Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 27
RULES AND REGULATIONS
GOVERNING ENTRANCES TO PORTS AND HARBORS
Captain Daniel Charter
This paper focuses on the regulatory issues relating to the safety
of entrances to ports and harbors, particularly navigation safety.
These regulatory issues include actions by international bodies and the
federal government. This paper also briefly touches on state and local
requirements.
One major caution should be noted here. The regulator at all
levels of government, as a general rule, takes port and harbor entrance
design as given, and develops suitable regulations and procedures
around it. Certainly regulatory problems should be considered during
the planning and design stage. However, the fundamental consideration
should be navigation safety, rather than the regulatory aspects.
International Rules
There are several requirements at the international level that have
an indirect effect on entrance design. The international requirements
are generally for vessels. However, since the reason for the existence
of a port is to provide an interface between land and marine
transportation, it is obvious that regulatory requirements for vessels
can influence port design considerations.
The first step is to determine the traffic mix that will be using
the port entrance. Once this is done, the navigational equipment that
vessels will be carrying can be determined by analyzing international
carriage requirements. For example, will vessels have radar, back-up
radar, depth finders, radio direction finders, etc.?
International rules that should be considered include the agreement
that has been reached on standard routing measures for vessels,
including traffic separation schemes. A traffic separation scheme is
designed to separate traffic in congested areas, and generally to
provide for inbound and outbound lanes, often with a precautionary area
where traffic patterns cross. The overall port entrance design must
then consider anticipated traffic volumes to determine whether a
traffic separation scheme will be required. If one is required, is
there room to accommodate both inbound and outbound lanes and still
provide the necessary separation buffer? Will there be special types
or sizes of vessels? Will there be cross traffic, and if so, what will
27
OCR for page 28
28
be the density and the types of vessels involved? Can these vessels be
safely accommodated? Should the design be altered to permit a safer
situation? Finally, coastal states have the responsibility to provide
aids to navigation that permit vessels to use a traffic separation
scheme properly. Does the overall design consider these aids?
International collision regulations should also be considered.
While the collision regulations generally have sufficient flexibility
to permit application to any entrance design, the planners should be
aware of the regulations and avoid any design feature that would
interfere with application of normal sailing rules. Legislation is
pending in Congress that would unify the rules of the road for the
United States and bring them into accordance with international rules.
As indicated earlier, international requirements apply to vessels
rather than ports. There are a few exceptions, suab as those I will
note in a subsequent section. There is now an international convention
in the process of ratification by the U.S. that enjoins governments to
provide adequate reception facilities for oil, chemical, and other
vessel wastes. An international guide is being drafted for port rules
pertaining to the movement and handling of dangerous goods. However,
there are no international proposals that would address port or harbor
design or capabilities.
Federal Regulations
At the federal level, additional regulations are in force that
primarily address vessel operations, and in some limited cases, special
equipment requirements. These regulations can be found under Title 33
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Port and Tanker Safety
Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-474) provides broad authority to the Coast Guard
to control vessel and waterfront facility operations, to establish
vessel and facility equipment requirements, and to manage traffic in
our waterways. It requires regulatory action that has not yet been
completed for port access routes, pilotage requirements, and lightening
zones.
Vessel equipment requirements and operating procedures are
contained in the Navigation Safety Regulations (33 CFR 164~. The
equipment requirements are similar to the international requirements,
except that the United States requires an electronic position-fixing
device (either loran-C or transit satellite receivers satisfy the
regulatory requirement) on vessels of 1600 gross tons or more. The
principal purpose of this requirement is to assure safe navigation in
the coastal confluence zone. However, the availability and accuracy of
electronic positioning systems could be a factor in approach design.
