[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71754-71764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34415]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 155
46 CFR Part 32
[USCG 1998-4443]
RIN 2115-AF65
Emergency Control Measures for Tank Barges
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule implements measures for maintaining or
regaining control of a tank barge that will reduce the likelihood of a
tank barge's grounding and spilling its cargo. These measures are
necessary because without them a tug that loses its tow lacks ready
means for regaining control of it.
DATES: This interim rule is effective March 30, 1999 except for 33 CFR
155.230(b)(1) and 46 CFR 32.15-15(e), which are effective on December
11, 2000. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed
in the rule is
[[Page 71755]]
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 30, 1999.
Comments must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before March
30, 1999.
ADDRESSES: You may mail your comments to the Docket Management Facility
(USCG-1998-4443), U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590-0001, or deliver them to room
PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the same address
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and documents, as indicated in this preamble, will
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the
same address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. You may also access this docket on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this interim rule,
call Mr. Robert Spears, Project Manager, Office of Standards Evaluation
and Development, telephone 202-267-1099; or Mr. Allen Penn, Technical
Advisor, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, telephone 202-267-
2997. For questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Ms. Dorothy Walker, Chief, Documents, Department of
Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,
identify this rulemaking (USCG-1998-4443) and the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for
each comment. Please submit all comments and attachments in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing to the Docket Management Facility at the address
under ADDRESSES. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comments
should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. We may change this interim rule in view of the
comments.
The Coast Guard plans to hold public meetings for this interim
rule. We will hold these meetings for the purpose of receiving oral
opinions and presentations on the interim rule. We will announce the
dates, times, and places of the public meetings in a later notice in
the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
On January 19, 1996, the tugboat SCANDIA, towing the oil barge
NORTH CAPE, caught fire five miles off the coast of Rhode Island. The
crew could not control the fire, and without power they were unable to
prevent the barge, carrying 4 million gallons of oil, from grounding
and spilling about a quarter of its contents into the coastal waters.
The NORTH CAPE spill led Congress to add a new law, 46 U.S.C. 3719, in
section 901 of the 1996 Coast Guard Authorization Act (Pub. L. 104-
324), directing the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe
regulations necessary to reduce oil spills from single-hull non-self-
propelled tank vessels. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
safety of towing vessels and tank barges was published on October 6,
1997 (62 FR 52057).
Statutory Mandate
46 U.S.C. 3719 directs us to issue regulations requiring a single-
hull, non-self-propelled tank vessel (or the vessel towing it),
operating in the open ocean or coastal waters, to have at least one of
the three safety measures listed in the law. Under reasonably
foreseeable sea conditions, without additional assistance, either the
barge or the vessel towing it must have--
(1) A crewmember and an operable anchor on board the tank barge
that together can stop the barge from drifting;
(2) An emergency system that will allow the tank barge to be
retrieved by the towing vessel if the towline ruptures; or
(3) Another measure or combination of measures that the Coast Guard
determines will provide equivalent protection against grounding of the
tank vessel comparable to that provided by the measure(s) described in
paragraph (1) or (2).
Another law to reduce oil spills from single-hull tank barges, 46
U.S.C. 4102, requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations on fire
suppression systems and other measures for towing vessels. A rulemaking
to be published early next year will implement some of the fire
protection requirements proposed in the NPRM and another will propose
other additional measures in response to comments we received. Both
laws mandating new rules require the Coast Guard to consult with the
Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) in developing the new
regulations. As noted in the NPRM, the recommendations of the TSAC were
considered by the Coast Guard and incorporated as we deemed
appropriate.
Regulatory Approach
In response to these statutory mandates, the Coast Guard proposed
rules for fire protection and fire-fighting on towing vessels operating
anywhere in U.S. waters, and rules for arresting and retrieving tank
barges. The rules for barge control would apply to any tank barges
being towed on the Great Lakes, the territorial seas of the United
States, or the high seas [62 FR 52057 (6 October 1997)]. The NPRM
explained why it did not include inland waters. Because the waters of
Long Island Sound are inside the baseline of the territorial sea, which
generally follows the coastline of the United States, they were
inadvertently excluded from that part of the proposed rules applicable
on offshore waters only. A correction notice, published in the Federal
Register on June 11, 1998 (63 FR 31958), clarified that the proposed
rules would apply to tank barges and vessels towing them on Long Island
Sound.
The extended period for public comment on the NPRM closed on May
11, 1998. After analyzing written comments, statements from two public
meetings, and additional casualty and economic data, we made two key
decisions. First, to expedite action with respect to emergency control
measures for tank barges, the proposals of the NPRM needed to be
separated into more manageable parts. Second, an operable anchoring
system is an essential part of the combination of measures needed to
reduce the chances of oil spills from any single-hull tank barge
operating on the waters listed in this interim rule. The marine
casualty report (available in the docket) on the fire on the tugboat
SCANDIA, resulting in the grounding of the tank barge NORTH CAPE,
revealed that the barge's anchoring system was not operable.
Consequently, the Captain of the SCANDIA did not have the option of
anchoring the barge until weather conditions improved enough to safely
continue the voyage. This is exactly what the Captain of the tugboat
OSPREY did last February off the coast of North Carolina. There, the
towline parted and the tug was unable to retrieve the barge after
repeated attempts to do so. The crew then deployed the barge's anchor,
which stopped the drift of the barge, and held it until the tug could
safely reestablish the tow. The anchoring and
[[Page 71756]]
retrieval measures are parts of a total system for preventing barges
from grounding, since one measure may work where the other does not.
Therefore, we have shifted our approach from the NPRM, which proposed
requiring only one of three emergency control systems, to requiring an
anchoring system (on single-hull tank barges) plus one additional
measure. Other parts of the total system, including measures for fire
protection and fire fighting for towing vessels, will be the subjects
of later rulemakings.
Human Element
In this interim rule, it is important to acknowledge the roles and
responsibilities of vessel management and the people operating the
equipment installed on vessels. The training and performance of the
crewmembers may be the critical elements in avoiding the actions that
contribute to a casualty. The Coast Guard's program of Prevention
Through People (PTP) depends on owners, operators, and other people in
positions of responsibility to take an active role in developing and
enforcing safety measures to improve performance.
