[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64937-64941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-31512]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Chapter I
[USCG-1998-4501]
RIN 2115-AF68
Improvements to Marine Safety in Puget Sound-Area Waters
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks public comment on potential rules that
would improve marine safety in Puget Sound-Area waters including Puget
Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, passages around and through the San
Juan Islands, and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Based on
a recent determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding the
status of marine safety in the Puget Sound-area, the Coast Guard will
soon begin a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to study the
feasibility of implementing new safety measures, including extended tug
escort requirements for certain vessels and a dedicated pre-positioned
rescue vessel. Public input will help focus the cost-benefit analysis
and help us develop any future proposed rules that may be necessary.
DATES: Comments must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before
May 24, 1999. Please submit comments relating to the cost-benefit
analysis as soon as possible, preferably by December 24, 1998.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the Docket Management Facility
[USCG-1998-4501], U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or deliver them to room
PL-401, located 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, located 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. You may also access this docket on the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
A copy of the International Private Sector Tug-of-Opportunity
System (ITOS) Report to Congress is available in the public docket at
the above addresses or on the Internet at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/
nmc/genpub.htm. You may also obtain a copy by calling the project
manager at the Coast Guard number in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
A copy of the Puget Sound Additional Hazards Study, formally titled
``Scoping Risk Assessment: Protection Against Oil Spills in the Marine
Waters of Northwest Washington State,'' is available in the public
docket at the above addresses and from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22161, telephone 800-553-6847, fax 703-321-8547. The report may be
ordered as document PB97-205488 and the technical appendices to the
report as document PB97-205470.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
document, call Commander T.M. Close, Human Element and Ship Design
Division, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-2997. For questions on
viewing, or submitting material to, the docket, call Dorothy Walker,
Chief, Documents, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages you to participate in this potential
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. If you
submit comments, you should include your name and address, identify
this document [USCG-1998-4501] and the specific section or question in
this document to which your comments apply, 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. If you want acknowledgment of receipt of your
comments, you should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period.
No public meeting is planned. You may request a public meeting by
submitting a comment requesting one to the address under ADDRESSES. The
request should include the reasons why a meeting would be beneficial
and recommended locations for the meeting. If it is determined that a
meeting should be held, we will announce the time and place in a later
notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
During the last two and a half years, the Coast Guard and the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), in cooperation with
the State of Washington, the maritime industry, and other local
stakeholders, have assessed marine safety in Puget Sound-area waters.
The goal of all involved parties is to ensure a high degree of safety
and environmental protection for the area's waterways.
On April 26, 1996, the White House issued the ``Department of
Transportation Action Plan to Address Vessel and Environmental Safety
on Puget Sound-Area Waters.'' This Action Plan consists of three
elements. The first element is to establish criteria for and facilitate
the development of a private-sector system to provide timely emergency
response to vessels in distress in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and near
the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The second element is to
determine the adequacy of all vessel safety and environmental
protection
[[Page 64938]]
measures in Puget Sound-area waters. The third and final element is to
determine whether any hazard scenarios warrant consideration of
additional casualty prevention or response measures.
International Tug of Opportunity System
Section 401 of the Alaska Power Administration Asset Sale and
Termination Act (November, 1995) directed the Coast Guard to submit a
plan to Congress outlining the most cost-effective means of
implementing an international, private-sector, tug-of-opportunity
system (ITOS). The Coast Guard, after working in cooperation with a
cross section of the maritime industry, submitted reports to Congress
in January and December of 1997.
A voluntary ITOS is now in effect in the Puget Sound area, with
over 80 tugs participating in the system. The ITOS provides a means to
identify tugs that may be in the vicinity of a vessel in distress.
Participating tugs are equipped with Automatic Identification System
(AIS) transponders that automatically report their positions to the
Marine Exchange of Puget Sound.
