Have there been a lot of problems with the ATBs?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;69887]The USCG should promptly put reasonable limits on these absurd “rule beater” vessels and harmonize US tonnage, manning, and licensing with international STCW standards by using only I.T.C. tonnage. Forr purposes of licensing, they should do this immediately.
If a vessel does not have an I.T.C tonnage measurement certificate, it should be measured for I.T.C. tonnage at its next USCG or ABS inspection. Until a vessel has its I.T.C. tonnage measurement, the USCG should implement a “presumed I.T.C. tonnage” test as follows: length x beam x depth / 100 = Presumed I.T.C. tonnage.
For example: length 200’ x beam 50’ x depth 20’ / 100 = 2000 Presumed I.T.C. gross tons.
The cost of this common sense safety and environmental protection measure is not much of a concern since it can be easily passed along as just another penny or two added to the price of gas at the pump. The public does not like to see oil companies make a profit, but they have no problem with paying extra to protect the environment.
As for ATB’s, these are nothing but “rule beaters” that exist only to avoid inspection of the tug and lower manning requirements. ATBs should probably be phased out over time and replaced by a fleet of safer new Jones Act tankers. Again, the increased cost of tankers over ATB’s would only amount to a couple pennies extra per gallon of gas at the pump. That extra cost is certainly justified by the safety and environmental protection benefits.[/QUOTE]