Establishing the Lower Limit of Acceptable Safety Practice
Many tank barges already meet the requirements established in this
interim rule. They carry anchoring systems and retrieval systems and
they follow adequate operational procedures. Many companies maintain
and inspect their equipment with regularity and provide their people
training beyond that required by this rule. However, a single poor
operator can jeopardize the safety of the industry and place the well-
being of the public, the crew, and the environment at risk. The
necessity still exists for identifying standards that define the lower
limit of acceptable practice.
Open Ocean and Coastal Waters
46 U.S.C. 3719 calls for rules applicable to vessels operating in
the ``open ocean or coastal waters.'' The Coast Guard previously
interpreted this language to be equivalent to the high seas and
territorial sea as defined in 33 CFR part 2. After careful review, we
have decided not to substitute ``high seas'' for ``open ocean'' as used
in 46 U.S.C. 3719. Instead, for the purposes of this rule, we have
determined that open ocean includes the territorial seas of the United
States, as they are defined in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of
December 27, 1988. Under this approach, the inner boundary of ``coastal
waters'' is the baseline of the territorial sea. The outer boundary of
the waters on which this rule will apply is a line 12 nautical miles
offshore from that baseline. On most waters inside the baseline we need
not enforce laws of the kind this interim rule applies, because
internal waters afford shelter or quick access to it. There are,
however, waters that lie inside the baseline and yet need the
protection of this rule. The Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, the Strait
of Juan de Fuca, and parts of Puget Sound all come within this rule
because their environmental conditions (i.e., wind, currents, wave
action) present the very hazards to towing vessels and tank barges that
prompted this rule in the first place. Making a determination to
enforce these rules farther offshore is not deemed necessary, as any
tow coming within 12 miles of the baseline, where groundings are most
likely to occur, would be subject to these regulations. The one
exception would be foreign-flag tows engaged in innocent passage, which
rarely occurs. Foreign-flag tows entering U.S. ports however, are
subject to these regulations.
Double-hull Tank Barges
This interim rule applies mainly to single-hull tank barges, as
specified in 46 U.S.C. 3719. Regulations already in 33 CFR 155.230
require emergency towing capability for both single-hull and double-
hull barges operating outside the boundary line. Double-hull tank
barges that currently satisfy 33 CFR 155.230 also satisfy 33 CFR
155.230 as amended by this rule.
Grandfathering; Anchoring Standards
Under existing regulations, tankships and manned seagoing barges
built before June 15, 1987, may meet a less stringent standard for
their anchoring systems. With revised wording in this rule, the Coast
Guard is excluding manned, single-hull tank barges from the
grandfathering provisions presently contained in 46 CFR 32.15-15.
Allowing single-hull tank barges built before June 15, 1987, to meet
lesser standards would reduce the effectiveness of this rule.
The Coast Guard understands the effectiveness of the emergency
control system using an anchor is highly dependent upon the design
standard and equipment arrangement. Under existing regulations, we have
only accepted anchoring standards issued by the American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS). With this interim rule, we may accept standards of
other recognized classification societies as well. Classification
societies become recognized by the Commandant under 46 CFR part 8.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received a total of 54 documents containing 208
comments to the public docket of the NPRM on safety of towing vessels.
Of these, 67 comments concerned anchors and barge retrieval, and they
are addressed in this interim rule. All other comments will be
addressed in a separate document specifically covering fire protection
measures on towing vessels. The 208 comments consisted of both letters
to the docket and remarks at the public meetings in St. Louis,
Missouri, and Newport, Rhode Island. The following paragraphs contain
summaries of comments and an explanation of any changes made by this
rule to the proposed rule for emergency control of tank barges.
Comments Requesting Public Hearings
Six comments requested a public hearing for masters, owners, and
operators of towboats, and for the public to discuss the NPRM on safety
of towing vessels. Three comments requested that, in addition to public
hearings, the comment period be extended. As noted earlier, the Coast
Guard held two meetings in the spring of 1998. The statements made at
the meetings echo the written comments sent to the docket. In fact,
many of the attendees offered the same comments both spoken and
written. Tape recordings of each session are available at Coast Guard
Headquarters (G-LRA). You may call 202-267-1477 to arrange to review
the tapes.
Prevention
Six comments concerned prevention of accidents and oil spills.
1. Two comments suggested that the prevention of oil spills and
casualties lies primarily with personnel operating equipment properly
and navigating vessels safely. We agree with this assessment. However,
while people are the key to prevention, they still need the proper
equipment readily available, such as fire protection systems and
anchoring or retrieval systems, to minimize the impact of such
incidents when they do occur.
2. One comment suggested that the Coast Guard's PTP program coupled
with other appropriate measures such as proper manning, has the
potential for being the most effective prevention tool. We agree; that
is why we proposed or recommended measures such as crew training,
muster lists, and proper voyage planning in the NPRM. They remain key
components of this rulemaking in general, though not of this interim
rule in particular.
[[Page 71757]]
3. One comment commended the Coast Guard for recognizing that
``proper preparation and response by vessel crew is more important than
requiring and install[ing] * * * additional equipment on a vessel.'' As
noted in the summary of the previous comment, we agree with this view,
while still recognizing the need for appropriate equipment.
4. One comment agreed with the Coast Guard's effort to consider the
roles and responsibilities of the people operating the equipment
installed on board vessels. However, it suggested that we include the
roles and responsibilities of towing vessels' owners or crews, should
barges become adrift. This interim rule clearly identifies the owners
of vessels as being responsible for ensuring that the new requirements
are met.
5. One comment suggested that the proposed rules focused on the
prevention of barge casualties rather than the life and safety of the
crew. We do not agree. We are taking a systemic approach in preventing
barge casualties, by requiring the anchoring capability and other
measures on board, as well as requiring crew training, periodic
maintenance, and drills and exercises to test continued operability of
the equipment. The NPRM also requested comments on voyage planning to
provide the crews of tugs and tows with some early awareness of how
their trips might proceed. We received six comments on this issue; the
Coast Guard plans a separate Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM) to address the use of voyage planning to improve the safety of
towing vessels and tank barges.
Plain Language
One comment stated that the question-and-answer format was very
useful in explaining the reasoning behind the proposed change. The
comment also recommended using that format in future proposed
rulemakings. We agree; and, in keeping with the President's Memorandum
of June 1, 1998, endorsing plain language in government writing, we
will continue using that format in future rulemakings.
Recommendations of the Regional Risk Assessment Team (RRAT)
Twenty-three comments referred to the recommendations of the RRAT.
1. Twelve comments stated that the proposed rule did not follow the
recommendations.
2. Six comments stated that the proposed rule was not strict
enough.
