94-21140. Regulated Navigation Area; Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters in Northwestern Washington  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-21140]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: August 29, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    33 CFR Part 165
    
    [CGD13-90-003]
    RIN 2115-AE84
    
     
    
    Regulated Navigation Area; Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters in 
    Northwestern Washington
    
    AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This rule revises the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) in Puget 
    Sound and adjacent waters in northwestern Washington.
        This amendment is needed due to the large numbers of user conflicts 
    and potentially hazardous situations which frequently develop during 
    periods of vessel traffic congestion within the area, e.g., all 
    citizens gillnet fishery. The intended effect of this action is to 
    prevent vessel collisions and groundings, loss of property, loss of 
    life, and environmental damage, resulting from conflicts between the 
    varied users of these waters, including fishing vessels, pleasure 
    craft, ferries, towboats, and deep draft vessels.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 1994.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR M. E. Ashley, USCG, Puget Sound 
    Vessel Traffic Service, telephone (206) 217-6040.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    
    Drafting Information
    
        The principle persons involved in drafting this regulation are LCDR 
    M. E. Ashley, USCG, Project Manager and LT L. Argenti, USCGR, Project 
    Counsel.
    
    Regulatory History
    
        On October 1, 1990, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
    rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Regulated Navigation Area; Puget Sound, WA 
    in the Federal Register (55 FR 39986). Based on oral testimony at an 
    October 11, 1990 public hearing and written comments received through 
    November 15, 1990, the Coast Guard determined the need for substantial 
    revision and additional comment. On July 31, 1991 the Coast Guard 
    published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in the 
    Federal Register (56 FR 36121). Based upon 13 written comments received 
    in response to that notice, and experience gained during trials of the 
    procedures conducted during the 1990, 1991, and 1992 salmon fishing 
    seasons, the Coast Guard submits this final rule.
    
    Background and Purpose
    
        On August 13, 1984 the Coast Guard published a final rule to 
    establish a Regulated Navigation Area in Puget Sound and adjacent 
    waters in northwestern Washington. The final rulemaking re-established 
    provisions of a former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulation. The 
    regulation also established procedures for Puget Sound Vessel Traffic 
    Service (PSVTS) to activate Temporary Special Traffic Lanes (TSTL) to 
    facilitate the safe and orderly passage of navigation during periods of 
    vessel traffic congestion. When activated, the TSTL was a temporary 
    1000 yard wide traffic lane that was required to be vacated for through 
    vessel traffic. Activating the TSTL confined two way ship traffic to a 
    one-half mile wide lane and eliminated the separation zone of the 
    Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). After several years of experience, the 
    TSTL proved to be ineffective in reducing user conflicts. Vessels 
    following the TSTL were forced to maneuver to avoid concentrations of 
    boats and nets, resulting in frequent close-quarters situations, both 
    with fishing vessels and with opposing through traffic within the TSTL.
        The October 1, 1990 NPRM proposed to eliminate provisions for the 
    TSTL and associated implementing requirements. The NPRM also proposed 
    the following new requirements: non-through traffic to clear the 
    Traffic Lanes 15 minutes before the arrival of through traffic; 
    prohibited fishing areas in the Edmonds/Kingston, Mukilteo/Clinton, and 
    Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth ferry crossing routes; a prohibited 
    fishing area at the Hood Canal bridge; and, vessels in the TSS to 
    monitor the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) VHF working frequency.
        The July 31, 1991 SNPRM proposed to: (1) Discontinue the TSTL; (2) 
    require non-through traffic to clear the Traffic Lanes 15 minutes 
    before the arrival of through traffic; (3) prohibit fishing in the 
    Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lane and in the vicinity of the 
    drawspan of the Hood Canal Bridge (the prohibitions against fishing in 
    the Mukilteo/Clinton, and Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth ferry crossing 
    lanes proposed in the NPRM, were deleted from the SNPRM); (4) encourage 
    vessels in the TSS to monitor the PSVTS marine radio frequency, vice 
    require, as proposed in the NPRM; (5) delete the requirement proposed 
    in the NPRM for vessels transiting the TSS to sound special signals 
    when approaching areas of congestion; (6) limit speed by vessels 
    transiting the TSS to 11 knots, vice 8 knots, as proposed in the NPRM; 
    (7) require vessels engaged in gillnet fishing to display a 32 point 
    white light at the end of the net most distant from the vessel (deleted 
    from final rule because already included in existing rule); (8) provide 
    for means of authorizing deviations from rule.
    
