to exercise equipment, communications with family, and
low-fat meals that consist of lean protein, complex carbohydrates, and
fresh water are necessary to support a crewmember's physical endurance.
However, while these activities are extremely important, the central
objective of CEMS was and is to ensure that crewmembers have sufficient
time off to obtain a daily minimum of 7-8 hours of uninterrupted, high-
quality sleep. The Coast Guard has information suggesting that this
daily sufficient sleep is crucial to maintain alertness and the
cognitive abilities necessary to establish and maintain situational
awareness and adequate physical capacity in the work environment.
    Responding to the Congressional mandate, the Coast Guard conducted
the CEMS demonstration project aboard towing vessels in 2005. The
results of this project showed CEMS implementation was feasible,
effective, and sustainable, but not all companies that participated
adopted a watch scheduled that permitted a minimum of 7-8 hours of
uninterrupted sleep. The

report submitted to Congress, titled ``Report on Demonstration Project:
Implementing the Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) on Towing
Vessels'' is available in the docket for this rulemaking, where listed
above in section I.B. ``Viewing comments and documents.'' The Coast
Guard welcomes public comments on this report, and all of the
information and questions presented above in relation to potential
hours of service and crew endurance management standards and
requirements. As noted, after considering this additional information,
the Coast Guard would later request public comment on specific hours of
service or crew endurance management regulatory text if it seeks to
implement such requirements.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in
Sec. Sec.  136.112, 137.110, 138.110, 139.112, 141.105, 142.120,
143.120, and 144.110. You may inspect this material at U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters where indicated under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material
are available from the sources listed in Sec. Sec.  136.112, 137.110,
138.110, 139.112, 141.120, 142.115, 143.120, and 144.110. Before
publishing a binding rule, we will submit this material to the Director
of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory
action'' although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. A preliminary Regulatory Analysis (RA)
is available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. A
summary of the RA follows:
    This rulemaking would implement section 415 of the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The intent of the proposed rule is
to promote safer work practices and reduce casualties on towing vessels
by ensuring that inspected towing vessels adhere to prescribed safety
standards and adopted safety management systems. This proposed rule was
developed in cooperation with the Towing Vessel Safety Advisory
Committee (TSAC). The Coast Guard recognizes that establishing minimum
standards for the towing vessel industry is necessary. Vessel
operation, maintenance, and design must insure the safe conduct of
towing vessels. The proposed rule would improve the safety and
efficiency of the towing vessel industry.
    In this NPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to require towing vessels
subject to this rulemaking to be part of a safety management system or
be subject to an alternative annual Coast Guard inspection regime. The
proposed rule would require companies that operate inspected towing
vessels to create a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS), continue
with existing systems that comply with the provisions of the
International Safety Management (ISM) Code, another system the Coast
Guard determines to be equivalent to the TSMS, or be subject to an
annual, Coast Guard inspection regime. The Coast Guard believes this
rulemaking would create an environment that encourages safe practices.
    This proposed rule would allow each towing vessel organization to
customize its approach to meeting the requirements of the regulations,
while it provides continuous oversight using audits, surveys,
inspections, and reviews of safety data. This would improve the safety
of towing vessels and provide greater flexibility and efficiency for
towing vessel operators. As a result of this rulemaking, operators
would be able to call upon third parties or the Coast Guard to conduct
compliance activities when and where they are needed. See the
``Discussion of Proposed Rule'' section for a detailed discussion of
this proposed rule and see the RA for a detailed discussion of costs,
benefits and alternatives considered. Table 1 summarizes the impacts of
this rulemaking.

       Table 1--Summary of Affected Population, Costs and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                               NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability..........................  All U.S. flag towing vessels
                                          engaged in pushing, pulling,
                                          or hauling alongside, with
                                          exceptions for work boats and
                                          limited service towing
                                          vessels.
Affected Population....................  5,208 vessels, 1,059 companies.
Costs* ($ millions, 7% discount rate)..  $18.4 (annualized), $129.5 (10-
                                          year).
Benefits ($ millions, 7% discount rate)  $28.5 (annualized), $200.1 (10-
                                          year).
Unquantified Benefits..................  Reduced congestion and delays
                                          from lock, bridge and waterway
                                          closures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These costs include the high estimate of industry costs plus
  government costs.

Affected Population
    We estimate that 1,059 owners and operators (companies) would incur
additional costs from this rulemaking. The rulemaking would affect a
total of 5,208 vessels owned and operated by these companies. Our cost
assessment includes existing and new vessels.
Costs
    We estimated low and high costs to reflect the potential range of
cost inputs for certain requirements, based on various sources of data,
as discussed in the RA. During the initial phase-in period (years 1 and
2), we estimate the annual cost to industry of the rulemaking to range
from $4.2 million to $5.7 million (non-discounted). After the initial
phase-in, the annual costs to industry range from $10.9 million to
$29.1 million (non-discounted). We estimate the total present value
cost to industry over the 10-year period of analysis to range from
$100.7 million to $119.9 million, discounted at 7 percent, and from
$129.1 million to $153.9 million, discounted at 3 percent. Over the
period of analysis, we estimate the annualized costs to industry range
from

$14.3 million to $17.1 million at 7 percent and range from $15.1
million to $18.0 million at 3 percent. Table 2 summarizes the costs of
this proposed rule to industry.

                                 Table 2--Industry Cost Summary of Proposed Rule
                                                  [$ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Undiscounted                Discounted
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Year                                                      7%                3%
                                                              Low      High  -----------------------------------
                                                                                Low      High     Low      High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................     $4.2     $5.5     $3.9     $5.2     $4.1     $5.4
2.........................................................      4.3      5.7      3.8      5.0      4.1      5.4
3.........................................................     10.9     12.2      8.9     10.0      9.9     11.2
4.........................................................     12.1     13.4      9.2     10.3     10.7     11.9
5.........................................................     14.6     16.4     10.4     11.7     12.6     14.2
6.........................................................     16.7     18.2     10.9     12.1     13.8     15.2
7.........................................................     23.7     29.1     14.8     18.1     19.3     23.7
8.........................................................     23.7     29.1     13.8     16.9     18.7     23.0
9.........................................................     23.7     29.1     12.9     15.8     18.2     22.3
10........................................................     23.7     29.1     12.1     14.8     17.7     21.7
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total *...............................................    157.4    187.9    100.7    119.9    129.1    153.9
Annualized................................................  .......  .......     14.3     17.1     15.1     18.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values may not total due to rounding.

    We anticipate that the government will incur costs. For towing
vessels that choose to comply with annual Coast Guard inspections, the
government will incur costs to conduct those inspections. For other
vessels choosing the TSMS option to comply, the government will incur
costs to review applications for a TSMS, conduct random boardings and
compliance examinations, and oversee third parties. We estimate the
total present value cost to government over the 10-year period of
analysis to be $9.6 million discounted at 7 percent and $12.0 million
discounted at 3 percent. Annualized government costs are about $1.4
million under both 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates. We estimate
the combined total 10-year present value cost of the rulemaking to
industry and government to range from $110.3 million to $129.5 million,
discounted at 7 percent, and from $141.1 million to $165.9 million,
discounted at 3 percent. The combined annualized costs to industry and
government range from $15.7 million to $18.4 million at 7 percent and
from $16.5 million to $19.4 million at 3 percent.
Economic Impacts of Towing Vessel Casualties
    Towing vessel casualties are incidents (i.e., accidents) that
involve the towing vessel and possibly other vessels such as barges,
other commercial vessels, and recreational vessels. Towing vessel
accidents can cause a variety of negative economic impacts, including
loss of life, injuries, property damage, delays on transportation
infrastructure, and damage to the environment.
    Based on Coast Guard Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) data for the recent period of 2002-2007, towing
vessel accidents are associated with 23 fatalities per year. Towing
vessel accidents also result in an average of 146 reportable injuries
per year (for the period of 2002-2007). Table 3 summarizes some of the
negative impacts resulting from towing vessel accidents.

   Table 3--Negative Impacts From Towing Vessel Accidents (2002-2007)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Impact                          Average per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities................................  23.
Injuries..................................  146.
Accidents Causing Property Damage of        156.
 $250,001 or more.
Property Damage from Accidents of $250,001  $63.5 million.
 or more.
Oil Spills................................  26.
Amount of Oil Spilled.....................  184,717 gallons.
Congestion and Delays from lock, bridge     Not quantified *.
 and waterway closures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We present detailed information on delay and congestion impacts
  resulting from towing vessel accidents in the Regulatory Analysis
  available in the docket.