3. One comment stated that the recommendations were meant for the
waters of the First Coast Guard District only, while four other
comments suggested a separate rulemaking for New England. We agree in
part. Any rule applying to equipment aboard vessels should be a
national rule rather than a rule applicable only to the waters of a
specific region. This long-standing principle rests on a number of
considerations:
National rules lie outside the delegated authority of
District Commanders.
National rules issued district by district could increase
compliance costs.
Local rules could lead to potential competitive
disadvantages among regions of the country.
Local rules may interfere with the efficient movement of
maritime commerce.
Local rules could interfere with implementation of
treaties.
However, with regard to the operational measures recommended by the
RRAT, Coast Guard Headquarters and the First Coast Guard District have
worked together in developing appropriate regional requirements
proposed in the Federal Register [63 FR 54639] on October 13, 1998.
Today, the First Coast Guard District is publishing in the Federal
Register, those rules establishing a permanent Regulated Navigation
Area (RNA) within the navigable waters of the First Coast Guard
District, CGD1-98-151, RIN 2115-AE84. The report of the RRAT is
available in the docket for this rulemaking. The history of the RRAT is
explained in the preamble to the NPRM, also available in the docket.
4. Two comments reported concern over the lack of a requirement for
an operable anchor on all barges, including double-hull tank barges, as
recommended by the RRAT. This rulemaking is guided by Federal statute
that specified application to single-hull tank barges. Barges with
double hulls have built-in safety measures. By adding the emergency
retrieval systems, they have sufficient measures in place to protect
against grounding and spills. It is also important to note that a
number of other new requirements and measures affecting tank barges
have been and will be instituted since the NORTH CAPE Spill. They
already include navigation safety equipment required on towing vessels
since August 2, 1996, and will include new standards for licensing and
manning for officers of towing vessels. They may also include measures
introduced with the American Waterways Operators' Responsible Carrier
Program.
Applicability
Two comments referred to applicability of the proposed rule.
1. One comment questioned the authority of the Coast Guard to
impose these requirements on foreign-flag vessels that may enter the
territorial seas. Foreign vessels engaged in innocent passage are
exempted from the requirements of this rule. However, foreign-flag
vessels entering inland waters and ports of the United States are
subject to our sovereignty and can be required to comply with the
regulations set forth in this rule (as a condition of port entry).
2. One comment suggested that rules developed through accident
experience should be applied only to the (type of) region where the
accident occurred. Deep-sea routes and Inland waterways are very
different environments. Blanket applicability of a rule may affect one
region differently from, or more adversely than, another. We agree, and
33 CFR part 155 specifically outlines on which waters these rules
apply. Generally, the measures for emergency barge control outlined in
this interim rule do not apply on inland waters. The Great Lakes, Long
Island Sound, portions of Puget Sound, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca
are the exceptions.
Towlines
Four comments dealt with towlines.
1. One comment questioned whether it would be appropriate to have
an emergency towline of the same towing characteristics as a line or
wire that has just parted. It suggested that we should establish
requirements for performance and periodic inspection for both primary
and emergency towing wires and lines, particularly those used for tank
barges.
2. Two comments suggested that a requirement that an emergency
towline have the same characteristics as the primary towline would be
difficult to comply with. It suggested that a better solution would be
a requirement that the emergency towline be sized appropriately for the
horsepower or bollard pull of the towing vessel and be adequate for its
intended use.
3. One comment suggested that the language requiring the emergency
towline to have the same characteristics as the primary towline is
misleading and unnecessarily restrictive.
We agree with these comments, and have reworded this requirement.
It is now consistent with the requirements introduced in the final
rule, Navigation Safety Equipment for Towing Vessels [61 FR 35064 (July
3, 1996)], codified at 33 CFR 164.74, Towline and terminal
[[Page 71758]]
gear for towing astern. Useful information about this critical aspect
of towing also appears in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
(NVIC) 5-92, Guidelines for Wire Rope Towing Hawsers, and is
recommended by the TSAC for owners, operators, and crews of towing
vessels.
Emergency Control Systems
Three comments discussed emergency control systems.
1. One comment suggested that the requirements should be more
specific so that they are not interpreted improperly. We agree and have
reworded the requirements so they are more specific.
2. One comment suggested a systems approach where the vessel,
towline, and barge are considered a single system. The State of
Washington specifically addresses this issue in WAC 317-21-345
(available in the docket), and recommends that we consider this
approach because it works on the West Coast. We agree; that is why we
allow components of the emergency control system on either the towing
vessel or the barge. Further, we allow each district to modify
operational measures (through Regulated Navigation Areas) to fit
conditions that may be peculiar to its own waters and vessels within
those waters.
3. One comment recommended revising references to anchor chain to
read ``anchor chain or cable'' to reflect the range of industry
practice in the coastal oil-transportation industry. We agree, and have
changed the wording to include cable.
Voyage Planning
As noted earlier in this interim rule, six comments received
discussed voyage planning. It will be a major part of an upcoming SNPRM
concerning additional measures to improve safety of towing vessels and
tank barges.
Comments Relating to Specific Sections of the CFR
1. 46 CFR 32.15-15. One comment suggested that the specification
for anchor and anchor chain required on barges should allow for cost
estimates, especially where classification society approval is
mandatory. We agree, and have based the economic analysis, which
supports requiring anchoring and retrieval equipment on barges, on the
application of the ABS Rules for anchors, chains, and towlines. The
Regulatory Assessment (RA) looks at the median size of single-hull tank
barges. We have found that the typical anchor on a barge of that size
weighs about 5,000 pounds, the length of the cable or chain is 800
feet, and the wire-diameter or link diameter is roughly 1\3/4\ inches.
The RA is available in the docket.
2. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(2)(iv). One comment addressed the annual
training on the system for recovery of drifting barges. The comment
correctly assessed the intent of the rule, to conduct the drills with
barges empty of cargo or in a light condition in waters free from
navigational hazards. To make the rule clearer, we are amending 33 CFR
155.230(b)(2)(iv) to specify that drills must include actual operation
of retrieval systems, and they should be conducted at the master's
discretion in open waters free from navigational hazards so as to
minimize the risk to personnel and the environment.
3. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1). One comment suggested that the anchoring
system prescribed in the proposed rule is inadequate. The comment
stated that an effective anchor windlass and other ground tackle should
be required instead. We agree. An anchoring system without the
components needed to raise the anchor is unlikely to be used as a
preventive measure. It is likely to be reserved for use when the barge
is in extremis, when it may be too late. This interim rule requires a
complete anchoring system: power source, winch or windlass, chain or
cable, and an anchor.
