[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4169-4170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1879]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
[USCG-1998-4272]
Annual Certification of Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory
Council
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of recertification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight
Act of 1990, the Coast Guard may certify on an annual basis, an
alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a regional citizens'
advisory council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This certification allows the
advisory group to monitor the activities of terminal facilities and
crude oil tankers under the Cook Inlet Program established by the
statute. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the
Coast Guard has recertified the alternative voluntary advisory group
for Cook Inlet, Alaska. The period of certification is being
administratively adjusted to allow realignment of the recertification
process with the annual budget year of the Cook Inlet Regional
Citizens' Advisory Council (CIRCAC). The effective period of this
recertification is from June 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information regarding the
CIRCAC contact LT Pittmen, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection
Directorate, Office of Response, (G-MOR-1), (202) 267-0426. For
questions on viewing material submitted to the docket, contact Dorothy
Walker, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-
366-9329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
Congress passed the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight
and Monitoring Act of 1990 (the Act), section 5002, to foster the long-
term partnership among industry, government, and local communities in
overseeing compliance with the environmental concerns in the operation
of terminal facilities and crude-oil tankers. Subsection 5002(o)
permits an alternative voluntary advisory group to represent the
communities and interests in the vicinity of the terminal facilities in
the Cook Inlet, in lieu of a council of the type specified in
subsection 5002(d), if certain conditions are met. The Act requires
that the group enter into a contract to ensure annual funding, and that
it receive annual certification by the President to the effect that it
fosters the general goals and purposes of the Act and is broadly
representative of the communities and interests in the vicinity of the
terminal facilities and Cook Inlet. Accordingly, in 1991, the President
granted certification to the CIRCAC. The authority to certify
alternative voluntary advisory groups was subsequently delegated to the
Commandant of the Coast Guard and redelegated to the Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection.
On August 7, 1998, in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard
announced the availability of the application for recertification that
it received from the CIRCAC and requested comments (63 FR 42475). It
received 14 comments to the docket.
Discussion of Comments
One commenter indicates that the CIRCAC did not obtain adequate
input from the city of Homer. In a meeting with the Executive Director
the Coast Guard learned that the Mayor of Homer is now on the Board of
the CIRCAC; in addition, the City of Homer offered no letter to the
docket indicating any dissatisfaction with the CIRCAC. We believe the
CIRCAC has successfully taken steps to resolve this potential
difficulty.
One commenter believes the government should fund the CIRCAC. The
statute does not authorize federal funding of the CIRCAC. Another
commenter complains that the CIRCAC is underfunded. This comment does
not pertain directly to the determination of recertification but rather
to contractual provisions.
Two commenters complain that the CIRCAC has no vision, goals, and
objectives. The CIRCAC indicated in a letter to the Coast Guard
clarifying concerns and questions related to recertification that they
use the goals and objectives of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90)
as identified in the context of the alternative voluntary advisory
groups. Considering the fact
[[Page 4170]]
that Congress used the terms ``fostering the goals and purposes of''
referring to wording within the Act, the Coast Guard agrees that the
Congressionally identified goals satisfy the requirement for vision
goals and objectives.
Two commenters indicate a belief that the CIRCAC applies inadequate
internal oversight. Based upon the bylaws of the CIRCAC and comments of
all other submitters this comment appears unfounded. In the wording of
the Act, regional citizens' advisory councils are allowed to be self-
governing. The meaning of this is very clear. The Act with respect to
the CIRCAC as an alternative voluntary advisory group is even less
restrictive by allowing the CIRCAC to foster the goal of self-
government.
Two commenters express concern regarding accountability of members
to their constituents. Accountability exists in the annual ability of
the area or interest group represented by the member to withhold their
letter of endorsement.
Two commenters indicate general concerns regarding conflict of
interest. The CIRCAC has a conflict of interest policy that is
available to the public upon request. There is no specific allegation
in either comment of conflict of interest.
Two commenters recommend the Coast Guard require a policy and
controls audit. The CIRCAC is encouraged in its recertification letter
to conduct an audit and make the results available as part of the next
recertification application process.
One commenter indicates that members are sometimes uncooperative.
The Coast Guard reminds members of the CIRCAC in its recertification
letter of the importance of cooperation.
Twelve commenters recommend recertification. Two commenters suggest
that the CIRCAC should not be certified as an alternative voluntary
advisory group ``but rather as a ``Council'' under the statute. Since
the commenters show numerous examples, and CIRCAC shows additional
examples in their application, of fostering the goals and purposes of
Section 5002, there is no basis to disallow certification for the
purpose of assigning a ``Council''.
In light of the many positive comments received regarding CIRCAC's
performance during the past year and the above analysis, the Coast
Guard has determined that recertification in accordance with the Act is
appropriate. The Coast Guard has requested the CIRCAC to conduct a
policy and controls audit and include documentation in its application
next year explaining how each of the issues raised in the comments has
been addressed. Such documentation should include recent correspondence
from the CIRCAC to the Coast Guard resolving concerns.
RECERTIFICATION: By letter dated November ____, 1998, the Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection certified
that the CIRCAC qualifies as an alternative voluntary advisory group
under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This recertification terminates on July 31,
1999.
Dated: January 13, 1999
R.C. North
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 99-1879 Filed 1-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