Puget Sound Additional Hazards Study
In 1997, the Department of Transportation conducted a broad
assessment of the probabilities and consequences of marine accidents in
Puget Sound-area waters, including Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, passages around and through the San Juan Islands, and the
offshore waters of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. This
assessment, formally titled ``Scoping Risk Assessment: Protection
Against Oil Spills in the Marine Waters of Northwest Washington State''
but commonly called the ``Puget Sound Additional Hazards Study,'' was
conducted by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center with
significant stakeholder participation. A key element of this Study was
a panel of recognized safety and environmental protection experts who
provided information, opinions, and recommendations regarding the
current safety system. The Study was completed in July 1997. Since that
time, the Coast Guard and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation
have continued outreach efforts and solicited input from State
officials and the public on how to proceed based on the recommendations
of the Additional Hazards Study.
Secretary's Determination
The Secretary of Transportation has determined that while the many
existing elements of the region's marine transportation system comprise
a system that is safe, there is always room for improvement. The
Secretary's Determination and the Department's Announcement regarding
additional risk mitigation measures appear in the ``Notices'' section
of this issue of the Federal Register. The Secretary found that
consideration of additional safety measures is warranted to address the
risks of collisions, powered groundings, and drift groundings.
Announcement on Additional Measures
Accompanying the Secretary's Determination, the Department released
an announcement regarding additional risk mitigation measures. Some
additional measures can be implemented immediately, while others
require more thorough evaluation before any future implementation.
A promising measure to reduce the risk of collisions and powered
groundings is improved waterway management, such as modifications to
the Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) at the western approach to the
Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Thirteenth Coast Guard District is starting
a Port Access Study in consultation with the Canadian Government, as
well as State and local stakeholders. This study will provide
recommendations for TSS modifications.
The Department also announced ongoing enhancements to the Coast
Guard's existing Port State Control Program to increase attention to
English language proficiency and increase information-sharing with
Canadian authorities. The Port State Control Program keeps substandard
foreign-flag vessels out of U.S. waters. Further, the Department
announced several other human element measures that help reduce risk by
improving crew effectiveness and performance. These measures address
fatigue prevention and improved communications. The Captain of the Port
of Puget Sound is implementing these measures with Canadian and
Washington State counterparts through the enforcement of recent
International treaties and through ongoing Coast Guard programs.
The Announcement also described efforts to fully evaluate potential
additional measures to prevent a drift grounding in the event of a loss
of steering or propulsion. While ITOS provides risk reduction for drift
groundings, there are concerns that a sufficient number of tugs may not
be present in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca and in offshore areas
in the course of routine commercial service.
To address this concern, the Department announced an effort to
study the effectiveness of ITOS. In addition, the Coast Guard and the
State of Washington will fund and manage an analysis of the costs and
additional risk reduction benefits that would be afforded by extended
tug escorts for commercial vessels or by a pre-positioned rescue
vessel. These analyses will begin immediately and should be completed
by the end of next summer.
Regulatory History
Section 4116(c) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) requires
two tug escorts for single-hull tankers over 5,000 gross tons
transporting oil in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and Rosario Strait
and Puget Sound, Washington (including those portions of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca east of Port Angeles, Haro Strait, and the Strait of
Georgia subject to United States jurisdiction). The single-hull tankers
to which that requirement applies will be incrementally phased out. By
2015, all single-hull tankers entering U.S. waters will be replaced by
double hull tankers. The Coast Guard published a final rule (CGD 91-
202) on August 19, 1994, implementing the OPA 90 escort requirements.
Those regulations are codified in 33 CFR part 168. Costs and benefits
were not a central issue for that rulemaking because the escort
requirements were specifically required by statute. In addition,
industry was incurring significant escort-related costs under existing
state escort regulations in both Alaska and Washington. Since 1975, the
State of Washington has required escorts for certain loaded single and
double hull tankers transiting east of Port Angeles.
OPA 90 also gives the Secretary authority to extend the two-tug
escort requirement to other U.S. waters, as appropriate. In an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on April 27, 1993 (CGD
91-202a), the Coast Guard sought public comment on: (1) What U.S.
waters, other than in the Puget Sound area east of Port Angeles, should
have an escort vessel requirement, (2) what vessels should be required
to comply with an escort rule, and (3) what the escort vessels should
be expected to do. In the ANPRM, the Coast Guard suggested that the
Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) might provide authority for more
flexible escort requirements than OPA 90, such as the use of single,
high-performance escort vessels (instead of the two-tug escort required
under OPA 90). Several public meetings were held on the ANPRM. In the
Notice of Public Meeting and Request for Comments
[[Page 64939]]
published on December 21, 1994, the Coast Guard expanded its discussion
of its PWSA authority.