4. 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1), (2), and (3). Four comments referred to
response measures 1, 2, and 3, as outlined in the NPRM.
(i) One comment suggested that the real value of 33 CFR part 155 is
prevention rather than response. The comment suggested that only
paragraph (b)(1) [anchor system] would achieve the goal of spill
prevention, and urged that we should allow as few as one of the three
measures. We disagree. While none of the measures guarantees success in
preventing a spill, any one of them, if effective, may prevent a spill.
(ii) The second comment suggested that paragraph (b)(1) should be
the only measure allowed because paragraph (b)(2) [retrieval system]
lends itself to unmanned barges, and paragraph (b)(3) [Coast Guard
approved equivalent system] lends itself to repeated petitions to
Commandant (G-MSE) to consider either trip-by-trip exemptions or
substitute provisions. We do not agree; such a regulation would fail to
fully apply the law, reduce the effectiveness of this rule, and
disallow newer, equivalent technology from being considered.
(iii) The third comment stated that paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) are
industry standards that are in widespread use, but that an emergency
retrieval system should be sized for the barge and the towing vessel
and not be restricted to a towline of the same size as that of the
towing vessel. As noted earlier in the preamble to this interim rule,
we agree and have made changes to reflect this view.
(iv) The fourth comment recommended that operators should be
required to carry additional safety gear on tugs (meaning required to
carry two out of the three safety measures rather than one). For the
reasons stated previously under the section titled ``Regulatory
Approach'', we agree. For single-hull tank barges we will require
compliance with two of the three safety measures listed; one of the
measures must be the anchoring system.
General Comments
1. One comment questioned the validity of the joint report from the
Coast Guard and the American Waterways Operators (AWO) concerning
fatalities among crews of towing vessels, and requested a copy of the
report. The report is available online at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/
moa/docs/cafata.htm and in this docket through http//dms.dot.gov. It is
also available by calling 202-267-1099. To reduce the chances of falls
overboard during emergency anchoring we have added a requirement for a
safety belt or harness to 33 CFR 155.230(b)(1).
2. Four comments voiced concerns that a tug and barge complying
with the proposed rules could still have an accident. We partially
agree; no rule can guarantee that accidents will not occur in the
future. Our goal with this interim rule is to reduce the chances that
another accident, similar to the grounding of the NORTH CAPE, will
happen. We believe that this rule can and will do that.
3. One comment requested that we issue an interim regional rule
while the long-term regional rulemaking proceeds. Coast Guard
Headquarters and the First Coast Guard District are in fact working on
appropriate regional requirements.
4. One comment requested that the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection (OCMI), or Captain of the Port (COTP) should accept, trip by
trip, alternative technical or operational measures, alone or in
combination, that will provide an equivalent degree of protection to
that offered by Measure 1. We do not agree. For single-hull tank barges
operating in the waters specified, the interim rule will require an
anchoring system. It also will require an emergency retrieval system or
some equivalent measure(s). In essence, Measure 3 may substitute for
Measure 2 with approval of the Commandant.
[[Page 71759]]
5. One comment stated that it was good that we were taking steps to
improve the safety of towing vessels and tank barges but that it was a
disappointment that we missed the congressionally mandated deadline.
6. One comment relayed a concern that an annual drill on retrieval
of barges may be inadequate to maintain the proficiency of the crew
because of the rate of turnover among personnel. We disagree. Barge
retrieval systems are relatively simple in makeup and use. They do not
call for skills beyond those generally used in the day-to-day
operations of tugs. The turnover among senior crewmembers, who direct
emergency evolutions, is not high. The requirement remains as proposed.
We believe the best way a company can ensure the proficiency of its
crews in barge retrieval is to assign the responsibility of supervising
the drills to one of the senior crewmembers. This may be the master or
mate of the tug.
7. Five comments stated that the proposed rules failed to require a
combination of devices necessary to ensure the stoppage of a runaway
barge (for example, retrieval devices to complement anchors). We agree,
and the interim rule requires the placement of both anchors and
retrieval devices or other measures on all single-hull tank barges.
8. One comment asked whether making the operator of the anchoring
system confer with the master regarding the appropriate length of chain
to be used is a good practice. We believe it is. The master of the tug
should be familiar with the area his or her tug and tow are transiting,
including bottom conditions. The master will have access to charts and
equipment to assess the bottom and the depth. The master should share
this information with the person on the barge conducting the anchoring.
The wording from the NPRM persists in this interim rule.
9. One comment suggested that meeting the requirement for a
functioning means of releasing the anchor that does not endanger
operating personnel is impossible, because there is always some chance
of harm to the personnel who operate it. We agree, and have changed the
wording.
10. One comment suggested that there should be anonymous polling of
tug masters and tug crews concerning fatigue and work hours, as well as
the impact on jobs if masters refuse to go out in bad weather. The
report of the RRAT also touched on fatigue and work hours. We have
forwarded this suggestion to the TSAC for consideration.
11. One comment questioned whether it would be reasonable to have
an ordinary seaman thoroughly familiar with the operation of an anchor.
It suggested that one able seaman, or in some cases two able seamen,
thoroughly familiar with the anchoring operation, should suffice. We
agree that an experienced crewmember should operate the anchoring
system. However, crews of towing vessels are small, and we believe
having all of their crew trained and familiar with the emergency barge
control system also enhances safety.
12. Two comments recommended that all barges (non-self-propelled
tank vessels), including unmanned barges, carrying oil or other
hazardous cargoes between ports must be equipped with working anchoring
systems. We partly agree with this assessment. We are requiring
anchoring systems on all single-hull tank barges operating either
offshore or on the waters specified in 33 CFR 155.230(a).
13. One comment supported the Coast Guard's determination that the
high seas and territorial seas as defined in 33 CFR part 2 would be
equivalent to the statutory concepts of open ocean and coastal waters
respectively for the applicability of the proposed rules. We partly
agree; this interim rule applies on the territorial seas as defined in
33 CFR part 2, and on the 9-mile band of ``open ocean'' or high seas
adjacent to the seaward boundary of the territorial seas of the U.S.
14. One comment questioned the definition of a permissively manned
barge. It asked if the operator of a barge deemed it necessary that
persons should be placed on a barge for its operation, whether the
added complement would count as the barge's required manning. This
comment also asked how the provisional authority of the OCMI differs
from the statement of the Secretary regarding the necessary complement.