Navigation equipment requirements serve only one purpose today--to
assure that the vessel is suitably equipped so that the mariner can
properly navigate his vessel. The Coast Guard intends to publish a
proposed rule requiring loran-C capability and a suitable device for
retransmission of the loran coordinates to a shore station. The
purpose of this requirement is to permit the Coast Guard to monitor the
movement of a vessel during its approach to the entrance of Prince
OCR for page 29
29
William Sound, and its passage and transit. This proposed rule would
apply only to tanker traffic in and out of Valdez, Alaska, but it is
reasonable to expect that similar action may be taken elsewhere.
Although Prince William Sound is the only area where monitoring of
vessel movements through equipment installed on the vessels is being
seriously considered, there are other areas where vessel positions are
monitored by radar or low-light-level television. These areas have
established vessel traffic centers to provide vessels with information
on the location and activity of other vessels. The vessel traffic
center receives reports from vessel pilots. In some areas, it is
necessary to augment these reports with some form of surveillance; to
date, either shoreside radar or low-light-level television.
Although the need for a vessel traffic service (or VTS) is
determined by casualty history, the existence or potential
establishment of a VTS should be considered during entrance design.
For example, the presence of a VTS would permit management of a one-way
traffic flow if the design of the entrance makes it necessary. Absence
of a VTS would not rule out management of one-way patterns. There are
areas where management is exercised by local harbor masters or the
vessel pilots themselves. The regulations governing mandatory
participation in a VTS are found at 33 CFR 161. The rules of voluntary
participation are covered in locally published operating manuals.
Voluntary VTS systems are not covered by federal regulation. The
following ports or harbors operate a VTS: Prince William Sound, Puget
Sound, San Francisco, Houston-Galveston, and New Orleans. A limited
VTS operation may soon be established in New York.
There are several other regulations pertaining to vessel management
that could affect port and harbor design. These include anchorage
regulations, security zones, regulated navigation areas, safety zones
around offshore structures, inland waterways navigation regulations,
and general safety zones.
The anchorage regulations (33 CFR 109-110) establish anchorage
grounds, specify their limits, and prescribe management procedures, if
necessary. An anchorage can be relocated or abolished, so it need not
be a constraint in entrance design. However, an existing anchorage was
established for some purpose, usually to serve as a holding area for
queued vessels. If an anchorage must be changed in reconfiguration of
a waterway, its use must be analyzed so that alternatives can be
provided if necessary.
Security zones {33 CFR 127) are established to safeguard vessel",
harbors, ports, and facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from
sabotage. Entry to these areas can be made only with permission.
While there are very few of these (five now exist) the presence of a
security zone and the conditions governing operations within the zone
could have major implications for entrance design, and the regulations
should be checked for the area in question.
Regulated Navigation Areas {33 CFR 128) are designated for
specification of navigation rules to be observed when operating in
areas that present unusual hazards. When such an area is established
at a port or harbor entrance, it is usually due to a basic design
problem. The existence of Regulated Navigation Areas must be
OCR for page 30
30
considered in new designs. It would be desirable to eliminate the
conditions that prompted the regulations, but even if this is not
possible, awareness of the regulations and reasons for them should
provide the designer with insight into problems that might be
encountered.
Safety zones on the outer continental shelf (33 CFR 147), inland
waterways navigation regulations (33 CFR 162), and safety zones in
navigable waters (33 CFR 165) could also affect entrance design, and it
would be a good practice to check these parts of the regulations. It
may be that the factors that prompted regulatory action could also
influence entrance design. This is particularly true in the case of
the regulations for inland waterways navigation, as these specify
conditions for some locations that are very similar to the rules for
Regulated Navigation Areas.
As previously mentioned, several sections of the Port and Tanker
Safety Act will ultimately lead to regulatory action in pilotage
requirements, port access routes, and lightening areas.
The pilotage requirements can be confusing, particularly since they
involve some departure from traditional federal-state relations.
Another presentation addresses these concerns (nHarbor Entrance
Design: A Pilot's Views. Designers of harbor entrances should be
aware that the regulation of pilotage may come under the administration
of either the federal or state government, depending on the nature of
the trade and state requirements. Pilotage requirements for vessels
engaged in coastal trade is a federal function, while primary authority
for pilotage on vessels engaged in foreign trade is vested in the
states. There is a provision that the federal government may require
pilotage when the state government does not, but no federal regulations
have been issued under this authority.