Benefits of the Towing Vessel Proposed Rule
    The Coast Guard developed the requirements in the proposed rule by
researching both the human factors and equipment failures that caused
towing vessel accidents. We believe that the proposed rule would
comprehensively address a wide range of causes of towing vessel
accidents and supports the main goal of improving safety in the towing
industry. The primary benefit of the proposed rule is an increase in
vessel safety and a resulting decrease in the risk of towing vessel
accidents and their consequences.
    Based on Coast Guard investigation findings for towing vessel
accident cases from 2002-2007, we estimate that the proposed rule would
lead to significant reductions in fatalities, injuries, property
damaged, and oil spilled. These improvements in safety are expected to
occur over a 10-year period as the various provisions of the proposed
rule are phased-in. We estimate total 10-year discounted benefits at
$200.1 million discounted at 7 percent and $256.2 million discounted at
3 percent. Over the same period of analysis, we estimate annualized
benefits of the proposed rule to be $28.5 million at a 7 percent
discount rate and about $30.0 million at a 3 percent discount rate,
respectively. Table 4 displays the monetized benefits of this proposed
rule associated with reducing fatalities, injuries, property damage,
and oil spilled, resulting from towing vessel accidents. During the
phase-in period, we assume that companies take this

time to implement the proposed rule and obtain their initial
certificates of inspection. Therefore, we assign no benefits to those
years.

                         Table 4--Total Benefits
                             [$ millions] *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Discounted
                 Year                    Undiscounted  -----------------
                                                           7%       3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................            $0.0     $0.0     $0.0
2.....................................             0.0      0.0      0.0
3.....................................            25.9     21.1     23.7
4.....................................            38.2     29.1     33.9
5.....................................            39.2     28.0     33.8
6.....................................            40.3     26.8     33.7
7.....................................            41.3     25.7     33.6
8.....................................            42.4     24.7     33.5
9.....................................            42.4     23.1     32.5
10....................................            42.4     21.6     31.5
                                       ---------------------------------
    Total.............................           312.0    200.1    256.2
Annualized............................  ..............     28.5     30.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values may not total due to rounding.

Unquantified Benefits
    These estimates do not include the value of benefits that we have
not quantified, including preventing delays and congestion due to
towing vessel accidents. We are unable to monetize the value of
preventing other consequences of towing vessel accidents, including
delays and congestion, due to a lack of data and information. However,
as discussed in the Regulatory Analysis available in the docket, the
potential value of other benefits could be substantial if towing vessel
accidents cause long waterway, bridge, or road closures.
Avoided Delays and Waterway Disruptions
    Every day, tons of goods worth millions of dollars transit the
nation's waterways and the highways and railroads that pass alongside
and over them. Towing vessel accidents that disrupt any one or more of
these modes can be costly. The incident reports show that delays can
range from a couple of hours for a damage assessment to a month or
longer if a bridge has suffered major damage. For large accidents that
result in long delays, the economic consequences may include the
following:
     Productivity losses and operating costs for stalled barge
and other traffic;
     Delays in the acquisition of production inputs that can
impact timely operation of manufacturing or other processes;
     Blockages of U.S. exports that can result in decreased
revenue from importing foreign companies;
     Loss of quality for industries dealing with time sensitive
products or products with a limited shelf life, such as commercial
fishing seafood processors, seafood dealers, or other food processors
and manufacturers; and
     Reduced recreational opportunities, resulting in social
welfare losses.
    One example of a towing vessel accident having severe economic
consequences on both traffic and the local economy is the collision of
a barge with the Interstate 40 Bridge in Webbers Falls, Oklahoma, on
May 26, 2002. The bridge was severely damaged and was closed for
repairs for two months. The Interstate 40 Bridge is a major east-west
route for both commercial and passenger traffic and carried
approximately 22,000 vehicles per day. See the Regulatory Analysis, and
the ``Report of the U.S. Coast Guard--American Waterways Operators
Bridge Allision Work Group'' published in May 2003, both are available
in the docket for additional details of this accident.
    Towing vessel incidents are also known to result in blockages of
rivers, port entrances, and other channels. This causes disruptions and
delays to not only the towing industry, but other users of the
waterways such as tankers, container ships, and recreational craft. The
delay in use of the waterways can range from minutes (in the case of a
grounding) to several days (in the case of an oil spill or an event
that caused major damage to a lock or dam).
    An example of an accident at a lock and dam involved the towboat
Elizabeth M in January 2005. The Elizabeth M lost control of its barges
shortly after exiting the Montgomery Locks and Dam on the Ohio River,
south of Pittsburgh. The towboat and barges were swept over the dam and
sunk in the waters below the dam, resulting in 4 fatalities. (See the
``Report of Investigation Sinking of the M/V ELIZAB[E]TH M (Official
Number  262962) and Six Barges with Four Fatalities on January
09, 2005 at the Montgomery Locks and Dam on the Ohio River at Mile
Marker 31.7'' in the docket for additional details of this accident).
According to Army Corps of Engineer records, the Montgomery Locks and
Dam were closed for 28 hours after this incident. Additionally,
restrictions on night travel as well as oil and chemical cargo
continued for weeks after the incident. The use of an assist vessel to
maneuver tows around the sunken barges and towboat at the foot of the
dam was also required for several weeks.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District,
``Recovery Operations Expected to Start at Montgomery Lock,''
January 19, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on data supplied by the Army Corps of Engineers, an average
of 70.7 lock closures occurred because of towing vessel accidents over
the past 6 years, causing an average of 209.6 hours of closures
annually for the same period, with an average duration of the delay 3.0
hours (Table 5). For the same period, an average of nine events
annually caused a lock closure of more than 6 hours (Table 6). Based on
information from the Army Corps of Engineers, 6 hours or less is
considered to be within the range of a normal operating delay. Over the
past 6 years, towing vessel accidents involving locks have caused an
average of 99.7 hours of delay beyond the 6-hour normal operating
delay. For an event that causes over 6 hours of delay, the average
duration of the delay over the 6-year

period is 11.3 hours, with some causing double or quadruple that
amount.

    Table 5--Number & Duration of Lock Delays Caused by Towing Vessel
                                Accidents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average
              Year                 Number of     Hours of     delay per
                                    events         delay        event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002...........................          76           149.7          2.0
2003...........................          64           182.9          2.9
2004...........................          95           212.7          2.2
2005...........................          59           375.6          6.4
2006...........................          46           118            2.6
2007...........................          84           218.5          2.6
                                ----------------------------------------
    6-Year Average.............          70.7         209.6          3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USACE data on lock delays caused by towing vessel accidents
  provided in December 2008.

    Table 6--Number & Duration of Lock Delays Caused by Towing Vessel
                                Accidents
                           [Exceeding 6 Hours]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Number of     Hours of
                                    events         delay       Average
              Year               (exceeding 6  (exceeding 6   delay per
                                    hours)        hours)        event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002...........................           6           39.2           6.5
2003...........................          11           71.59          6.5
2004...........................          10           70.71          7.1
2005...........................          11          274.46         25.0
2006...........................           5           41.49          8.3
2007...........................          10          100.47         10.0
                                ----------------------------------------
    6-Year Average.............           8.8         99.7          11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USACE data on lock delays caused by towing vessel accidents
  provided in December 2008.

    Other towing vessel accidents with large damages have occurred
outside of the period of our benefit analysis. We do not include these
accidents in the estimate of monetized benefits usually because the
investigation is still pending or the impact details of the accident
are still being developed. For example, in July 2008, a barge being
pushed by a tow released 420,000 gallons of number 6 fuel oil in the
Mississippi River near New Orleans, closing 100 miles of the
Mississippi River to traffic for several days. The full value of clean
up and response costs are still being tabulated for this event, but
some estimates of the impact on the New Orleans economy range as high
as $275 million per day. This event has been used by the Coast Guard in
testimony before Congress to support the need for greater towing vessel
safety.
Comparison of Costs to Benefits
    The high estimate for total industry and government costs is $18.4
million (annualized at a 7% discount rate). The estimate for monetized
benefits is $28.5 million (annualized at a 7% discount rate), based on
the mitigation of risks from towing vessel accidents in terms of lives
lost, injuries, oil spilled, and property damage. Subtracting the
monetized costs from the monetized benefits yields a net benefit of
$10.1 million. We also identified, but did not monetize, other benefits
from reducing the risk of accidents that have secondary consequences of
delays and congestions on waterways, highways, and railroads.
    Overall, the regulatory analysis indicates that the preferred
alternative provides owners and operators of towing vessels the ability
to customize compliance to their individual business models, move the
industry into inspected status, and improve safety.
Alternatives
    The Coast Guard considered other alternatives to the current
preferred alternative proposed in this NPRM. Alternative 1 would
require that all towing vessels obtain and implement a TSMS and the
Coast Guard would rely on third parties to audit and survey vessels to
demonstrate compliance. Beyond an initial inspection, the Coast Guard
would limit enforcement to review of evidence provided by third parties
and owners and operators. Alternative 2 would require a traditional
Coast Guard inspection, with no allowance for a TSMS or third party.
Alternative 3 would require towing vessels to operate with a TSMS and
undergo audits and surveys, but would not include part 140
requirements.
    Alternative 1 has quantified benefits that only exceed costs by a
small margin (0.1 million). Alternatives 2-3 have quantified costs that
exceed quantified benefits thus resulting in net costs. A summary of
the costs and benefits of the alternatives are presented in Table 7.