The OCMI exercises authority delegated by the Secretary to determine
whether a barge should be manned. The decision depends on safety
considerations. Maintenance persons with no duties related to the
navigation of the vessel may be permitted by the OCMI without, in
effect, increasing the manning of the barge.
15. One comment suggested that the proposed rules were not clear in
distinguishing between tank vessels and Oil Spill Response Vessels
(OSRVs). It asked that we clarify this in a later rulemaking. We do not
see the need, as OSRVs are not tank barges, and section 155.230 makes
clear that this interim rule applies to tank barges and vessels towing
them on the waters listed.
16. One comment stated that, unlike Rhode Island law, the proposed
rules would not require tug escorts, or provide any incentive to
accelerate the phase-in of double hulls scheduled for the Northeast.
These issues are outside the scope of this rule; however, they are
addressed in the regional rulemaking for the waters of the Northeast,
published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54639).
The report of the RRAT recommends that we require twin screws and twin
engines for most vessels towing tank barges. For single-screw towing
vessels, it recommends that we require tug escort or assist. Owners of
double-hull tank barges need not install anchoring systems, whereas
owners of single-hull tank barges must install them to operate on the
waters specified in this interim rule. While this rule may have the
effect of providing an incentive to accelerate the phase-in, it is not
the intention of the Coast Guard to change the deadline for double
hulls established by Congress in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA
90).
17. One comment suggested that we should not include recognized
classification societies other than the American Bureau of Shipping
(ABS) in this context, because it is highly unlikely that any other
standards will be equivalent to those of ABS. This comment suggested
that owners or operators wishing to use other standards can use the
general equivalency provisions case by case. We disagree; in keeping
with the Alternate Compliance Program (see 62 FR 67525 of December 24,
1997, amending 33 CFR Part 151 and 46 CFR Parts 1, 8, 31, 69, 71, 91,
107, 153, and 154), where foreign or international standards are
evaluated and may be accepted, Commandant (G-MSE) will decide whether
the standards are equivalent. The wording in the NPRM does not change
in this interim rule.
18. One comment recommended that the Coast Guard apply its rules
for certifying inspected vessels and for manning to uninspected tugs.
We disagree; these recommendations are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. A separate interim rule concerning licensing and manning
for officers on uninspected towing vessels (CGD 94-055) is nearing
completion. The Coast Guard has considered inspection of towing vessels
that are now uninspected, and has rejected it as too costly for
government when compared to the estimated reduction in casualties.
Careful analysis of recent casualties such as that of the NORTH CAPE
supports the approaches embodied in
[[Page 71760]]
our PTP program and in the AWO's Responsible Carrier Program (RCP).
These efforts will improve the safety of uninspected towing vessels by
focusing attention on the area most often identified as the root cause
of accidents-the human element. We recognize that the actions of a
vessel's crew are directly related to its owner's practices, policies,
and procedures.
19. One comment suggested that we need to consider the differences
between ocean-going tugboats and inland towboats. We agree; and we
have, by generally applying this interim rule to ocean-going tank
barges and the vessels towing them. This rule applies to vessels towing
tank barges seaward of the baseline of the territorial sea, excepting
only the Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and portions of Puget Sound.
Incorporation by Reference
Material that will be incorporated by reference is listed in
Sec. 155.140. The material is available for inspection where indicated
under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from the sources
listed in Sec. 155.140. The Coast Guard has submitted this material to
the director of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation
by reference.
Regulatory Evaluation
This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under that Order. However, it is significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979) because of public interest
generated by the NPRM and has been reviewed by the Office of the
Secretary.
An interim Regulatory Assessment under paragraph 10e of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is available in the docket
for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of
the Assessment follows; unless otherwise indicated, cost and benefit
data are expressed in 1998 end-of-year values:
Summary of Benefits
Measures published in this rule are expected to yield a net cost
effectiveness of $365 per barrel of oil spillage averted. This
prevention cost compares favorably, for example, with property damage
and actual restoration and cleanup costs (excluding intangibles and
transfer costs such as fines, judgments resulting from litigation, and
insurance benefits paid) incurred thus far as a result of the 20,000-
barrel spill from the barge NORTH CAPE in January of 1996. The costs of
that spill thus far total about $50.2 million, which averages about
$2,550 per barrel spilled. This per-barrel cost for only one spill is
nearly seven times the per-barrel costs of this rule to avert similar
events industry-wide.
The table following this paragraph illustrates the calculation of
net cost effectiveness from total quantifiable costs and benefits
resulting from implementation of this rule. The benefits are normalized
into cost effectiveness ratios to reflect the cost per unit of oil
pollution averted. Here's how: the total estimated dollar cost of this
rule is shown on Line (1); total property damage averted, a benefit
expressed in dollars, is shown on Line (2) and is subtracted from total
dollar costs to yield a net cost, which is shown on Line (3); pollution
averted, the principal benefit, which is expressed in barrels of oil
not spilled, is shown on Line (4); and the bottom line shows the net
cost from Line (3) divided by the pollution averted benefit from Line
(4) to yield an expression of cost effectiveness shown in units of net
discounted dollars per discounted barrels of oil not spilled. This
procedure permits us to compare pollution and property damage benefits
together in terms of net cost-effectiveness.
Table--Control Measures for Tank Barges (Barge Anchoring and Retrieval):
Cost effectiveness expressed in dollars per barrel of oil not spilled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of benefits & costs Quantity Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Cost of this rule.......... $ 9,381,255 Dollars (PV).
(2) Property damage-averted \1\ 5,657,792 Dollars (PV).
(3) (1) minus (2) Net cost..... 3,723,463 Dollars (PV).
(4) Pollution averted \2\...... 10,205 Barrels of oil
unspilled (PV).
(3)(4) Net cost 365 Dollars per barrel
effectiveness. unspilled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: benefits, shown on lines (2) and (4), are italicized. Net cost
effectiveness is shown in bold.
\1\ Damage to vessels and equipment.
\2\ Oil not spilled overboard into bodies of water.
The principal benefit of this rule is protection against oil
spillage and property damage that may result when a tow line to a tank
barge parts or its towing vessel otherwise loses control over the tank
barge, permitting it to run aground. Quantifiable benefits accrue from
averted pollution measured in barrels of oil not spilled and averted
damage to property such as vessels and machinery, measured in dollars.
The latter are secondary benefits. During the period 1999-2014
inclusive, this rule will avert 10,205 barrels of oil spillage and $5.7
million of property damage.