Hundreds of comments were received in response to both the 1993
ANPRM and the 1994 Request for Comments and during the several public
meetings. Several comments supported extending tug-escort requirements
for Puget Sound-area waters beyond the OPA 90-mandated area; these
comments are included in this new docket. In general, there was no
consensus among the comments. Most were subjective and without
supporting data. For example, arguments against escorts frequently
cited substantial adverse economic impact but did not include cost
analyses. Similarly, recommendations for escorts frequently cited
environmental sensitivity to oil spills but did not include analyses of
the navigational hazards to vessels. Therefore, it was difficult to
proceed with a rulemaking without the needed cost-benefit information.
Extending escort requirements beyond the OPA 90 mandated areas is
discretionary and subject to much greater economic scrutiny,
particularly in light of Congressional and Administration concerns for
the cost-effectiveness of Federal regulations (Executive Order 12866,
for example). Further complicating the issue was the broad geographic
application of the previous ANPRM which could include any waters of the
U.S. For these reasons, the Coast Guard elected to defer work on that
rulemaking project (CGD 91-202a) until ITOS and the Additional Hazards
Study are addressed and more cost-benefit information is gathered.
Under authority of the PWSA (33 U.S.C. 1223-1224), the Coast Guard
has initiated this new potential rulemaking to address additional
safety measures, including extended tug escorts and a dedicated pre-
positioned rescue vessel, focusing specifically on Puget Sound-area
waters.
Discussion of Measures for Further Evaluation
Extended Tug Escorts
In the upcoming cost-benefit analysis announced by the Department,
the Coast Guard and the State of Washington will evaluate the potential
of extending the current tug-escort requirement (applicable to single-
hull tankers over 5,000 gross tons) west of the line connecting New
Dungeness Light with Discovery Island light to include a wider range of
commercial vessels transiting the entire Strait of Juan de Fuca.
The Additional Hazards Study raised several issues regarding
extended tug escorts. Increasing the vessel escort area would benefit
escorted vessels in the event of propulsion or steering loss by
preventing some powered and drift groundings. An escort might also
reduce the risk of collisions for the escorted vessel. In addition,
extending tug-escort requirements could potentially increase the number
of vessels available for ITOS, which is a concern for the area west of
Port Angeles.
Extending tug escort requirements only for single-hull tankers
could lead to the collapse of ITOS, as the voluntary tank-vessel
participants would no longer have a reason to pay for a redundant
safety system. Should ITOS collapse, the risk for non-tank vessels
would potentially increase due to the loss of this safety system.
Similarly, the risk of drift groundings for all vessels off the coast
would increase. The potential increase in risk for non-tank vessels
could be addressed by requiring escorts for all single-hull vessels
carrying a significant amount of petroleum as cargo or as bunkers (ship
fuel). Extending the escort requirements for single-hull tankers or
requiring escorts for all single-hull vessels carrying a significant
amount of petroleum would impose significant costs on those industries.
By extending the tug escort area, the time it would take for an
escorted vessel to transit the Strait of Juan de Fuca would be
lengthened (due to slower speeds while under escort), thus increasing
its vulnerability. Further, the Additional Hazards Study classified the
location near Port Angeles where tank vessels rendezvous with escort
vessels as a significant risk. Shifting the rendezvous location to the
entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, closer to the Sanctuary and in
less hospitable conditions, could increase the likelihood and
consequences of spills.
Dedicated Pre-Positioned Rescue Vessel
The other measure to be addressed in the cost-benefit analysis is
the concept of stationing a pre-positioned rescue vessel at the
approaches to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Such a vessel could help
prevent drift groundings and could be outfitted to provide some initial
salvage, spill response, and fire-fighting capabilities.
While a pre-positioned rescue vessel may be a valuable safety
addition to Puget Sound-area waters, such a vessel would not
significantly reduce the likelihood of collisions, powered groundings,
or allisions. Its ability to reduce risk would be limited, because ITOS
already addresses many of the same risks. Additionally, a requirement
for such a vessel might require additional legislation. Finally, there
are concerns regarding who would pay for such a vessel.