                                        Table 7--Summary of Alternatives
                                         [$ millions, 7% discount rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net
                Alternative                            Summary             Annualized    Annualized  benefits or
                                                                              cost        benefits   net costs *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred Alternative (proposed in this     Allow TSMS and third party           $18.4        $28.5        $10.1
 NPRM).                                      review or Coast Guard
                                             inspection to demonstrate
                                             compliance..
Alternative 1.............................  Require TSMS for all towing           32.4         32.5          0.1
                                             vessels..
Alternative 2.............................  Coast Guard inspection only.          31.1         30.0         -1.1
                                             No third party.
Alternative 3.............................  Require TSMS but no Part 140          31           28.3         -2.7
                                             requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Net benefits do not include unquantified congestion and delay benefits.

    The RA available in the docket includes an analysis of the costs of
this rulemaking by requirement and provides an assessment of potential
monetized, quantified and non-quantified benefits of this rulemaking.
The RA also contains details and analysis of other alternatives
considered for this rulemaking.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    A combined Regulatory Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis discussing the impact of this proposed rule on small entities
is available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble.
    Based on available data, we determine that more than 92 percent of
the businesses affected are small by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) size standards. We analyzed revenue impacts on the initial phase-
in and annual recurring costs of this proposed rule.
    For the preferred alternative proposed in this NPRM, we determined
that 25 percent of the small businesses would incur a significant
economic impact (more than 1 percent impact on revenue) during the
phase-in period in years 1 and 2. For the impact of annual recurring
costs, we determined that potentially 49 percent of small businesses
would incur a significant economic impact depending on the year.
    In the ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' section of this NPRM, we
summarized and compared the costs and benefits of other alternatives to
the current preferred alternative proposed in this NPRM. Table 8
compares the impacts on small entities of the alternatives to the
preferred alternative proposed in this NPRM for the phase-in period
costs (years 1 and 2) and maximum recurring costs.

                      Table 8--Economic Impact of Alternatives Considered on Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Percentage of small entities with
                                                                             more than 1 percent cost impact on
                                                                                revenue
               Alternative                             Summary             -------------------------------------
                                                                                Recurring costs
                                                                              Phase-in costs       (maximum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred Alternative (proposed in this   Allow TSMS and third party                      25%                49%
 NPRM).                                    review or Coast Guard
                                           inspection to demonstrate
                                           compliance.
Alternative 1...........................  Require TSMS for all towing                     72%                54%
                                           vessels.
Alternative 2...........................  Coast Guard inspection only. No                 71%                72%
                                           third party.
Alternative 3...........................  Require TSMS, but no Part 140                   72%                50%
                                           requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, we have determined that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We are
interested in the potential impacts from this proposed rule on small
businesses and we request public comment on these potential impacts. If
you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rulemaking would
have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to
the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, explain why, how, and to what degree you think this rule would
have an economic impact on you.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Michael
Harmon, Project Manager, CGHQ-1210, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-
1427. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined
in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``Collection of Information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.
    Title: Towing Vessels--Title 46 CFR Subchapter M.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: Owners and operators of
inspected towing vessels would be required to either develop and
maintain documentation for their safety management system and arrange
periodic audits and surveys through third-party organizations, or to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed Subchapter M to Coast Guard
inspectors. Additional documentation would be required to obtain a
Certificate of Inspection for each vessel, comply with crew and vessel
operational safety standards, vessel equipment and system standards,
procedures and schedules for routine tests and inspections of towing
vessels and their onboard equipment and systems. The new requirements
for third-party auditors and surveyors include obtaining Coast Guard
approval and renewing it periodically. The Coast Guard would be
burdened by reviewing required reports, conducting compliance
examinations of towing vessels and overseeing third-party auditors and
surveyors through approval and observation.
    Need for Information: The information is necessary for the proper
administration and enforcement of the proposed towing vessel inspection
program.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard would use this
information to document that towing vessels meet inspection
requirements of Subchapter M.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are the owners and
operators of towing vessels, third-party auditors and surveyors, and
the Coast Guard that would be required to complete various forms,
reports and keep reports.
    Number of Respondents: The number of respondents in the first year
and recurring annually is 1,059 for owners and operators of 5,208
towing vessels and 175 third-party organizations.
    Frequency of Response: Respondents would have to report and keep
records with varying frequencies. The frequency of each regulation
creating a new burden for corresponding respondents is detailed in the
Regulatory Analysis.
    Burden of Response: The burden of response for each regulation
varies. Details are shown in the Regulatory Analysis with related
assumptions and explanations both for the private sector respondents
and the Coast Guard.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The estimated total annual burden
for the initial phase-in (2) years (Years 1 and 2) and the first year
after that phase-in period (Year 1) is 278,260 hours. This rule would
create a new burden of 251,626 hours for the private sector and 26,634
hours for the Coast Guard for the first 3 years.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this proposed rule to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of
information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to
collect this information.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled,
now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101,
and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance,
operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels),
as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which
Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's
obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the
States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated
cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89,
120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) This proposed rule covers all of the
foreclosed categories, as it establishes regulations covering a new
category of inspected vessels. Because the States may not regulate
within these categories, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not
an issue.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any 1 year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order. Though it is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of
materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule uses the following voluntary consensus
standards:
American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC)
H-22--Electric Bilge Pump Systems, (2005)
H-24--Gasoline Fuel Systems, (2007)
H-25--Portable Fuel Systems for Flammable Liquids, (2003)
H-32--Ventilation of Boats Using Diesel Fuel, (2004)
H-33--Diesel Fuel Systems, (2005)
P-1--Installation of Exhaust Systems for Propulsion and Auxiliary
Engines, (2002)
H-2--Ventilation of Boats Using Gasoline, (2000)
P-4--Marine Inboard Engines and Transmissions, (2004)
E-11--AC & DC Electrical Systems on Boats, (2003)
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
    Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels for Service on
Rivers and Intracoastal Waterways, (2007).
    Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters
(295 Feet) in Length, (2006).
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
    ANSI/ASQC 9001-2000, (2000).
International Maritime Organization
    IMO Resolution A.760(18), Symbols Related to Life-Saving
Appliances and Arrangements, (1993).
    IMO Resolution A.520(13), Code of Practice for the Evaluation,
Testing and Acceptance of Prototype Novel Life-Saving Appliances and
Arrangements, (1993).
    IMO Resolution A.688(17) Fire Test Procedures For Ignitability
of Bedding Components, (1991).
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
    ISO Standard 14726: 2008 Ships and marine technology-
Identification colours for the content of piping systems, (2008).
    ISO Standard 9001-2000; Quality management systems--
Requirements, (2000).
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
NFPA 10 (Chapter 7), Standard on Portable Fire Extinguishers, (2007)
NFPA 1971--Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire-
Fighting and Proximity Fire-Fighting, (2007)
NFPA 750--Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, (2006)
NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, (2008)
NFPA 302-1998--Fire Protection Standard for Pleasure, and Commercial
Motor Craft, (1998)
NFPA 70-2002--National Electric Code (NEC), (2002)
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
SAE J1475-1996--Hydraulic Hose Fitting for Marine Applications,
(1996)
SAE J1942-2005--Hose and Hose Assemblies for Marine Applications,
(2005)
Underwriters Laboratories
UL 217--Single and Multiple Station Smoke Detectors, (2006)
UL 1275--Flammable Storage Cabinet, (2005)
UL 1104--Standards for Marine Navigation Lights, (1998)

    The proposed sections that reference these standards, and the
locations where these standards are available, are listed above in
Section V. ``Incorporation by Reference.''
    The Coast Guard also developed technical standards specifically for
proposed subchapter M. They are used because we did not find specific
voluntary consensus standards that could be adopted in this rule.
Certain technical standards were developed in cooperation with TSAC. As
an example, the TSMS was developed based on TSAC's recommendations for
a safety management system appropriate for towing vessels. Requirements
for third-party organizations also were developed specifically for this
subchapter to ensure that individuals conducting activities authorized
by this proposal have the appropriate experience with towing vessels.
If you are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply,
please identify them in a comment to the Docket Management Facility at
the address under ADDRESSES and explain why they should be used.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. This
proposed rule involves regulations concerning the training of maritime
personnel, regulations concerning documentation, inspection and
equipping of vessels and regulations concerning vessel operation safety
standards. This action falls under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1,
paragraphs (34) (c) and (d) of the Instruction and under section 6(a)
of the ``Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard
Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy''
(67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002). We seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 2

    Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 15

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels.

