[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2461-2463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1388]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-95-139]
RIN 2115-AE84


Safety Zone; Chelsea River, Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is soliciting public comment as to whether to 
and, if so, how to amend the safety zone regulation for the waters of 
the Chelsea River, Boston Inner Harbor. Any proposed amendments should 
update the safety zone to reflect recent structural changes in the 
Chelsea Street Bridge and surrounding areas, and should address the 
rationale regarding vessel size limitations and vessel tug assist 
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Captain of the Port Boston, 
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, 455 Commercial Street, Boston, MA 
02109-1045. Comments may also be hand-delivered to the above address 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal 
holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-3000. Comments will become 
part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at 
the above address during the hours noted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LT Joseph L. Duffy, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Boston, MA (617) 
223-3000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in the 
early stages of this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or 
arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their names and 
addresses, identify this specific ANPRM (CGD01-95-139) and the specific 
issue to which each comment applies, and give reasons for each comment. 
The Coast Guard requests that all comments and attachments be submitted 
in an 8\1/2\'' by 11'' unbound format suitable for copying and 
electronic filing. If that is not practical, a second copy of any bound 
material is requested. Persons desiring acknowledgement of receipt of 
comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    All comments received before the expiration of the comment period 
will be considered before any proposed rule is drafted. Late submittals 
will be considered to the extent practicable without delaying the 
publication of any proposed rule.
    At this time the Coast Guard has not scheduled any public hearings. 
Persons may request a public hearing by writing to the Project Manager 
at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Requests should indicate why a 
public hearing is considered necessary. If the Coast Guard determines 
that the opportunity for oral presentations will aid any rulemaking, it 
will hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by a later 
notice in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information: The principal persons involved in drafting 
this document are LCDR Mark Grossetti, Marine Safety Office Boston, 
and CDR John Astley, Project Counsel, First Coast Guard District 
Legal Office.

Background

    The Chelsea Street Bridge is a bascule-type bridge owned by the 
City of Boston and originally constructed in 1939. It spans the Chelsea 
River providing a means for vehicles to travel between Chelsea, MA and 
East Boston, MA. Several petroleum-product transfer facilities are 
located on the Chelsea River, upstream and downstream of the Chelsea 
Street Bridge. Transit of tank vessels through the bridge is necessary 
to access the facilities upstream of the bridge. The narrow bridge-span 
opening creates a very difficult passage through the bridge for larger 
vessels. Adding to the difficulty are the close proximity of 
neighboring shore structures and, at times, vessels moored at 
facilities adjacent to the bridge.

[[Page 2462]]

    In 1986, the bridge and its fendering system were in a dilapidated 
condition, which further complicated vessel transits. Additionally, the 
Northeast Petroleum Terminal (locally referred to as the Jenny Dock) 
and the Mobil Oil Terminal were located downstream of the bridge on the 
north and south bank of the river, respectively. If one or more vessels 
were moored at either of those facilities, the already short and narrow 
approach to the bridge was further restricted, thus reducing the 
maneuverability space of vessels during the approach and transit 
through the bridge. Meetings between the Coast Guard, marine operators, 
and pilots indicated that restrictions on length and width of 
particular vessel traffic were necessary to achieve an acceptable level 
of safety for navigating this difficult area. As a result, on June 27, 
1986, (51 FR 23415) the Coast Guard promulgated the safety zone 
regulations at 33 CFR 165.120. These regulations extend over the waters 
of the Chelsea River for 100 yards upstream and downstream of the 
bridge, restrict water traffic transiting the Chelsea Street Bridge, 
and implement vessel operational constraints. The Coast Guard justified 
these restrictions and constraints by citing more than 75 marine bridge 
allisons and other incidents involving vessels transiting the Chelsea 
Street Bridge during the period from 1978 through 1985.
    Since the implementation of those regulations, physical changes 
have occurred within the confines of the existing safety zone. The 
Jenny Dock, which is specifically mentioned in the regulations, has 
since collapsed into the Chelsea River and is no longer an active dock. 
The bulkhead has since been repaired, but vessels no longer moor at the 
facility. Also, the dilapidated fendering system on the Chelsea Street 
Bridge has been completely rebuilt with new wooden-reinforced pilings.
    In addition to these physical changes, the Coast Guard has 
documented sixteen allisions with the bridge or its fendering system 
since the implementation of the current regulations. Six allisions 
involved tank vessels, two involved tug/barge combinations over 10,000 
gross tons, and eight involved tug/barge combinations under 10,000 
gross tons. No allisions have involved integrated tug/barge 
combinations (ITBs). All but two of the allisions resulted in only 
minor damage. The exceptions involved the Barge OCEAN STATES in 
February 1993 (structural damage to the bridge) and the Barge DXE 1640 
OS in July 1994 (damaged many pilings).