To construct the benefits analysis, the Coast Guard employed its
Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) database and underlying reports
to provide a reasonable approximation for modeling marine casualties
and pollution incidents. The model postulates that if requirements in
this rule were not enacted, the normalized frequency and severity of
pollution and damage due to towline ruptures would continue at about
the same magnitude as during a representative five-year base period
which the Coast Guard identified as 1992-1996. This period captures the
post-Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) maritime environment; the Coast Guard
considers the period long enough to capture a representative history,
while short enough to be reasonably current. Reports for the 1992-96
period are largely complete. A 1992-1997 period was considered and not
chosen because 1997 report histories remain open and we consider them
too preliminary to present a fair representation.
The analysis recognized that a range of variables extant in the
marine interface of people, vessels, machines, and the sea, may result
in the
[[Page 71761]]
occurrence of some of the casualties targeted by this rule after it is
in force. Accordingly, the Coast Guard assembled an analytical team
comprised of marine inspectors, program analysts, and economists, who
reviewed data and individual case files, and who obtained consultations
from a range of subject matter experts. This team proceeded through a
multi-step probabilistic risk assessment that considered the combined
and interactive effects of this rule and several other related rules
that are in effect or mandated by law for completion in the near
future. The analysis yielded a probability of 22 percent that installed
and working powered anchoring systems and emergency retrieval devices
on the affected tank barge population--both single-hull and double-hull
vessels--would have prevented or mitigated casualties, pollution, and
damage resulting from that particular casualty.
The benefits analysis uses the OPA 90-scheduled phase-out of tank
barge capacity as a proxy for the reduction of exposure and spill
potential, an innovation that helped to guard against the overstatement
of benefits, since during the 1998-2014 period and prior to the final
phase-out of all single-hull tank barges, single-hull tank barge
capacity, which represents the industry segment primarily affected by
this rule, will likely decrease at a much sharper rate than will the
actual count of available in-service single-hull tank barges. This is
because the OPA 90-scheduled phase-out favors longevity for the
smallest single-hull tank barges.
Capacity weighting based on the phase-out schedule and
probabilities of effectiveness are used to calculate both primary and
secondary benefits. In addition, the secondary benefits, averted dollar
damages to property such as vessels and machinery, are reflated from
base period calculations to 1998 end-of-year values, using a Consumer
Price Index-based price index adjustment factor.
The Coast Guard considered several non-quantifiable benefits. No
injuries, deaths, or missing persons were recorded in base period
casualty reports. However, the types of casualties addressed in this
rule, particularly ones that occur in inclement weather, are inherently
dangerous and a future casualty of the type that will be mitigated by
this rule could otherwise result in some deaths and injuries.
Additionally, while the oil pollution benefit pool analyzed during the
assessment of this rule totaled slightly less than 39,000 barrels of
oil during the base period, the upper bound of oil at risk in those
casualties--the total cargo of oil aboard affected tank barges when
accidents occurred--exceeded 180,000 barrels. Future casualties of the
type that will be mitigated by this rule could otherwise result in far
more serious spills than are indicated in the regulatory assessment.
Summary of Costs
Tank barge and towing industry firms, along with a few state and
local governments, will incur costs primarily to purchase, install, and
maintain powered emergency anchoring systems and owner/operators'
choices among emergency retrieval systems on certain tank barges and in
some instances, towing vessels. The Government will incur modest
incremental inspection costs. Costs of this rule will total $9.4
million. We subtracted secondary benefits from the total cost to yield
a $3.7 million net cost.
Whereas we adjusted benefit calculations to reflect OPA 90-
scheduled phase-out of actual tank barge capacity to approximate
declining exposure and spill volume potential, we adjusted cost
calculations to accommodate the phase-out of hulls rather than volume,
as the purchase, installation, and maintenance of equipment required by
this rule is quantified on a per-hull basis.
Initial costs are incurred by owner/operators of tank barges and
their towboats between 90 days and two years following the effective
date of this rule. Initial costs are expected to total between $7.93
million and $7.99 million. Fleet-wide purchase and installation costs
for powered emergency anchoring systems will total $7.8 million, 98
percent of the total; and, fleet-wide emergency retrieval system costs
will range between $120,000 and $168,000, depending on how individual
owner/operators weigh the lower initial investment required for
emergency tow wire systems against lower maintenance costs for hook
retrieval systems. A sensitivity analysis contained in the regulatory
assessment showed that the decision, if made on an economic basis, will
depend on the particular deal that the owner/operator can drive and the
remaining life of the barge. Additionally, qualitative decision factors
include the availability of up-front capital and personal or corporate
preferences.
Recurring costs include training drills, maintenance, repair, and
in some cases, replacement of components. The present value of these
costs total $751,000 for powered anchoring systems, and range between
$55,000 for hook retrieval systems and $140,000 for emergency tow wire
systems. In addition, recurring incremental costs borne by the Coast
Guard for inspections and law enforcement are expected to total less
than $4,500 on a present value basis.
Double-hull tank barges are already in compliance with this rule as
a result of their compliance with other existing requirements. This
rule is expected to impact 180 single-hull tank barges operating in
open ocean or coastal waters. We believe that many of these barges are
already in compliance. The costs that we report account for our
estimates that of the 180 barges, 97 barges will need to install
powered anchoring systems and 24 barges or towing vessels will need to
install an emergency retrieval system. The Coast Guard does not expect
economic abandonment of any barges as a result of this rule. The per-
barge costs are relatively low and the first phase-out among the
affected tank barges does not occur until January 1, 2004. A two-year
phase-in for the relatively more costly powered anchoring system
installation obviates the need for an extra, out-of-cycle dry-dock
period for the installation. The majority of tank barges experiencing
new costs as a result of this rule are eligible to remain in service
until 2015.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub L.
104-4, 109 Stat. 48) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of
certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and
the private sector. Under sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA, the Coast
Guard generally must prepare a written statement of economic and
regulatory alternatives for proposed and final rules that contain
Federal mandates. A ``Federal mandate'' is a new or additional
enforceable duty, imposed on any State, local or tribal government, or
the private sector. If any Federal mandate causes those entities to
spend, in the aggregate, $100 million or more in any one year, an
analysis under the UMRA is necessary.
While several State and local governments operate some tank barges,
the majority of affected tank barges are owned and operated by entities
in the private sector. This interim rule does not now directly affect
tribal governments. The total burden of Federal mandates imposed by
this rule ranges from $9.3 million-$9.4 million and will not result in
annual expenditures of $100 million or more. Therefore, sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA do not apply.