46 CFR Part 136

    Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Towing vessels.

46 CFR Part 137

    Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Towing vessels.

46 CFR Part 138

    Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Towing vessels.

46 CFR Part 139

    Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Towing vessels.

46 CFR Part 140

    Marine safety, Occupational health and safety, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Towing vessels.

46 CFR Part 141

    Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Occupational health and
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Towing vessels.

46 CFR Part 142

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

46 CFR Part 143

    Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference,
Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Towing
vessels.

46 CFR Part 144

    Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Towing vessels.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 2 and 15 and add 46 CFR subchapter M, consisting
of parts 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, and 144, as follows:

46 CFR Chapter I

PART 2--VESSEL INSPECTIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2110, 3103,
3205, 3306, 3307, 3703; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; E.O. 12234, 45 FR
58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart 2.45 also issued under the Act Dec.
27, 1950, Ch. 1155, secs. 1, 2, 64 Stat. 1120 (see 46 U.S.C. App.
Note prec. 1).

Sec.  2.10-25  [Amended].

    2. In Sec.  2.10-25, in the definition of ``Sea-going towing
vessel'', after the second occurrence of the word ``alongside'', add
the phrase ``, that has been issued a certificate of inspection under
the provisions of subchapter I of this chapter''.

PART 15--MANNING REQUIREMENTS

    3. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306, 3703, 8101, 8102, 8103,
8104, 8105, 8301, 8304, 8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903,
8904, 8905(b), 8906 and 9102; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  15.501  [Amended].

    4. In Sec.  15.501(b), remove the word ``Emergency'' and add, in
its place, the word ``emergency''.
    5. Revise Sec.  15.505 to read as follows:

Sec.  15.505  Changes in the certificate of inspection.

    All requests for changes in manning as indicated on the certificate
of inspection must be to:
    (a) The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) who last issued
the certificate of inspection; or
    (b) The OCMI conducting the inspection, if the request is made in
conjunction with an inspection for certification.

Sec.  15.510  [Amended].

    6. In Sec.  15.510, remove the word ``therefrom''.

Sec.  15.520  [Amended].

    7. In Sec.  15.520(b), remove the word ``OCMI'' and add, in its
place, the words ``Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI)''.

Sec.  15.610  [Amended].

    8. In Sec.  15.610(b)(2), remove the number ``12'' and add, in its
place, the word ``four''.
    9. Add Sec.  15.535 to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  15.535  Towing vessels.

    (a) The requirements in this section for towing vessels apply to a
towing vessel certificated under subchapter M of this chapter.
    (b) Except as provided in this paragraph, every towing vessel of at
least 8 meters (at least 26 feet) in length, measured from end to end
over the deck (excluding sheer), must be under the direction and
control of a person licensed as master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels or as master or mate of vessels of greater than 200 gross
register tons holding either an endorsement on his or her license for
towing vessels or a completed Towing Officer's Assessment Record (TOAR)
signed by a designated examiner indicating that the officer is
proficient in the operation of towing vessels. This does not apply to
any vessel engaged in assistance towing, or to any towing vessel of
less than 200 gross register tons engaged in exploiting offshore
minerals or oil if the vessel has sites or equipment so engaged as its
place of departure or ultimate destination.
    (c) Any towing vessel operating in the pilotage waters of the Lower
Mississippi River must be under the control of an officer who holds a
first-class pilot's license or endorsement for that route, or who meets
the requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section as
applicable:
    (1) To operate a towing vessel with tank barges, or a tow of barges
carrying hazardous materials regulated under part N or O of this
subchapter, an officer in charge of the towing vessel must have
completed at least 12 round trips over this route as an observer, with
at least 3 of those trips during hours of darkness, and at least 1
round trip of the 12 within the last 5 years.
    (2) To operate a towing vessel without barges, or a tow of
uninspected barges, an officer in charge of the towing vessel must have
completed at least four round trips over this route as an observer,
with at least one of those trips during hours of darkness, and at least
one round trip of the four within the last 5 years.
    10. Add 46 CFR subchapter M, consisting of parts 136 through 144,
to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER M--TOWING VESSELS

PART 136--CERTIFICATION

PART 137--VESSEL COMPLIANCE

PART 138--TOWING SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (TSMS)

PART 139--THIRD-PARTY ORGANIZATIONS

PART 140--OPERATIONS

PART 141--LIFESAVING

PART 142--FIRE PROTECTION

PART 143--MACHINERY AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

PART 144--CONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT

PART 136--CERTIFICATION

Subpart A--General

Sec.
136.100 Purpose.
136.105 Applicability.

136.110 Definitions.
136.112 Incorporation by reference.
136.115 Equivalents.
136.120 Special consideration.
136.130 Options for obtaining certification of a towing vessel
136.140 Application for a Certificate of Inspection (COI).
136.145 Inspection for certification.
136.150 Annual and periodic inspections.
136.165 Certificate of Inspection: conditions of validity.
136.170 Compliance for the Coast Guard option.
136.175 Approved equipment.
136.180 Appeals.
Subpart B--Certificate of Inspection
136.200 Certificate required.
136.203 Compliance for the TSMS option.
136.205 Description.
136.210 Obtaining or renewing a Certificate of Inspection (COI).
136.215 Period of validity.
136.220 Posting.
136.225 Temporary certificate.
136.230 Routes permitted.
136.235 Certificate of Inspection (COI) amendment.
136.240 Permit to proceed.
136.245 Permit to carry excursion party or temporary extension or
alternation of route.
136.250 Load lines.

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3103, 3301, 3306, 3308, 3316, 8104, 8904;
33 CFR 1.05; DHS Delegation 0170.1.

Subpart A--General

Sec.  136.100  Purpose.

    This part sets out the applicability for subchapter M and describes
the requirements for obtaining and renewing a Certificate of Inspection
(COI).

Sec.  136.105  Applicability.

    (a) This subchapter is applicable to all U.S.-flag towing vessels
as defined in Sec.  136.110 engaged in pushing, pulling, or hauling
alongside, except:
    (1) A vessel less than 26 feet (8 meters) in length measured from
end to end over the deck (excluding the sheer), unless pushing,
pulling, or hauling a barge that is carrying dangerous or hazardous
materials;
    (2) A vessel engaged in one or more of the following:
    (i) A vessel used for assistance towing;
    (ii) A vessel towing recreational vessels for salvage; or
    (iii) A vessel transporting or assisting the navigation of
recreational vessels within and between marinas and marina facilities,
within a limited geographic area, as defined by the local Captain of
the Port (COTP).
    (3) Work boats operating exclusively within a worksite and
performing intermittent towing within the worksite;
    (4) Seagoing towing vessels over 300 gross tons subject to the
provisions of Subchapter I of this chapter;
    (5) A vessel inspected under other subchapters of this chapter that
may perform occasional towing;
    (6) A public vessel that is owned or bareboat chartered and
operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision
thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when the vessel is engaged in
commercial service.
    (7) A vessel which has surrendered its Certificate of Inspection
(COI) and is laid up, dismantled, or otherwise out of service; and
    (8) A propulsion unit used for the purpose of propelling or
controlling the direction of a barge where the unit is controlled from
the barge, not normally manned, and not utilized as an independent
vessel.
    (b) A vessel that is otherwise exempt from inspection may request
application of this part.

Sec.  136.110  Definitions.