    Discussion of Comments and Changes
    
        The following discussion is based on the 13 written comments to the 
    SNPRM and the experience gained through the procedural trials during 
    the 1990, 1991, and 1992 salmon fishing seasons:
        (1) Elimination of the TSTL. Three comments were received in 
    support of elimination of the TSTL. No comments were received in 
    objection to the proposal. Experience with the TSTL has demonstrated 
    that even with enforcement vessels on scene, the Coast Guard had 
    difficulty keeping the TSTL clear. Deep draft vessels following the 
    lane were forced to maneuver to avoid concentrations of boats and nets, 
    resulting in frequent close-quarters situations, both with fishing 
    vessels and with opposing deep draft traffic within the single lane. 
    The standard Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) is designed to promote 
    safety by directing vessel traffic through distinct, separated routes. 
    The TSS's are clearly delineated on all official marine charts of the 
    Puget Sound region. Use of the TSS without the TSTL should eliminate 
    confusion among waterway users.
        (2) Requirement for Congesting Traffic to Clear the Traffic Lanes. 
    Five comments were received in support of the proposed requirement for 
    vessels not following the TSS to clear the lanes at least 15 minutes 
    before the arrival of a vessel following the TSS. No comments were 
    received in objection to the proposal. The Coast Guard remains 
    convinced that the 15 minute rule is an important safety element in 
    managing vessel traffic, especially in conjunction with the speed limit 
    provision included in this final rule. The requirement for vessels 
    engaged in fishing or other operations to draw in their gear, maneuver, 
    or otherwise clear the traffic lane no later than 15 minutes before 
    arrival of a vessel following the TSS applies to both lanes of the TSS. 
    Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service (PSVTS) will broadcast the estimated 
    time of arrival (ETA) of vessels following the TSS when such vessels 
    are approaching areas of vessel traffic congestion. Vessels operating 
    in but not following the TSS must clear the traffic lane when a vessel 
    following the TSS approaches. In addition, when operating in the TSS 
    east of New Dungeness, vessels not following the TSS must also clear 
    the adjacent separation zone and connecting precautionary areas. The 
    requirement for vessels engaged in fishing, sailing vessels, and 
    vessels of less than 20 meters in length not to impede vessels 
    following a TSS is delineated in Rule 10 of the International 
    Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea (72 COLREGS).
        (3) Prohibited Fishing Areas. Two comments were received in support 
    of the proposed prohibited fishing areas in the Edmonds/Kingston ferry 
    crossing lanes and at the Hood Canal Bridge. No comments were received 
    in objection to the proposal.
        In 1984, when the TSTL was first implemented, the 15 minute rule 
    was applied to the Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lanes. This rule 
    proved to be ineffective as a traffic management tool. Ferry transit 
    frequency coupled with the time required to set and retrieve nets 
    caused ferries to be constantly stopped and delayed. The Coast Guard 
    received numerous complaints from ferry commuters. Members of the 
    Washington Congressional delegation also received numerous complaints 
    and asked the Coast Guard to find a solution. During the 1990 and 1991 
    fishing seasons, PSVTS issued a ``Vessel Traffic Service Direction'', 
    which prohibited fishing in the Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lanes 
    when a hazardous level of vessel congestion was deemed to exist by 
    PSVTS. During the 1992 fishing season, the Washington Department of 
    Fisheries established a fisheries exclusion zone which prohibited ``all 
    citizen'' fishing in an area encompassing the entire Edmonds/Kingston 
    ferry crossing. These actions significantly decreased conflicts between 
    ferries and fishing vessels, resulting in a much improved flow of ferry 
    traffic along the route. There has also been a sharp reduction in the 
    number of complaints received regarding ferry delays attributed to 
    fishing vessels. Fishing will continue to be allowed within the 
    Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lanes during nighttime periods when 
    ferries do not operate.
        Commanding Officers of U.S. Navy Trident Submarines and Commander, 
    Submarine Group 9 have expressed grave concerns regarding the safety of 
    fishing vessels that congregate near the drawspan of the Hood Canal 
    Bridge and interfere with the passage of submarines. Submarines, while 
    traveling on the surface at slow speed display poor maneuver 
    capabilities. Fishing vessels clustered in the vicinity of the draw put 
    themselves in danger and present an unnecessary hazard to transiting 
    submarines. One supporter of the proposal described an extremely unsafe 