[[Page 71762]]
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), the
Coast Guard considers the economic impact on small entities of each
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small Entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
An analysis of impacts on small entities for this rule is included
in the regulatory assessment; it is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Double-hull tank barges are now in compliance with this rule's
equipment requirements in connection with their compliance with other
existing requirements. Most towing vessels either are now in voluntary
compliance with requirements or will choose an option that shifts an
equipment purchase requirement to a few barges that are not now in
voluntary compliance. As a result, most towing vessels are not expected
to incur compliance costs.
The impact of this rule will fall primarily on single-hull tank
barges and perhaps, several towing vessels. The rule will require: (1)
owners and operators of tank barges that do not already have emergency
anchoring systems to purchase and install them; (2) owners and
operators of all towing vessels, regardless of size, to purchase and
carry emergency retrieval systems if they do not already have them; and
(3) towing vessel masters to learn--and train crews--to deploy anchors
and operate retrieval systems. Owners and operators of tank barges and
towing vessels are responsible for both inspecting their respective
systems and maintaining them in good working order. The purpose is to
decrease the probability of barge breakaways and the oil spillage,
pollution, and property damage that could result.
The Coast Guard is establishing a two-year phase-in period for the
anchoring system requirements. Although the Coast Guard received no
comments on the NPRM concerning small entities, we recognize that some
of the single-hull tank barge fleet are likely owned and operated by
small firms not dominant in the industry. Barges affected by this rule
must undergo a drydock inspection twice during a five-year period, no
less than two years apart. The two-year phase-in permits barges to
undergo the installation of a powered anchoring system during normal
yard availability. They may thus avoid incurring the extra cost of both
a third drydocking during a five-year period and opportunity costs of
lost revenue during a third drydocking. The long phase-in will thus
permit most small entities to explore the market, plan, and schedule
installations during normal shipyard availability. It reduces the
pressure for small entities to compete with major operators for yard
availability, a competition that would occur if, for example, the
anchoring system phase-in matched the 90-day phase-in for the other
requirements included in this rule.
Small owners and operators of single-hull tank barges are affected
by the OPA 90-mandated phase-out. However, we believe that smaller
barges affected by this rule are the ones most likely to be owned by
small owners and operators, many of whom would have the opportunity to
amortize purchase and installation costs associated with the rule
through the end of the year 2014. The 146 relatively small barges among
the 181 barges directly affected by this rule may remain in service
until January 1, 2015, the end of the phase-out period, making them the
last vessels to be phased out under OPA 90 requirements.
The equipment required by this rule is in common use in the
industry and does not represent novel or untried technology. Some small
entities are likely to be among the majority of owners and operators
who already meet some or all of the requirements. This rule will result
in a financial burden for some of those owners and operators who must
purchase and install equipment. The costs are fairly low in comparison
with the replacement cost of a tank barge, very low in comparison with
the replacement cost of a towing vessel, and extremely low in
comparison with the damage that could be caused by, and the liability
that could result from, an accident and resultant spill.
The crafting of this rule so that many affected vessels are already
in compliance, and the two-year phase-in period for installation of
retrievable anchoring systems, together provide important
accommodations to, and significant flexibility for, small entities and
others affected by this rule.
Accordingly, the Commandant certifies under section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) that this interim
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If, however, you think that your business or
organization qualifies as a small entity, and that this rule will have
a significant economic impact on your business or organization, please
submit comments (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies
and in what way, and to what degree, this rule will affect it
economically.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist
small entities in understanding this interim rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
If your small business or organization is affected by this rule and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call Mr. Robert Spears, telephone 202-267-1099.
The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments
from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The
Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate
each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment
on the enforcement actions of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-
888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This interim rule does not provide for a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
Federalism
As this is a statutorily mandated rulemaking, under paragraph
IV.C.1 of the Department of Transportation Guidance on Federalism of
February 10, 1988, this rule does not require a Federalism Assessment.
However, it may preempt portions of State law on towing vessels and
tank barges. For instance, on June 30, 1997, Rhode Island enacted a law
entitled the ``Tank Vessel Safety Act (46 R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 12.6).''
That Act promulgated the recommendations of the RRAT. However, these
recommendations cover areas addressed by the applicable provisions in
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 or the measures in this rule.
Consequently, when this rule goes into effect, it may preempt certain
provisions of the Rhode Island law, specifically 46 R.I. Gen. Laws
Secs. 12.6-9, or of other States' laws. A preemption analysis will be
conducted in conjunction with the publication of the Final Rule, which
may reflect changes from this interim rule because of comment by the
public.
Barges Carrying Non-Petroleum Oil
The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-55, 109 Stat.
546-547
[[Page 71763]]
[1995]) requires federal agencies to differentiate between classes of
oils and consider different treatment of these classes, if appropriate.
The Coast Guard has determined that bulk spills of animal fat,
vegetable oil, and other non-petroleum oil can be damaging to the
environment; therefore, tank barges carrying these products must comply
with this IR.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this interim
rule and concluded that under Figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(c) and (d) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying
where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 155
Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
46 CFR Part 32
Cargo vessels, Fire prevention, Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 155 and 46 CFR part 32, as follows:
TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS
1. The authority citation for part 155 and the note following it
are revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3715, 3719; sec.
2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR 1.46,
1.46(iii).
Sections 155.110-155.130, 155.350-155.400, 155.430, 155.440,
155.470, 155.1030 (j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) also issued under 33
U.S.C. 1903(b); and Secs. 155.1110-155.1150 also issued under 33
U.S.C. 2735.
Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or
hazardous materials appear in 46 CFR parts 30 through 36, 150, 151,
and 153.
2. Amend Sec. 155.140 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text
and adding the following standard in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 155.140 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this
part, and the sections affected, are as follows:
American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI) 11 West 42nd
Street, New York, NY 10036
ANSI A10.14--Requirements for Safety Belts, Harnesses, Lanyards and
Lifelines for Construction and Demolition Use, 1991--155.230
* * * * *
3. Revise Sec. 155.230 to read as follows:
Sec. 155.230 Emergency control systems for tank barges.
(a) Application. This section applies to tank barges and vessels
towing them on the following waters:
(1) On the U.S. territorial sea [as defined in Presidential
Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988, it is the belt of waters 12
nautical miles wide--the shoreward boundary is the territorial sea
baseline].