    ABS Rules means the standards developed and published by the
American Bureau of Shipping regarding the design, construction and
certification of commercial vessels.
    Accepted Safety Management System means a safety management system
deemed by the Coast Guard to be equivalent to the requirements of this
subchapter.
    Accommodation space means any:
    (1) Messroom;
    (2) Lounge;
    (3) Sitting area;
    (4) Recreation room;
    (5) Quarters;
    (6) Toilet space;
    (7) Shower room;
    (8) Galley;
    (9) Berthing space;
    (10) Clothing-changing room; and
    (11) A similar space open to individuals.
    Approved third party means a third party approved by the Coast
Guard in accordance with part 139 of this subchapter.
    Assistance towing means towing a disabled vessel for consideration.
    Audit means a systematic, independent, and documented examination
to determine whether activities and related results comply with planned
arrangements and whether these arrangements are implemented effectively
and are suitable to achieve stated objectives. This examination
includes a thorough review of appropriate reports, documents, records
and other objective evidence to verify compliance with applicable
requirements.
    (1) The audit may include, but is not limited to:
    (i) Examining records;
    (ii) Asking responsible persons how they accomplish specific tasks;
    (iii) Observing persons performing required tasks;
    (iv) Examining equipment to insure proper maintenance and
operation; and
    (v) Checking training records and work environments.
    (2) The audit may be limited to random selection of a
representative sampling throughout the system that presents the auditor
with sufficient objective evidence of system compliance.
    Berthing space means a space that is intended to be used for
sleeping and is provided with installed bunks and bedding.
    Bollard pull means the maximum static pulling force that a towing
vessel can exert on another vessel or an object when its propulsion
engines are applying thrust at maximum horsepower.
    Change in ownership means any change resulting in a change in the
day-to-day operational control of an approved third party organization
that conducts audits and surveys, or a change that results in a new
entity holding more than 50 percent of the ownership of the approved
third party organization.
    Class Rules means the standards developed and published by a
classification society regarding the design, construction and
certification of commercial vessels.
    Class II piping systems means those piping systems identified as
class II in Table 56.04-2 of Subchapter F of this Chapter.
    Coastwise means a route that is not more than 20 nautical miles
offshore on any of the following waters:
    (1) Any ocean;
    (2) The Gulf of Mexico;
    (3) The Caribbean Sea;
    (4) The Bering Sea;
    (5) The Gulf of Alaska; or
    (6) Such other similar waters as may be designated by a Coast Guard
District Commander.
    Cold water means water where the monthly mean low water temperature
is normally 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) or less.
    Conflict of Interest means a conflict between an individual's or an
organization's private interests and the interests of another party
with whom they are providing a service to or for, or in a capacity
which serves the public good.
    Consideration means an economic benefit, inducement, right, or
profit

including pecuniary payment accruing to an individual, person, or
entity, but not including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of
the voyage, by monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food,
beverage, or other supplies.
    Crewmember means all persons carried on board the vessel to provide
navigation and maintenance of the vessel, its machinery, systems, and
arrangements essential for propulsion and safe navigation, maintaining
the tow, or to provide services to other persons aboard and shall not
be construed as controlling the status of any person carried on board
for purposes of 46 U.S.C. 30104.
    Deficiency means a failure to meet minimum requirements of the
vessel inspection laws or regulations.
    Disabled vessel means a vessel that needs assistance, whether
docked, moored, anchored, aground, adrift, or under way, but does not
mean a barge or any other vessel not regularly operated under its own
power.
    Downstreaming means approaching a moored barge from upstream and
landing with tow knees square against the upstream end of the barge.
    Drydock means hauling out a vessel or placing a vessel in a drydock
or slipway for an examination of all accessible parts of the vessel's
underwater body and all through-hull fittings and appurtenances.
    Element means a component of the safety management system,
including policies, procedures, or documentation required to ensure a
functioning towing safety management system.
    Engine room means the enclosed area where any main-propulsion
engine is located. It comprises all deck levels within that area.
    Essential system means a system that is required to ensure a
vessel's survivability, maintain safe operation, control the vessel, or
ensure safety of on-board personnel, including systems for:
    (1) Detection or suppression of fire;
    (2) Emergency dewatering or ballast management;
    (3) Navigation;
    (4) Internal and external communication;
    (5) Vessel control, including propulsion, steering, maneuverability
and their essential auxiliaries (e.g., lube oil, fuel oil, cooling
water pumps, machinery space ventilation);
    (6) Emergency evacuation and abandonment;
    (7) Lifesaving;
    (8) Control of a tow; and
    (9) Any other marine engineering system identified in an approved
Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) identified by the cognizant
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) as essential to the
vessel's survivability, maintaining safe operation, controlling the
vessel, or ensuring safety of onboard personnel.
    Excepted vessel means a towing vessel that is:
    (1) Used solely for any one or combination of the following
services:
    (i) Within a limited geographic area, such as a fleeting area for
barges or a commercial facility, and used for restricted service, such
as making up or breaking up larger tows;
    (ii) For harbor-assist;
    (iii) For response to emergency or pollution; or
    (2) Exempted by the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
(OCMI).
    Existing towing vessel means a towing vessel, subject to inspection
under this subchapter, that is not a new towing vessel, as defined in
this section.
    External Audit means an audit conducted by a party with no direct
affiliation to the vessel or owner or managing operator being audited.
    Fixed fire-extinguishing system means:
    (1) A carbon dioxide system that satisfies 46 CFR subpart 76.15 and
is approved by the Coast Guard;
    (2) A manually operated, clean agent system that satisfies National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 2001 (incorporated by
reference in Sec.  136.112 of this subchapter) and is approved by the
Coast Guard; or
    (3) A manually operated, water mist system that satisfies NFPA
Standard 750 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  136.112 of this part)
and is approved by the Coast Guard.
    Fleeting area means a limited geographic area where individual
barges are moored or assembled to make a tow. The barges are not in
transport, but are temporarily marshaled and waiting for pickup by
different vessels that will transport them to various destinations.
    Fully attended means that a person who is appropriately trained to
monitor and operate engineering equipment is located in the engine room
at all times while the vessel is underway.
    Galley means a space containing appliances with cooking surfaces
that may exceed 121 degrees Celsius (250 degrees Fahrenheit) such as
ovens, griddles, and deep fat fryers.
    Great Lakes means a route on the waters of any of the Great Lakes
and of the St. Lawrence River as far east as a straight line drawn from
Cap de Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line
along the 63rd meridian from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the
St. Lawrence River.
    Gross Tons means the gross ton measurement of the vessel under 46
U.S.C. chapter 145, Regulatory Measurement. For a vessel measured under
only 46 U.S.C. chapter 143, Convention Measurement, the vessel's gross
tonnage measured under 46 U.S.C. chapter 143 is used to apply all
thresholds expressed in terms of gross tons.
    Harbor of Safe Refuge means a port, inlet, or other body of water
normally sheltered from heavy seas by land and in which a vessel can
navigate and safely moor. The suitability of a location as a harbor of
safe refuge will be determined by the cognizant Officer in Charge,
Marine Inspection, and varies for each vessel, dependent on the
vessel's size, maneuverability, and mooring gear.
    Harbor-assist means the use of a towing vessel during maneuvers to
dock, undock, moor, or unmoor a vessel or to escort a vessel with
limited maneuverability.
    Horsepower means the horsepower stated on the Certificate of
Inspection (COI), which is the sum of the manufacturer's listed brake
horsepower for all installed propulsion engines.
    Independent means the equipment is arranged to perform its required
function regardless of the state of operation, or failure, of other
equipment.
    Inland Waters means the navigable waters of the United States
shoreward of the Boundary Lines as described in 46 CFR part 7,
excluding the Great Lakes and, for towing vessels, excluding the
Western Rivers.
    Internal Audit means an audit that is conducted by a party which
has a direct affiliation to the vessel or owner or managing operator
being audited.
    International Voyage means a voyage between a country to which
SOLAS applies and a port outside that country. A country, as used in
this definition, includes every territory for the international
relations of which a contracting government to the convention is
responsible or for which the United Nations is the administering
authority. For the U.S., the term ``territory'' includes the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, all possessions of the U.S., and all lands
held by the U.S. under a protectorate or mandate. For the purposes of
this subchapter, vessels are not considered as being on an
``international voyage'' when solely navigating the Great Lakes and the
St. Lawrence River as far east as a straight line drawn from Cap des
Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island and, on the north side of
Anticosti Island, the 63rd meridian.