The Port and Tanker Safety Act provides for establishment of
lightening areas where vessels can transfer oil and hazardous
commodities from ship to ship. This provision was included in the act
primarily to provide areas for transfer of oil from ULCCs (ultralarge
crude carriers) and VLCCs (very large crude carriers). No such areas
have yet been established, but a notice of proposed rulemaking is
expected to be published in the near future.
Although the lightening areas themselves probably would not affect
entrance design, designers should maintain awareness of their location
and activity. Lightering activity can have a substantial influence on
the traffic patterns in and around port entrances.
The final area of the Port and Tanker Safety Act that I will
address in this section is port access routes. As the number and
variety of demands for the available space on our offshore waters
increased, conflicts began to arise among the users. The first
offshore structure, probably even the first several hundred structures,
were helpful to the mariner in fixing his position. With the placement
of several thousand structures, they soon became a major hindrance to
navigation.
As a result of these and other conflicts, Congress ordered a study
of safe port access routes and the publication of suitable regulations
that would recognize the paramount right of navigation over all other
OCR for page 31
31
uses within the designated area. Studies of some of the high-priority
areas will be completed this year. Establishment or potential
establishment of access routes under this authority will have major
consequences for entrance design. When study of an area has been
completed, regulations will be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations. If there are no regulations for an area, there may be an
ongoing study to establish whether such regulations are needed, and if
so, what they should specify. This can be determined by checking with
the local district office of the Coast Guard. If a project involves
the redesign of a port or harbor, it could change the existing traffic
patterns, and this may necessitate reexamination of an already
completed study of port access routes. If this is the case, the
district office should be consulted so that suitable safe access routes
can be established, if necessary.
State and Local Regulations and Customs
I have indicated that entrance design can also be affected by state
and local regulations. While these vary from port to port, they are
generally similar to federal regulations.
As noted, the bulk of the pilotage requirements are under state
jurisdiction. Although some actions of state and local authorities are
preempted by the federal government, these governments and regional
authorities may impose certain vessel operating controls, and operate
the equivalent of a vessel traffic service.
In addition to the actual local requirements, in many waterways
there are binding procedures resulting from local customs or
practices. Observance of these may be as important or more important
than observance of the formal regulations. Most of these local
practices are given in the appropriate Coast Pilot and suitable charts
of the area, or they can be obtained by consulting with the local
pilots associations.
Summary
Most of the rules, regulations, and customs governing the entrances
to ports and harbors were developed in response to the design of the
entrances (either natural or man-made). However, one or more of these
requirements could have substantial importance for entrance design.
While rules and regulations are flexible and can be changed to meet the
requirements of new or redesigned entrances, it may well be that the
factors creating the need for the regulation cannot be changed.
Therefore, the examination of applicable regulations in project
planning should include analysis to determine why they were required.
If a project will affect existing regulations, contact should be made
as early as possible with the appropriate authorities so that necessary
actions can be initiated.
OCR for page 32
32
DISCUSSION
KRAY: Aside from the regulations for aids to navigation, what
is the Coast Guard's jurisdiction over drawbridges, particularly their
engineering for maximum navigability?
CHARTER: We issue the permits for bridges over navigable
waters. As part of the process, we review the implications of the
design for the navigable water body. We examine the design for other
effects as well, and go through a full environmental analysis or
environmental assessment during the process. A major item of the
design review would be the effects of that particular bridge on the
safe navigation of the water body.
This is a function that was fairly recently (in the mid-1960s)
transferred from the U.S. Ax my Corps of Engineers to the Coast Guard.
