[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27047]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 1, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 168

[CGD 91-202]
RIN: 2115-AE10

 

Escort Vessels for Certain Tankers; Partial Suspension of 
Effectiveness

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; partial suspension of regulation with request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: On August 19, 1994 the Coast Guard published a Final Rule (59 
FR 42962) requiring escorting of certain tankers in Prince William 
Sound, Alaska and Puget Sound, Washington. The regulations are 
scheduled to go into effect on November 17, 1994. However, concerns 
have been expressed to the Coast Guard that one of the requirements 
(the crash-stop criteria) may not be achievable without putting the 
escort vessels, and their crews, at serious risk. Because it is not 
possible to resolve this issue prior to the November 17th effective 
date, the Coast Guard is suspending the effective date of that 
particular criteria until there has been an opportunity for more-
detailed studies to be conducted and publicly reviewed.
Effective Date: 33 CFR 168.50(b)(2) scheduled to become effective on 
November 17, 1994, in the final rule published at 59 FR 42962, August 
19, 1994, is suspended as of November 17, 1994.
    Comments: Comments must be received on or before January 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine 
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 91-202), U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or may 
be delivered to Room 3406 at the above address between 8 a.m. and 3 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is (202) 267-1477.
    The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be 
available for inspection or copying at Room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Jordan, Project Manager, 
(202) 267-6751 or fax (202) 267-4624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

    The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Thomas 
Jordan, Project Manager, Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) Staff, and Pam 
Pelcovits, Project Counsel, Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) Staff.

Regulatory History

    The regulatory history for this rulemaking is recounted in the 
preamble of the final rule entitled ``Escort Vessels for Certain 
Tankers'' (59 FR 42962, August 19, 1994).

Discussion of Federal Escort Regulations

    This discussion is intended to complement, and further clarify, the 
escort regulations published in the final rule on August 19, 1994 (59 
FR 42962).
    The final rule created 33 CFR part 168 which, in addition to other 
provisions, included operational and performance requirements for 
tankers and escort vessels.
    The operational requirement of Sec. 168.50(a)(3) requires that the 
tanker must not exceed the speed beyond which the escort vessels can 
reasonably be expected to safely bring the tanker under control within 
the navigational limits of the waterway, taking into consideration 
ambient sea and weather conditions, surrounding vessel traffic, etc. It 
requires the tanker to be operated within the performance envelope of 
its escorts, relative to the limits of the waterway and in 
consideration of the transit conditions (wind and sea). Thus, this 
requirement is both waterway-specific and transit condition-specific. 
In general, the fouler the weather, the higher the required performance 
envelope for the escort vessels.
    When developing the escort regulations, the Coast Guard expected 
that this operational requirement would govern most escort vessel 
selections. However, under extremely benign transit conditions a 
relatively low-performance escort could be selected. Although such an 
escort might meet the operational requirement, the Coast Guard was 
concerned that there would be no margin in the event that transit 
conditions deteriorated unexpectedly. (In such circumstances, it would 
be incumbent upon the tanker master to order more escorts; however, 
there might still be a significant time delay before the escorts could 
actually rendevous with the tanker. In the meantime, the tanker would 
be left with an inadequate escort).
    Therefore, the Coast Guard decided that additional criteria were 
necessary to set a minimum performance level for the escort vessels, 
regardless of how benign the transit conditions might be. Accordingly, 
Sec. 168.50(b) established five minimum performance criteria for the 
escort vessels:
--the ability to tow the tanker at a speed of 4 knots in calm 
conditions (Sec. 168.50(b)(1));
--the ability to hold the tanker steady against a 45-knot headwind 
(also in Sec. 168.50(b)(1));
--the ability to stop the tanker within the same distance that it could 
crash-stop itself from a speed of 6 knots using its own propulsion 
system (Sec. 168.50(b)(2));
--the ability to hold the tanker on a steady course against a 35-degree 
locked rudder (Sec. 168.50(b)(3)); and
--the ability to turn the tanker 90 degrees, assuming a free-swinging 
rudder and a speed of 6 knots, within the same distance (advance and 
transfer) that it could turn itself with a hard-over rudder 
(Sec. 168.50(b)(4)).