    Lakes, bays, and sounds means a route on any of the following
waters:
    (1) A lake other than the Great Lakes;
    (2) A bay;
    (3) A sound; or
    (4) Such other similar waters as may be designated by the cognizant
Coast Guard District Commander.
    Length means the horizontal distance measured from end to end over
the deck, excluding the sheer. Fittings and attachments are not
included in the length measurement.
    Limited coastwise means a route that is not more than 20 nautical
miles from a harbor of safe refuge.
    Limited geographic area means a local area of operation, usually
within a single harbor or port. The local Captain of the Port (COTP)
determines limited geographic areas for each zone.
    Machinery space means any enclosed space that either contains an
installed, internal combustion engine, machinery, or systems that would
raise the ambient temperature above 45 degrees Celsius in all
environments the vessel operates in.
    Major conversion means a conversion of a vessel that, as determined
by the Coast Guard, substantially changes the dimensions or carrying
capacity of the vessel, changes the type of vessel, substantially
prolongs the life of the vessel, or otherwise changes the vessel such
that it is essentially a new vessel.
    Major non-conformity means an identifiable deviation which poses a
serious threat to personnel, vessel safety, or a serious risk to the
environment, and requires immediate corrective action, including the
lack of effective and systematic implementation of a requirement of the
Towing Safety Management System (TSMS).
    Managing operator means an organization or person, such as the
manager or the bareboat charterer of a vessel, who has assumed the
responsibility for operation of the vessel from the ship owner and who,
on assuming responsibility, has agreed to take over all the duties and
responsibilities imposed by this subchapter.
    New towing vessel means a towing vessel, subject to inspection
under this subchapter, that:
    (1) Was contracted for, or the keel which was laid on or after,
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE];
    (2) Underwent a major conversion that was initiated on or after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or
    (3) Is built without a contract, the keel laying date will be used
to determine applicability.
    Non-conformity means a situation where objective evidence indicates
a non-fulfillment of a specified requirement.
    Objective evidence means quantitative or qualitative information,
records, or statements of fact pertaining to safety or to the existence
and implementation of a safety management system element, which is
based on observation, measurement, or testing that can be verified.
This may include, but is not limited to towing gear equipment
certificates and maintenance documents, training records, repair
records, Coast Guard documents and certificates, surveys, or class
society reports.
    Oceans means a route that is more than 20 nautical miles offshore
on any of the following waters:
    (1) Any ocean;
    (2) The Gulf of Mexico;
    (3) The Caribbean Sea;
    (4) The Bering Sea;
    (5) The Gulf of Alaska; or
    (6) Such other similar waters as may be designated by the cognizant
Coast Guard District Commander.
    Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) means an officer of the
Coast Guard designated as such by the Coast Guard and who, under the
direction of the Coast Guard District Commander, is in charge of a
marine inspection zone, described in part 3 of this chapter, for the
performance of duties with respect to the inspection, enforcement, and
administration of vessel safety and navigation laws and regulations.
The ``cognizant OCMI'' is the OCMI who has immediate jurisdiction over
a vessel for the purpose of performing the duties previously described.
    Oil or hazardous materials in bulk, as used in this subchapter,
means that the towing vessel tows, pushes, or hauls alongside tank
barge(s) certificated under subchapters D or O of this chapter.
    Operating station means the principal steering station on the
vessel, or the barge being towed or pushed, from which the vessel is
normally navigated.
    Owner means the owner of a vessel, as identified on the vessel's
certificate of documentation or state registration.
    Policy means a specific statement of principles or guiding
philosophy that demonstrates a clear commitment by management; a
statement of values or intent that provides a basis for consistent
decision making.
    Power and lighting circuit means a branch circuit as defined in
NFPA 70-2002-National Electric Code (NEC) (incorporated by reference in
Sec.  136.112 of this subchapter) Article 100 that serves any essential
system, a distribution panel, lighting, motor or motor group, or group
of receptacles. Where multiple loads are served, the circuit is
considered to be the conductor run that will carry the current common
to all the loads. ``Power limited circuit'' conductors under Article
725 of the NEC and ``instrumentation'' conductors under Article 727 of
the NEC are not considered to be power and lighting circuits.
    Pressure vessel means a closed tank, cylinder or vessel containing
gas, vapor or liquid, or a combination thereof, under pressure.
    Procedure means a specification of a series of actions, acts, or
operations which must be executed in the same manner in order to
achieve a uniform approach to compliance with applicable policies.
    Propulsor means a device (e.g., propeller, water jet) which imparts
force to a column of water in order to propel a vessel, together with
any equipment necessary to transmit the power from the propulsion
machinery to the device (e.g., shafting, gearing, etc.).
    Recognized Classification Society means the American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS) or other classification society recognized by Coast
Guard in accordance with Part 8 of this chapter.
    Recognized hazardous conditions means conditions that are:
    (1) Generally known among persons in the towing industry as
causing, or likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to persons
exposed to those conditions; and
    (2) Routinely controlled in the towing industry.
    Rivers means a route on any river, canal, or other similar body of
water designated by the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
    Safety Management System means a structured and documented system
enabling owner or managing operator and vessel personnel to effectively
implement the owner or managing operator's safety and environmental
protection policies and that is routinely exercised and audited in a
way that ensures the policies and procedures are incorporated into the
daily operation of the vessel.
    Skiff means a small auxiliary boat carried onboard a towing vessel.
    SOLAS means the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea,
1974, as amended.
    Survey means an examination of the vessel, its systems and
equipment to verify compliance with applicable regulations, statutes,
conventions, and treaties.
    Terminal gear means the additional equipment or appurtenances at
either end of the hawser or tow cable that connect the towing vessel
and tow together and may include such items as

thimbles, chafing gear, shackles, pendants and bridles.
    Third-party organization means an organization approved by the
Coast Guard to conduct independent verification that Towing Safety
Management Systems or towing vessels comply with applicable
requirements contained in this subchapter.
    Tow means a combination of a towing vessel and one or more barges
or a vessel not under its own power.
    Towing vessel means a commercial vessel engaged in or intending to
engage in the service of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side, or
any combination of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side.
    Towing Vessel Record (TVR) means a book, notebook, or electronic
record used to document events required by this subchapter.
    Travel time means the time that it takes for a crewmember to
proceed to the towing vessel, inclusive of periods spent on commercial
and non commercial carriers, transferring between carriers, layovers,
and other delays.
    Unsafe practice means a habitual or customary action or way of
doing something which creates significant risk of harm to life,
property, or the marine environment; or which contravenes a recognized
standard of care contained in law, regulation, applicable international
convention or international, national or industry consensus standard.
    Warm water means water where the monthly mean low water temperature
is normally more than 15 degrees Celsius (59 Fahrenheit).
    Western Rivers means the Mississippi River, its tributaries, South
Pass, and Southwest Pass, to the navigational demarcation lines
dividing the high seas from harbors, rivers, and other inland waters of
the United States, and the Port Allen-Morgan City Alternate Route, and
that part of the Atchafalaya River above its junction with the Port
Allen-Morgan City Alternate Route including the Old River and the Red
River, and those waters specified in 33 CFR 89.25.
    Workboat means a vessel that pushes, pulls, or hauls alongside
equipment including dredging, construction, maintenance, or repair
equipment within a worksite.
    Worksite means an area specified by the cognizant Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) within which workboats are operated
over short distances for dredging, construction, maintenance, or repair
work and may include shipyards, owner's yards, or lay-down areas used
by marine construction projects.
    Work space means any area on the vessel where the crew may be
present while on duty and performing their assigned tasks.

Sec.  136.112  Incorporation by reference.

    Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of
change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to
the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal
regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available for inspection
at U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-
521), 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, and is
available from the sources listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this
part and the sections affected are:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park,
                          Quincy, MA 02269-9101
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFPA 750--Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection                 136.110
 Systems, 2006..........................................
NFPA 2001--Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing            136.110
 Systems, 2008..........................................
NFPA 70-2002-National Electric Code (NEC), 2002.........         136.110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Maritime Organization (IMO), 4, Albert Embankment, London,
                         SE1 7SR, United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution A. 520(13), Code of Practice for the                  136.115
 Evaluation, Testing and Acceptance of Prototype Novel
 Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements, 1983..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  136.115  Equivalents.

    (a) The Coast Guard may approve any arrangement, fitting,
appliance, apparatus, equipment, calculation, information, or test,
which provides a level of safety equivalent to that established by
specific provisions of this subchapter. Requests for approval must be
submitted to the Coast Guard via the cognizant Officer in Charge,
Marine Inspection (OCMI). If necessary, the Marine Safety Center may
require engineering evaluations and tests to demonstrate the
equivalence of the substitute.
    (b) The Coast Guard may accept compliance with the provisions of
the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974,
as amended, applicable to the vessel's size and route as an equivalent
to compliance with applicable requirements of this subchapter. Requests
for a determination of equivalency for a particular vessel must be
submitted to the Marine Safety Center via the cognizant OCMI.
    (c) The Coast Guard may approve a novel lifesaving appliance or
arrangement as an equivalent if it has performance characteristics at
least equivalent to the appliance or arrangement required under this
subchapter and has been evaluated and tested under International
Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution A.520(13) (incorporated by
reference by Sec.  136.112 of this part), Code of Practice for the
Evaluation, Testing and Acceptance of Prototype Novel Life-Saving
Appliances and Arrangements.
    (d) The Coast Guard may accept alternative compliance arrangements
in lieu of specific provisions of the Towing Safety Management System
(TSMS) for the purpose of determining that an equivalent safety
management system is in place onboard a vessel. The Coast Guard may
consider the size and corporate structure of a vessel's management when
determining the acceptability of an equivalent system. Requests for
determination of equivalency must be submitted to Coast Guard via the
cognizant OCMI.
    (e) Alternate compliance arrangements must be documented within the
TSMS applicable to the vessel.

Sec.  136.120  Special consideration.

    Based on review of relevant information and the Towing Safety
Management System applicable to the vessel, the cognizant Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) who issues the Certificate of
Inspection may give

special consideration to authorizing departures from the specific
requirements, when unusual circumstances or arrangements warrant such
departures and an equivalent level of safety is provided.