International Considerations
We must consider the international nature of the Puget Sound-area
waterway when addressing potential new safety measures, such as
extended tug escorts and a dedicated rescue vessel. While the Coast
Guard has the authority to regulate all vessels within U.S. waters of
the Strait, our enforcement authority does not extend to vessels in the
outbound channel, which is predominately in Canadian waters. Any future
extended tug escort requirement could not apply to Canadian waters
without bilateral enactment.
Cost-benefit Analysis and Related Questions
As announced by the Department, the Coast Guard and the State of
Washington will evaluate the degree of effectiveness of ITOS and
jointly manage and fund a cost-benefit analysis of extended tug escorts
and a dedicated rescue vessel. These analyses will assist the Coast
Guard in developing a regulatory assessment for a future regulatory
proposal, if deemed necessary. To help focus these analyses, the Coast
Guard requests comments on the following questions, although comments
on other issues addressed in this document are also welcome. In
responding to a question, please explain your reasons for each answer,
and follow the instructions under REQUEST FOR COMMENTS above.
1. Given the results of the Additional Hazards Study and existing
safety measures currently in place, including existing Federal and
state tug escort requirements for certain tank ships east of the New
Dungeness-Discovery Island line; Vessel Traffic Services; Traffic
Separation Schemes; the Coast Guard's Port State Control Program; and
Coast Guard inspection of U.S. tank ships, cargo ships and passenger
vessels, what improvements to marine safety in Puget Sound area-waters
are most cost-effective?
2. Should tug escorts be required for all in-bound laden single-
hull tank ships west of the line connecting New Dungeness Light with
Discovery Island Light? If so, how far west should the escort begin?
What costs would be associated with such an escort requirement? Should
a bilateral agreement with Canada be pursued to require escorts for
laden outbound
[[Page 64940]]
tankers? What costs would be associated with such a requirement?
3. Should tug escorts be required for all single-hull ships over a
certain size? If so, what size would be appropriate? What costs would
be associated with such an escort requirement? Are there criteria other
than vessel size that should be considered (cargo carried, fuel
capacity, vessel's flag, vessel's history of regulatory compliance,
etc.)?
4. Is a single tug adequate as an escort? Why or why not? If so,
what characteristics should a single escort tug have?
5. Should escorts be required throughout the year or only during
certain seasons? How would a seasonal requirement affect costs?
6. Are there additional hazards created by establishing escort
requirements? If so, what are they and what are the risks?
7. Should there be a dedicated rescue vessel pre-positioned in the
Strait of Juan de Fuca? If so, where should it be located? Who should
operate it? What costs are associated with such a vessel? Can it be in
a Canadian port? Should such a vessel be in addition to or in place of
extended escort requirements?
8. What characteristics should a dedicated rescue vessel have?
Should it be a tug, a salvage vessel, an oil spill response vessel, or
some other type of vessel? How would costs vary according to the type
of vessel used?
9. Should a dedicated rescue vessel be pre-positioned throughout
the year or only during certain seasons? How would a seasonal
requirement affect costs?
10. Should the dedicated rescue vessel serve as an oil spill
response vessel or a platform for oil spill mitigation equipment? If
so, what type of and how much equipment should be on board? How much
would this equipment cost?
11. Who should fund any vessel pre-positioned in the Strait of Juan
de Fuca? How should the funds be collected?
12. Are there additional hazards created by establishing a
dedicated rescue vessel in the Strait of Juan de Fuca? If so, what are
they and what are the risks?
13. If tugs were hired specifically to be available to respond to
potential ship emergencies in the Strait of Juan de Fuca when no other
tugs happen to be in the region, would this arrangement adequately
address risks, considering existing safety programs? What ships should
such a requirement apply to? Who should pay for these tugs? What costs
would be associated with such a requirement?
14. Since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, what oil spills have
occurred from shipboard sources in Puget Sound-area waters including
the Strait of Juan de Fuca and approaches to the Strait? What controls
would have helped to prevent these spills? What controls or
countermeasures would have helped mitigate these spills once they
occurred?
