[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