Sec.  136.130  Options for obtaining certification of a towing vessel.

    (a) TSMS or annual Coast Guard inspections. This subchapter
provides two options for obtaining a Certificate of Inspection for a
towing vessel. The first option is annual inspection of the towing
vessel by the Coast Guard, as discussed in Sec. Sec.  136.150 through
136.165, part 137, and parts 140 through 144. The second option is to
comply with the requirements for use of a towing safety management
system (TSMS) and for use of approved third parties, as discussed in
Sec.  136.210 and parts 137 through 144 of this subchapter. Regardless
of the option chosen, the Coast Guard is responsible for issuing a
towing vessel Certificate of Inspection and may board a vessel at any
time to verify compliance and take appropriate action. An owner or
operator choosing the annual inspection option under Sec. Sec.  136.150
through 136.170 may use a management system, vessel operations manual,
or logbook to meet this subchapter's recordkeeping requirements.
    (b) Specifying option. When submitting an application for a
Certificate of Inspection, the owner or operator must specify which
option he or she chooses for each particular towing vessel. Owners or
operators may choose separate options for separate vessels within their
fleet.
    (c) Changing option. Requests to change options during the period
of validity of an existing Certificate of Inspection must be
accompanied by a new application to the OCMI for a new Certificate of
Inspection. If the requirements for the new option are met, the OCMI
will issue the vessel a new Certificate of Inspection.
    (d) Drydock examinations. The option chosen for obtaining a
vessel's Certificate of Inspection does not impact the frequency of
required drydock examinations. Underwater inspections in lieu of a
drydock (UWILD) can be used to obtain a Certificate of Inspection
regardless of which option is chosen.

Sec.  136.140  Application for a Certificate of Inspection (COI).

    Owners and operators must submit a written application for an
inspection for certification to the cognizant OCMI. To renew a
Certificate of Inspection (COI), owners and operators must submit an
application at least 30 days before the expiration of the towing
vessel's current certificate. Form CG-3752, Application for Inspection
of U.S. Vessel, must be submitted to the OCMI at or nearest to the port
where the vessel is located. When renewing a COI, the owner or operator
must schedule an inspection for certification within the 3 months
before the expiration date of the current COI.

Sec.  136.145  Inspection for certification.

    (a) Frequency of inspections. After receiving an application for
inspection, the OCMI will inspect a towing vessel located in his or her
jurisdiction at least once every 5 years. The OCMI must ensure that
every towing vessel is of a structure suitable for its intended route.
If the OCMI deems it necessary, he or she may direct the vessel to be
put in motion and may adopt any other suitable means to test the towing
vessel and its equipment.
    (b) Nature of inspections. The inspection for certification will
include an inspection of the structure, pressure vessels, machinery and
equipment. The inspection will ensure that the vessel is in
satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which it is
intended, and that it complies with the applicable regulations for such
vessels. It will include inspections of the structure, pressure vessels
and their appurtenances, piping, main and auxiliary machinery,
electrical installations, lifesaving appliances, fire detecting and
extinguishing equipment, pilot boarding equipment, and other equipment.
The inspection will also determine that the vessel is in possession of
a valid certificate issued by the Federal Communications Commission, if
required. The inspector will also examine the vessel's lights, means of
making sound signals, and distress signals, to ensure that they comply
with the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. The
inspector will also examine the vessel's pollution prevention systems
and procedures.
    (c) Time of issuance of Certificate of Inspection. The OCMI will
issue a vessel a new Certificate of Inspection upon completing the
inspection for certification.

Sec.  136.150  Annual and periodic inspections.

    (a) Annual inspection. A towing vessel subject to subchapter M and
choosing the Coast Guard option, or required to have the Coast Guard
option, must undergo an annual inspection within 3 months before or
after each anniversary date, except as specified in paragraph (b) of
this section.
    (1) Owners and operators must contact the cognizant OCMI to
schedule an inspection at a time and place which he or she approves. No
written application is required.
    (2) Annual inspections will be similar to the inspection for
certification but will cover less detail unless the cognizant marine
inspector finds deficiencies or determines that a major change has
occurred since the last inspection. If the cognizant marine inspector
finds deficiencies or that a major change to the vessel has occurred,
he or she will conduct a more detailed inspection to ensure that the
vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which
it is intended. If the vessel passes the annual inspection, the marine
inspector will endorse the vessel's current Certificate of Inspection.
    (3) If the annual inspection reveals deficiencies in a vessel's
maintenance, the owner or operator must make any or all repairs or
improvements within the time period specified by the OCMI.
    (4) Nothing in this subpart limits the marine inspector from
conducting such tests or inspections he or she deems necessary to be
assured of the vessel's seaworthiness.
    (b) Periodic inspection. If an owner or operator chooses the Coast
Guard inspection option, his or her vessel must undergo a periodic
inspection within 3 months before or after the second or third
anniversary of the date of the vessel's Certificate of Inspection. This
periodic inspection will take the place of an annual inspection.
    (1) Owners and operators must contact the cognizant OCMI to
schedule an inspection at a time and place the OCMI approves. No
written application is required.
    (2) The scope of the periodic inspection is the same as that for
the inspection for certification, as specified in Sec.  136.145. The
OCMI will ensure that the vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit
for the service for which it is intended. If the vessel passes the
periodic inspection, the marine inspector will endorse the vessel's
current Certificate of Inspection.
    (3) If the periodic inspection reveals deficiencies in a vessel's
maintenance, the owner or operator must make any or all repairs or
improvements within the time period specified by the OCMI.
    (4) Nothing in this subpart limits the marine inspector from
conducting such tests or inspections he or she deems necessary to be
assured of the vessel's seaworthiness.

Sec.  136.165  Certificate of Inspection: conditions of validity.

    To maintain a valid Certificate of Inspection, an owner or operator
who chooses the Coast Guard option must complete the annual and
periodic inspections within the periods specified in Sec.  136.150(a)
and (b), and the cognizant OCMI must endorse the vessel's Certificate
of Inspection.

Sec.  136.170  Compliance for the Coast Guard option.

    All owners or managing operators of more than one towing vessel
required to have a Certificate of Inspection (COI) by this subchapter
and choosing the Coast Guard inspection option, must ensure that each
vessel under their ownership or control is issued a valid Certificate
of Inspection (COI) according to the following schedule:
    (a) Within 3 years of the effective date of this subchapter, 25
percent of the towing vessels must have onboard valid COIs;
    (b) Within 4 years of the effective date of this subchapter, 50
percent of the towing vessels must have onboard valid COIs;
    (c) Within 5 years of the effective date of this subchapter, 75
percent of the towing vessels must have onboard valid COIs; and
    (d) Within 6 years of the effective date of this subchapter, 100
percent of the towing vessels must have onboard valid COIs.

Sec.  136.175  Approved equipment.

    Where equipment in this subchapter is required to be of an approved
type, such equipment requires the specific approval of the Coast Guard.
A listing of approved equipment and materials may be found online at
http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equip/default.aspx. Each Officer in Charge,
Marine Inspection (OCMI) may be contacted for information concerning
approved equipment and materials.

Sec.  136.180  Appeals.

    Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under
this subchapter, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal in
accordance with Sec.  1.03 in subchapter A of this chapter.

Subpart B--Certificate of Inspection

Sec.  136.200  Certificate required.

    (a) A towing vessel may not be operated without having onboard a
valid Certificate of Inspection (COI) issued by the U.S. Coast Guard.
    (b) Each towing vessel certificated under the provisions of this
subchapter must be in full compliance with the terms of the COI.
    (c) If necessary to prevent delay of the vessel, a temporary COI
may be issued to a towing vessel pending the issuance and delivery of
the regular COI. The temporary COI must be carried in the same manner
as the regular COI and is equivalent to the regular COI that it
represents.
    (d) A towing vessel on a foreign voyage between a port in the
United States and a port in a foreign country, whose COI expires during
the voyage, may lawfully complete the voyage without a valid COI
provided the voyage is completed within 30 days of expiration and the
certificate did not expire within 15 days of sailing on the foreign
voyage from a U.S. port.

Sec.  136.203  Compliance for the TSMS option.

    All owners or managing operators of more than one towing vessel
required to have a Certificate of Inspection (COI) by this subchapter
must ensure that each vessel under their ownership/control is issued a
valid Certificate of Inspection (COI) according to the following
schedule:
    (a) Within 1 year of issuance of the Towing Safety Management
System (TSMS) Certificate under Sec.  138.305 of this subchapter, 25
percent of the towing vessels under their ownership/control must have
onboard valid COIs;
    (b) Within 2 years of issuance of the TSMS Certificate under Sec.
138.305 of this subchapter, 50 percent of the towing vessels under
their ownership/control must have onboard valid COIs;
    (c) Within 3 years of issuance of the TSMS Certificate under Sec.
138.305 of this subchapter, 75 percent of the towing vessels under
their ownership/control must have onboard valid COIs; and
    (d) Within 4 years of issuance of the TSMS Certificate under Sec.
138.305 of this subchapter, 100 percent of the towing vessels under
their ownership/control must have onboard valid COIs.

