Douglas Kirk Chapman

Document ID: USCG-2006-24412-0032
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Coast Guard
Received Date: September 02 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: September 7 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: August 11 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: December 9 2011, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80f0fd59
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

46CFR143.285 Additional Fuel System Requirements I’m guessing the intent of 46CFR143.285(b) Portable Fuel systems – was to prevent full portable fuel cans from being stored around the vessel in unapproved flammable or combustible locations. The proposed cite 46CFR143.285(b) says “must not incorporate or carry portable fuel systems, including portable tanks” It then (excepts) ”when used for outboard engines or when (permanently attached) to portable engines or when (permanently attached) to equipment” The problem I see is (how does the Coast Guard propose) the crew refuel the dewatering portable pumps located on damaged barges in the tow for transit allowed under a Coast Guard PTP or CG-835? If no portable fuel cans are allowed onboard the portable dewatering pumps located out hundreds of feet in the tow will run out eventually. You can see there is a need for portable fuel cans onboard which are not (permanently attached) to the equipment. Suggest the Coast Guard allow portable cans onboard as long as they are keep empty unless being actively used during refueling of portable equipment. Empty cans can be stored in an approved flammable & combustible location designated onboard. On the weather deck usually the 01 deck back by the fuel tank used for the skiff comes to mind. If portable fuel tanks are not allowed onboard the vessel, then the Coast Guard will be setting up a situation where the crew could possibly develop an unsafe practice to refuel their pumps. They might start using unapproved containers to refuel the portable pumps, there by creating a more hazardous situation than this proposed rule was attempting to eliminate.

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 222
Justin M. - Comments
Public Submission    Posted: 08/16/2011     ID: USCG-2006-24412-0021

Dec 09,2011 11:59 PM ET
James A. Elliot
Public Submission    Posted: 08/17/2011     ID: USCG-2006-24412-0022

Dec 09,2011 11:59 PM ET
Bobby Gay
Public Submission    Posted: 08/31/2011     ID: USCG-2006-24412-0026

Dec 09,2011 11:59 PM ET
Anonymous
Public Submission    Posted: 09/06/2011     ID: USCG-2006-24412-0027

Dec 09,2011 11:59 PM ET
Douglas Kirk Chapman
Public Submission    Posted: 09/06/2011     ID: USCG-2006-24412-0029

Dec 09,2011 11:59 PM ET