There is an aspect of the bridge problem that might be of
interest to you and others here. If any of you have used our
waterways, particularly the inland waterways, you are well aware that
many of the existing bridges--bridges that have been there for 50 or 75
or more years--are obstructions to safe navigation. There is provision
for the federal government to modify or to require modification of
these bridges, using primarily federal funds, with some funding from
operators for the modifications. Several dozens are identified as
hazardous to navigation, and a single modification project might cost
$10 or $20 million. It is a very expensive process.
KRAY: The second question I have is, I understand that the
port of Galveston is enlarging its facilities and trying to construct
deepwater ports. I would like to know how far the Coast Guard is
involved in approval of the design of that navigation channel.
CHARTER: We were involved in the review of the project
proposal from the point of view of navigation safety. We did provide
some comments on aspects of navigation safety, the relationship of the
proposed project to the port entrance itself, and the traffic patterns
in the area. Some of the problems we perceived had to do win the
design of the channel in relation to the traffic flow.
HERBICH: During the last six-month period ending about
February 1, there were 18 ship collisions or casualties around
Galveston. We beve formed some opinions about why this occurred. I
wonder if you might have some opinions.
CHARTER: The Coast Guard has written a 103-page opinion on
that particular subject. One of the provisions of the Port and
Waterways Safety Act of 1972 is authorization for the Secretary of
Transportation to conduct investigations of general casualties. We
have long had the authority to investigate vessel casualties, but in
the new act the secretary was given specific authority to investigate
casualties not necessarily related to vessel collisions, ramming, or
groundings.
OCR for page 33
33
Under that authority, we conducted our first investigation
very recently, and it was of the Galveston channel entrance. We felt
that a number of occurrences there were not justified by the density of
traffic and the traffic mix.
As a result, we convened a board and the investigation was
conducted. It was completed approximately two months ago. The
investigative report was circulated to the offices in our headquarters
and also to our district office and local units for comment.
Several comments have been received, but the final commandant
action has not yet been taken. The board has many
recommendations--perhaps 30 or 40. Most pertain to the aids to
navigation, the traffic flow, and the vessel traffic management in the
area.
I would say that 80 percent of those recommendations will be
acted upon by the Coast Guard. Some depend on the action of other
agencies. Among the recommendations that will likely appear in the
final report are provision of a traffic separation scheme with a
suitable precautionary area, looking at the pilotage boarding location
and the entrance aids to navigation, particularly the channel marking
aids, and others. The investigation was triggered by the similarity of
the incidents as much as by their seriousness.
WEBSTER: I gather from your comments that vessel controls are
installed and Regulated Navigation Areas established only after there
have been some casualties. My question is, do you use any of the
simulation techniques that are now available to evaluate harbors and
navigational aids?
CHARTER: I think there will be a presentation that discusses
the use of simulation techniques for harbor entrance design and aids to
navigation. I use it as part of the decision process. I start
basically with casualty history, because we have to demonstrate a
favorable benefit-cost ratio. Any of the installations we are looking
at must be justified to our own department and agency, the Office of
Management and Budget, and Congress. Although we are working on
several other approaches, the only way we can justify the cost of a
vessel traffic system or other traffic management control techniques is
through historical analysis of the casualties, and projection into the
future of the cost of doing business in that area, and the potential
benefits.
Probably the most complete analysis we have done--and are
still doing--is for Puget Sound. We looked at the historical analysis
of casualties, and spent a great deal of time at the computer simulator
in Kings Point examining different sizes and types of vessels, and
different operational control techniques to determine the operational
controls that would assure safe navigation under all conditions.
The exercise for Prince William Sound was very similar. The
problem is that for a single regulatory action in Price William Sound
and one in Puget Sound, the researab, the studies, the background
investigation alone cost a couple of million dollars.
OCR for page 34
34
I try to structure these studier so that the results will be
widely applicable to navigable waters. I would hope that the risk
analyses we are conducting for Puget Sound, and the tug-assist trials
taking place in October and November, would transfer almost totally
into any environment.
I don't know if we will be completely successful, but these
are among our goals.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
coast guard