Sec.  136.205  Description.

    A towing vessel's Certificate of Inspection describes the vessel,
route(s) that it may travel, minimum manning requirements, minimum
safety equipment carried, horsepower, and other information pertinent
to the vessel's operations as determined by the Officer in Charge,
Marine Inspection.

Sec.  136.210  Obtaining or renewing a Certificate of Inspection (COI).

    (a) A Certificate of Inspection (COI) is obtained or renewed
through the U.S. Coast Guard by making application to the cognizant
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) of the marine inspection
zone in which the towing vessel is principally operated, or in which
the owner or managing operator maintains management offices.
    (b) The following documentation must be submitted:
    (1) A completed Form CG 3752, ``Application for Inspection of U.S.
Vessel'';
    (2) Objective evidence that the owner or managing operator and
vessel are in compliance with the Towing Safety Management System
(TSMS) requirements of part 138 of this subchapter if a TSMS is
applicable to the vessel;
    (3) For initial certification--
    (i) Objective evidence that the vessel's structure and stability,
and essential systems comply with the applicable requirements contained
in this subchapter for the intended route and service. This objective
evidence may be in the form of a report issued by an approved third
party or other means acceptable to the Coast Guard; and
    (ii) Vessel particular information.
    (4) For vessels utilizing the TSMS option, objective evidence that
the vessel is equipped, maintained, and surveyed in compliance with
Sec. Sec.  137.200 and 137.300 of this subchapter; and
    (5) A description of any modifications to the vessel.
    (c) A towing vessel currently classed by a recognized
classification society will be deemed to be in compliance with the
design, construction, stability, equipment, and survey requirements of
this subchapter.
    (d) A towing vessel with a valid load line certificate issued in
accordance with Subchapter E of this chapter may be deemed in
compliance with the structural, drydocking, and stability requirements
of this subchapter. The frequency of drydockings must meet the
standards set forth in Sec.  137.310 of this subchapter.
    (e) A towing vessel with a valid International Safety Management
Code certificate issued by a recognized classification society will be
deemed in compliance with the TSMS requirements of this subchapter.

Sec.  136.215  Period of validity.

    (a) A Certificate of Inspection (COI) for a towing vessel is valid
for 5 years from the date of issue.
    (b) A COI is invalid upon the expiration or revocation of the owner
or managing operator Towing Safety Management System Certificate or
International Safety Management Code Certificate.
    (c) A COI may be suspended and withdrawn or revoked by the
cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection at any time for
noncompliance with the requirements of this subchapter.

Sec.  136.220  Posting.

    (a) The original Certificate of Inspection (COI) must be framed
under glass or other transparent material and posted in a conspicuous
place onboard the towing vessel.
    (b) If posting is impractical, such as in an open boat, the COI
must be kept onboard in a weathertight container and readily available.

Sec.  136.225  Temporary certificate.

    If necessary to prevent delay of the towing vessel, a temporary
Certificate of Inspection (COI), Form CG-854, may be issued by the
cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), pending the
issuance and delivery of the regular COI. Such temporary COI must be
carried in the same manner as the regular COI.

Sec.  136.230  Routes permitted.

    (a) The area of operation for each towing vessel and any necessary
operational limits are determined by the cognizant Officer in Charge,
Marine Inspection (OCMI) and recorded on the vessel's Certificate of
Inspection (COI). Each area of operation, referred to as a route, is
described on the COI under the major headings ``Oceans,''
``Coastwise,'' ``Limited Coastwise,'' ``Great Lakes,'' ``Lakes, Bays,
and Sounds,'' or ``Rivers,'' as applicable. Further limitations imposed
or extensions granted are described by reference to bodies of waters,
geographical points, distances from geographical points, distances from
land, depths of channel, seasonal limitations, and similar factors.
    (b) Operation of a towing vessel on a route of lesser severity than
those specifically described or designated on the COI is permitted
unless expressly prohibited on the COI. The general order of severity
of routes is: Oceans; coastwise; limited coastwise; Great Lakes; lakes,
bays, and sounds; and rivers. The cognizant OCMI may prohibit a vessel
from operating on a route of lesser severity than the primary route on
which a vessel is authorized to operate, if local conditions
necessitate such a restriction.
    (c) When designating a permitted route or imposing any operational
limits on a towing vessel, the cognizant OCMI may consider:
    (1) The route-specific requirements of this subchapter;
    (2) The performance capabilities of the vessel based on design,
scantlings, stability, subdivision, propulsion, speed, operating modes,
maneuverability, and other characteristics;
    (3) The suitability of the vessel for nighttime operations and use
in all weather conditions;
    (4) Vessel operations in globally remote areas or severe
environments not covered by this subchapter. Such areas may include,
but are not limited to, polar regions, remote islands, areas of extreme
weather, and other remote areas where timely emergency assistance
cannot be anticipated; and
    (5) The Towing Safety Management System applicable to the vessel,
if the vessel has a TSMS.

Sec.  136.235  Certificate of Inspection (COI) amendment.

    (a) An amended Certificate of Inspection (COI) may be issued at any
time by the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI). The
amended COI replaces the original, but the expiration date remains the
same as that of the original. An amended COI may be issued to authorize
and record a change in the dimensions, gross tonnage, owner, managing
operator, manning, persons permitted, route permitted, conditions of
operations, or equipment of a towing vessel, from that specified in the
current COI.
    (b) A request for an amended COI must be made to the cognizant OCMI
by the owner or managing operator of the towing vessel at any time
there is a change in the character of the vessel or in its route,
equipment, ownership, operation, or similar factors specified in its
current COI.
    (c) Prior to the issuance of an amended COI, the cognizant OCMI may
require that the owner or managing operator of the towing vessel
provide an audit report. The report must:
    (1) Be from an approved third-party organization and prepared in
accordance with parts 138 and 139 of this subchapter; and
    (2) Consider the change in the character of a vessel or in its
route, equipment, ownership, operation, or similar factors specified in
its current COI.

Sec.  136.240  Permit to proceed.

    Permission to proceed to another port for repairs may be required
for a towing vessel that is no longer in compliance with its
Certificate of Inspection (COI). This may include damage to the vessel,
failure of an essential system, or failure to comply with a regulation,
including failure to comply with the Towing Safety Management System
(TSMS) requirements, if appropriate.
    (a) The vessel may proceed to another port for repair, if:
    (1) In the judgment of the owner, managing operator, or master, the
trip can be completed safely;
    (2) If utilizing a TSMS, the TSMS addresses the condition of the
vessel that has resulted in non-compliance and the necessary conditions
under which the vessel may safely proceed to another port for repair;
    (3) If utilizing a TSMS, the vessel proceeds as provided in the
TSMS and does not tow while proceeding unless the owner or managing
operator determines that it is safe to do so; and
    (4) The owner or managing operator must notify the cognizant
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) in whose zone the non-
compliance occurs or is discovered before the vessel proceeds and any
other OCMI zones through which the vessel will transit.
    (b) If utilizing a TSMS and this TSMS does not address the
condition of the vessel that has resulted in non-compliance and the
necessary conditions under which the vessel may safely proceed to
another port for repair, the owner, managing operator, or master must
apply to the cognizant OCMI in whose zone the non-compliance occurs or
is discovered for permission to proceed to another port for repairs as
follows:
    (1) The application may be made electronically, in writing, or
verbally. The cognizant OCMI may require a written description, damage
surveys, or other documentation to assist in determining the nature and
seriousness of the non-compliance;
    (2) The vessel will not engage in towing, unless the cognizant OCMI
determines it is safe to do so; and
    (3) The permit may be issued by the Coast Guard on Form CG-948,
``Permit to Proceed to Another Port for Repairs,'' or in letter form
and will state the conditions under which the vessel may proceed to
another port for repair.
    (c) The cognizant OCMI may require inspection of the vessel by a
Coast Guard Marine Inspector or examination by an approved third-party
surveyor prior to the vessel proceeding.

Sec.  136.245  Permit to carry excursion party or temporary extension
or alternation of route.

    (a) A towing vessel must obtain approval to engage in an excursion
prior to carrying a greater number of persons than permitted by the
Certificate of Inspection (COI) or a temporary extension or alteration
of area of operation.
    (b) The vessel may engage in an excursion, if:
    (1) In the opinion of the owner, managing operator, or master the
operation can be undertaken safely;
    (2) If utilizing a TSMS, the TSMS addresses the temporary excursion