(2) In Great Lakes service.
(3) On Long Island Sound. For the purposes of this section, Long
Island Sound includes the waters between the baseline of the
territorial sea on the eastern end (from Watch Hill Point, Rhode
Island, to Montauk Point, Long Island), and a line drawn north and
south from Premium Point, New York (approximately 40 deg.54.5'N,
73 deg.45.5'W), to Hewlett Point, Long Island (approximately
40 deg.50.5'N, 73 deg.45.3'W), on the western end.
(4) In the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
(5) On the waters of Admiralty Inlet north of Marrowstone Point
(approximately 48 deg.06'N, 122 deg.41'W). This section (Sec. 155.230)
does not apply to foreign vessels engaged in innocent passage (i.e.,
not entering or leaving a U.S. port).
(b) Safety program. If you are the owner or operator of a single-
hull tank barge or of a vessel towing it, you must adequately man and
equip each vessel of this kind so that its crew can anchor the barge by
employing Measure 1 in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Moreover, the
crew and vessel together must be capable of arresting or retrieving the
barge by employing either Measure 2 or Measure 3 as described in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), respectively. If you are the owner or
operator of a double-hull tank barge, you must equip it and train its
crew, or if it is unmanned the crew of the vessel towing it, so that
crew can retrieve the barge by employing Measure 2 in paragraph (b)(2).
(1) Measure 1. Each single-hull tank barge, whether manned or
unmanned, must be equipped with an operable anchoring system that
conforms to 46 CFR 32.15-15. Because the anchoring system will also
serve as an emergency control system, the owner or operator must ensure
that the following criteria are met:
(i) Operation and performance. When the barge is underway--
(A) The anchoring system is ready for immediate use;
(B) One person, along with one other crewmember to assist if
needed, can operate the system and deploy the anchor;
(C) While preparing to deploy the anchor, the operator of the
system must confer with the master of the towing vessel regarding
appropriate length of cable or chain to use; and
(D) Each operator of the system must wear a safety belt or harness
secured by a lanyard to a lifeline, drop line, or fixed structure such
as a welded padeye. Each safety belt, harness, lanyard, lifeline, and
drop line must meet the specifications of ANSI A10.14.
(ii) Maintenance and inspections. Each anchor, cable, chain, and
hawser must be inspected at the time of class survey or inspection for
certification. The inspection must cover the features listed under
operation and performance in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) Training. On each manned barge, every crewmember must be
thoroughly familiar with the operation of the anchoring system. On each
vessel towing an unmanned barge, every deck crewmember must be
thoroughly familiar with the operation of the anchoring system
installed on the barge.
(2) Measure 2. Each owner or operator of a barge or towing vessel
described in paragraph (a) of this section employing an emergency
retrieval system to regain control of a barge must ensure that the
following criteria are met:
(i) Design. The system must use an emergency towline with at least
the same pulling strength as required of the primary towline. The
emergency towline must be available on either the barge or the vessel
towing it. The towing vessel must have on board equipment to regain
control of the barge and continue towing (using the emergency towline),
without having to place personnel on board the barge.
(ii) Operation and performance. The system must use a stowage
arrangement that ensures the readiness of the emergency towline and the
availability of all retrieval equipment for immediate use in an
emergency throughout the voyage.
(iii) Maintenance and inspection. The system must be inspected
annually by the owner or operator. This inspection can take place at
the time of class survey or during an inspection for certification.
[[Page 71764]]
It must test the availability of the retrieval system and verify the
maintenance of the emergency towline.
(iv) Training. Retrieval drills must be conducted within three
months after the master or mate responsible for supervising barge
retrieval begins employment on a vessel that tows tank barges, and at
least annually thereafter. Each drill must--
(A) Include actual operation of a retrieval system to regain
control of a barge; and
(B) Be conducted at the master's discretion, under the supervision
of the master or mate responsible for barge retrieval, and in open
waters free from navigational hazards so as to minimize risk to
personnel and the environment.
(3) Measure 3. Each owner or operator of a barge or towing vessel
described in paragraph (a) of this section may invoke this paragraph as
a substitute for Measure 2 in paragraph (b)(2). First, you must ensure
that your alternative measure, system, or combination of measures used
to arrest or retrieve a barge is approved by the Commandant (G-MSE). To
be approved, it must provide protection against grounding of the tank
vessel comparable to that provided by the systems and measures
described in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
TITLE 46--SHIPPING
PART 32--SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND HULL REQUIREMENTS
4. The authority citation for part 32 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703, 3719; E.O. 12234, 45 FR
58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46; Subpart 32.59 also
issued under the authority of Sec. 4109, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat.
515.
5. In Sec. 32.15-15, revise paragraphs (a) and (d); and add new
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 32.15-15 Anchors, Chains, and Hawsers-TB/ALL.
(a) Application. Use the following table to determine which
provisions of this section apply to you:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own . . . And . . . Then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A tankship or a manned It was constructed It must meet the
seagoing barge. before June 15, requirements of
1987, paragraphs (d) and
(f).
(2) A tankship or a manned It was constructed It must meet all the
seagoing barge. on or after June requirements of
15, 1987, this section except
paragraphs (d) and
(e).
(3) An unmanned barge It must meet the
equipped with anchors. requirements of
paragraphs (e) and
(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) Tankships and Barges Constructed Before June 15, 1987. For each
tankship or manned seagoing barge constructed before June 15, 1987,
except a barge specified in paragraph (e) of this section, the
equipment previously accepted or approved is satisfactory for the same
service so long as it is maintained in good condition to the
satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI). If the
service of the vessel changes, the OCMI will evaluate the suitability
of the equipment.
(e) Barges Equipped with Anchors to Comply with 33 CFR
155.230(b)(1). Each barge equipped with an anchor, to comply with 33
CFR 155.230(b)(1), must be fitted with an operable anchoring system
that includes a cable or chain, and a winch or windlass. All components
of the system must be in substantial agreement with the standards
issued by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). The current standards
of other recognized classification societies are acceptable if they are
approved by the Commandant (G-MSE).
(f) Operation and Performance. Each anchor, exposed length of chain
or cable, and hawser must be visually inspected before the barge begins
each voyage. The anchor must be stowed so that it is ready for
immediate use in an emergency. The barge must have a working means for
releasing the anchor that can be operated safely by one or two persons.
Dated: December 21, 1998.
J.C. Card,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 98-34415 Filed 12-24-98; 8:54 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
