Emergency Control Measures for Tank Barges

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