15. What types of oil spills would be prevented by escorting laden
tankers through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and its approaches?
16. What types of oil spills would be prevented by pre-positioning
a dedicated rescue vessel in the Strait of Juan de Fuca?
17. How do the consequences of an oil spill in Puget Sound-area
waters compare with the consequences of an oil spill in other State of
Washington waters? In other waters around the U.S.?
18. Are the response time estimates developed in the ITOS Report to
Congress and ITOS Addendum Report accurate? If not, why not and what is
a more accurate estimate?
Preliminary Regulatory Assessment
At this time, this rulemaking is not considered significant under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866; however, it is significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
[44 FR 11030 (February 26, 1979)] due to substantial public interest.
The Coast Guard will prepare an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866 for any future rulemaking
deemed necessary.
The primary purpose of this advance notice is to solicit public
comments to help the Coast Guard identify the costs and benefits of
potential new safety measures to the extent that they exceed current
statutory and regulatory requirements or current industry practices. We
expect that public response to the questions and issues addressed in
this document will help us prepare a regulatory assessment for any
future rules that may be necessary. We seek your feedback on what costs
you may incur should any of the proposed additional measures be
required, as well as associated benefits.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the
Coast Guard must consider whether any potential rulemaking would have
significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
``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.
Because we have not yet proposed specific requirements and because
the number of affected small entities has not been identified, we
cannot accurately estimate the potential impact on small entities at
this time. The Coast Guard will address small entity issues as part of
the planned cost-benefit analysis discussed in this document. The Coast
Guard expects that comments received on this document will help it
determine the number of potentially affected small entities, and weigh
the impacts of various regulatory alternatives.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-21], the Coast Guard wants to assist
small entities to understand this document so they can better evaluate
the potential effects of any future rulemaking on them and participate
in the rulemaking process. If you believe that your small business,
organization, or agency may be affected by this potential rulemaking,
please explain how you could be affected, and tell us what flexibility
or compliance alternatives the Coast Guard should consider to minimize
the burden on you.
If you have questions concerning this document, you may call the
Coast Guard point of contact designated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. We also maintain a small business regulatory assistance Web
Page at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/regs/reghome.html which has current
information on small entity issues and proposed Coast Guard
regulations. To help small entities become more involved in this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard will mail copies of this advance notice to
Small Business Development Center (SBDC) State Offices in the Northwest
for distribution to local SBDC offices and interested small businesses.
Collection-of-Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.], the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule that
contains a collection-of-information requirement to determine whether
the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by
its collection. Collection-of-information requirements include
reporting, record-keeping, notification, and other similar actions.
The Coast Guard cannot yet estimate the paperwork burden associated
with this potential rulemaking because it has not yet proposed any new
requirements. If and when a specific regulatory
[[Page 64941]]
proposal is developed, the Coast Guard will prepare a request for OMB
approval of any collection-of-information requirements.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this advance notice under the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12612. From the information
available at this time, the Coast Guard cannot determine whether this
potential rulemaking would have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. If and when a
specific regulatory proposal is developed, the Coast Guard will address
any federalism issues.
Unfunded Mandates
Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act [Pub. L. 104-4], the Coast
Guard must consider whether this potential rulemaking would result in
an annual expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, or by
the private sector, in the aggregate of $100 million (adjusted annually
for inflation). The Act also requires (in Section 205) that the Coast
Guard identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and, from those alternatives, select the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective.
The Coast Guard will address unfunded mandate issues as part of the
cost-benefit analysis. Any information you can provide regarding
unfunded mandate issues related to this proposal would be useful.
Environment
The Coast Guard has concluded that it is premature to make an
assessment of environmental impact of any rules that might be adopted
because no specific action is proposed at this time. The Coast Guard
will conduct any required environmental assessment and appropriate
documentation in accordance with Commandant Instruction M16475.1B
before publication of any notice of proposed rulemaking. The Coast
Guard invites comments addressing possible effects that this potential
rulemaking may have on the environment or addressing possible
inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local law or administrative
determinations relating to the environment.
Dated: November 20, 1998.
James M. Loy,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 98-31512 Filed 11-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