    These criteria are not waterway-specific. The Coast Guard 
determined that it was appropriate that the escort vessels should have 
the capability of bringing the tanker under control within some 
specified parameters, regardless of how much sea room might be 
available. However, as previously mentioned these criteria are only 
intended to set a minimum performance requirement. Except in relatively 
benign transit conditions, it is not expected nor necessary that these 
criteria be more stringent than the operational requirement of 
Sec. 168.50(a)(3).
    These criteria are based upon the conceptual approach that the 
escort vessels should have abilities equivalent to the tanker's ability 
to control itself at a speed of 6 knots. Similar minimum requirements 
could have been specified in other ways, such as in units of the 
tanker's shiplength or some percentage of its deadweight tonnage. 
However, each of these alternative methods had shortcomings.
    The performance criteria are not intended to dictate a particular 
response tactic. The Coast Guard recognizes that at certain points in 
the waterway a steering response may be the appropriate tactic whereas 
at other points a towing response might be the appropriate tactic. The 
performance criteria are only intended to ensure that both tactics can 
be performed at a minimum level.

Reason for Suspension of Effectiveness

    Immediately after the final rule was published, several tanker 
operators contracted the Glosten Associates (Glosten) of Seattle, WA to 
perform calculations comparing the maneuvering and control 
characteristics of various tankers and escort vessels (both 
conventional and tractor tugs). Glosten was the primary contractor 
conducting the Disabled Tanker Towing Study for Prince William Sound, 
and is currently conducting a similar study for San Francisco Bay. 
Glosten had also done a similar study for Puget Sound.
    The preliminary Glosten findings indicated that, in order to meet 
the crash-stop criteria, three to four conventional tugs would 
typically be required to create a retarding force equal to a tanker's 
reversed propulsion power. This is particularly the case for diesel-
powered tankers, which have superior reversing power compared to steam-
powered tankers. However, industry's concern was that it is not safe to 
attach more than two tugs to a tanker in a retarding configuration. 
Therefore, the crash-stop criteria was not achievable without 
endangering the escort vessels and crews.
    Representatives of the tanker operators met with the Coast Guard on 
September 23, 1994, to raise this issue, and requested a second, more 
formal opportunity to present their calculations. A report on that 
first meeting has been placed in the docket (CGD 91-202, file no. 108).
    The second meeting took place on October 7, 1994, at Coast Guard 
Headquarters. Although there was insufficient time to publish a notice 
of public hearing, the Coast Guard was able to contact several other 
interest groups who attended. The second meeting was recorded and 
transcribed; copies of the tape and transcript have been placed in the 
docket (CGD 91-202, files no. 110 and 111, respectively).
    At the second meeting, the Glosten findings were presented and 
discussed. However, detailed calculations, in a form suitable for 
submittal, were still being developed and were not yet ready by that 
date.
    On the basis of the preliminary Glosten findings, the Coast Guard 
agrees that the crash-stop criteria should be revisited. However, 
recognizing that there will not be adequate opportunity for resolution 
of this issue before the November 17, 1994, effective date, the Coast 
Guard has decided to suspend the crash-stop criteria from going into 
effect until both the Coast Guard and the public have an opportunity to 
review the technical submittal. All other provisions of the final rule, 
however, will still go into effect on November 17, 1994.

Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to submit written 
data, views, or arguments on the crash-stop criteria or other aspects 
of the final rule. The Coast Guard particularly seeks comments on the 
minimum performance criteria, either those as published or alternatives 
that could achieve the same purpose.
    Persons submitting comments should include their names and 
addresses, identify this rulemaking (CGD 91-202) and the specific 
section of this proposal to which each comment applies, and give the 
reason for each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and 
attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8 by 11 inches, 
suitable for copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting 
acknowledgment of receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-
addressed postcards or envelopes.
    At this time, the final Glosten technical submittal has not yet 
been received by the Coast Guard. Persons wishing to receive a copy of 
the submittal in order to comment on it should submit their mailing 
address to the project manager, Mr. Thomas Jordan, who will distribute 
copies of this submittal following its receipt by the Coast Guard (see 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice).
    The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the 
comment period. It may change this action in view of the comments.

    Dated: October 26, 1994.
G.A. Penington,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and 
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 94-27047 Filed 10-31-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P