Discussion

    Due to the above mentioned changes and casualties, recent informal 
discussions between the Captain of the Port and the local maritime 
community have raised concern that changes to the safety zone 
regulations may be needed. While the current regulations have provided 
an acceptable level of safety, it may be possible to improve safety 
while reducing the burden of compliance. The Coast Guard seeks comments 
on the following specific items, and would welcome input and possible 
solutions regarding any other Chelsea River-related problems or 
concerns not addressed in this document.

Vessel Size Restrictions

    Currently, only vessels meeting certain draft and physical 
dimensions (overall length and overall width) are allowed to enter the 
safety zone. No vessel greater than 661 feet in length, or greater than 
90.5 feet in beam, may transit the safety zone. No vessel greater than 
630.5 feet in length, or 85.5 feet or greater in beam, may transit the 
safety zone between sunset and sunrise. No tankship greater than 550.5 
feet in length may transit the safety zone with a draft less than 18 
feet forward and 24 feet aft. Current regulations authorize the 
restrictions to be relaxed with specific approval from the local 
Captain of the Port.
    Is the present practice of using a vessel's physical dimensions as 
limiting factors satisfactory? If so, are the present size limitations 
satisfactory? Are there better dimensions and/or dimension ratios, or 
different operating restrictions, that would increase safety or provide 
an equivalent level of safety?

Mobil Oil/Jenny Dock

    Currently, when the Chelsea River channel is obstructed by 
vessel(s) moored at either of the subject terminals certain 
restrictions apply. When there is a vessel moored at each terminal, no 
vessel greater than 300.5 feet in length or greater than 60.5 feet in 
beam may transit the safety zone. When a vessel with a beam greater 
than 60.5 feet is moored at either terminal, no vessel greater than 
630.5 feet in length, or greater than 85.5 feet in beam may transit the 
safety zone. When a vessel with a beam greater than 85.5 feet is moored 
at either terminal, no vessel greater than 550.5 feet in length, or 
greater than 85.5 feet in beam may transit the safety zone.
    Since the Jenny Dock is no longer in use, the Coast Guard seeks 
public comment regarding the possibility of removing the existing 
vessel size restrictions that apply when the Chelsea River channel is 
obstructed by vessel(s) at the Jenny Dock. However, as the Mobil Oil 
facility remains operational just downstream of the Chelsea Street 
Bridge, the transiting vessel's length and beam remains a safety 
concern when certain sized vessels are moored at Mobil Oil. Is the 
present practice of using a transiting vessel's physical dimensions as 
limiting factors satisfactory? If so, are the present size limitations 
satisfactory? Are there better dimensions and/or dimension ratios, or 
different operating restrictions, that would increase safety or provide 
an equivalent level of safety?

Tug Assistance Requirements

    Existing tug assistance requirements vary depending on the physical 
size and the type of the transiting vessel. All tankships greater than 
630.5 feet in length or greater than 85.5 feet in beam shall be 
assisted by at least four tugs of adequate horsepower. All tankships 
from 450 feet in length up to and including 630.5 feet in length and 
less than 85.5 feet in beam shall be assisted by at least three tugs of 
adequate horsepower.
    U.S. certificated ITBs shall meet the tug assistance requirements 
of a tankship of similar length and beam, except that one less assist 
tug would be required.
    All conventional tug/barge combinations over 10,000 gross tons 
shall be assisted by at least one tug of adequate horsepower.
    Are the aforementioned existing tug assistance requirements 
adequate, too stringent, or not stringent enough for the applicable 
type of vessel? Are there other applicable type of vessels that the tug 
assistance requirements should apply to?
    Additionally, the Coast Guard is considering deleting one of the 
required assistance tugs for any transiting vessel equipped with a bow 
thruster of adequate horsepower. Although bow thrusters are not 
addressed in the current regulation, this would appear to be an issue 
for consideration. Bow thrusters are an effective maneuvering aid in 
certain areas of restricted maneuverability such as this safety zone. 
Can the presence of an operational bow thruster be considered an 
adequate equivalent to substitute for one assistance tug? The Coast 
Guard is specifically seeking input regarding this issue.

Tug/Barge Combinations Under 10,000 Gross Tons

    As stated in the previous paragraphs addressing tug assistance 
requirements, 

[[Page 2463]]
conventional tug/barge combinations under 10,000 gross tons do not 
currently require assistance tugs. A majority of the documented Chelsea 
Street Bridge allisions since implementation of the existing 
regulations involved tug/barge combinations under 10,000 gross tons. 
The Coast Guard is soliciting comment regarding the possibility of 
applying current or future size restrictions that apply to ITBs to tug/
barge combinations under 10,000 gross tons. Should the same draft and 
size limitations and tug assist requirements that apply to tankships of 
similar length and beam apply to tug/barge combinations of any tonnage? 
Should additional, fewer, or the same number of assist tugs be required 
for tug/barge combinations?

    Dated: January 23, 1996.
D.M. Maguire,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, MA.
[FR Doc. 96-1388 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M