    situation whereby vessels fishing in the area caused evasive 
    maneuvering by a transiting U.S. Navy nuclear submarine. This rule 
    establishes a prohibited fishing area within a one half nautical mile 
    radius of the center of the draw of the Hood Canal Bridge to be in 
    effect only when public vessels are transiting the draw.
        (4) Requirement to Listen to the VTS. Four comments were received 
    in support of the proposed requirement for vessels in the TSS to 
    monitor the VTS frequency. No comments were received in objection to 
    the proposal. Despite the support of commenters to retain the VTS 
    frequency monitoring requirement from the previous rule, this 
    requirement has been deleted. The Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act 
    limits VHF requirements to certain classes of vessels which include 
    power driven vessels of 20 meters and over in length. The majority of 
    vessels which cause congestion in the TSS are less than 20 meters in 
    length. Although not required to maintain a listening watch on the VTS 
    Frequency, it is considered prudent for vessels of less than 20 meters 
    in length to do so, and is highly encouraged. Experience and feedback 
    from vessels following the TSS has shown that a key element to a safe 
    transit through congested areas is the ability of fishing vessels and 
    other craft to maintain a listening watch on VTS communications. PSVTS 
    broadcasts the location, course, speed, and ETA of vessels following 
    the TSS over VTS Frequencies. This information helps vessels causing 
    congestion in the TSS to clear the traffic lanes and thereby comply 
    with this regulation and the provisions of Rule 10 of the International 
    Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea (72 COLREGS). The 
    information provided is particularly useful at night when darkness 
    complicates maneuvering situations. Commenters noted that VHF 
    communications between vessels allows a mariner to better discern a 
    vessel's intentions, an integral element of safe passage. A safe 
    alternative to the radio listening watch is to stay clear of the TSS.
        (5) Lights for Marking Fishing Gear. The NPRM proposed to delete 
    the provision of the existing rule that requires vessels engaged in 
    fishing or other operations along the path of an approaching vessel in 
    a traffic lane to show a quick flash of light and illuminate their nets 
    or gear. Experience gained during previous salmon fishing seasons has 
    shown this requirement to be ineffective and visually chaotic in 
    congested areas. No comments were received on this proposal. The 
    existing requirement for gillnetters to show a 32 point white light at 
    the end of the net most distant from the fishing vessel has proven to 
    be effective and has been retained in the final rule.
        (6) Sound Signal for Transiting Congested Areas. Four comments were 
    received in response to the proposal to allow the use of special sound 
    signals by vessels transiting an area with heavy concentrations of 
    vessels engaged in fishing or other operations. Two commenters opposed 
    the use of any sound signal. One commenter stated that the signal 
    should be voluntary and one commenter stated that the signal should be 
    mandatory. Opponents of the sound signal argued that it was in conflict 
    with Rule 36 of the International Regulations for the Prevention of 
    Collisons at Sea (72 COLREGS). This argument was reinforced by comments 
    received from the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC). In 
    response to the NPRM of October 1, 1990, NAVSAC acknowledged that 
    mandatory use of the proposed signal may cause confusion with 
    provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Most commenters asserted that the signals 
    prescribed in Rule 34 and the guidance provided in Rule 36 of the 72 
    COLREGS should suffice when approaching areas of congestion. Commenters 
    opposed to the signal were adamant that the Coast Guard should not 
    define a signal to attract attention. In consideration of the comments 
    received the Coast Guard will no longer define a specific signal to 
    attract attention, but will continue to promote and encourage the use 
    of such signals. Therefore, the sound signal provision has been 
    eliminated from the final rule.
        (7) Speed Limit. The SNPRM proposed an 8 knot speed limit for 
    vessels making through transit of areas of congestion. Nine comments 
    were received in response to the proposal. Three commenters, although 
    not objecting to a speed limit, felt that 8 knots was too slow. Six 
    commenters were adamantly opposed to the imposition of any speed limit. 
    They argued that the existing regulations mitigate the need for a 
    vessel following the TSS to reduce speed. Some argued that a speed 
    reduction would create severe economic impact on carriers by causing 
    delays and difficulties in meeting freight schedules. Some pointed out 
    that Rule 6 of the 72 COLREGS already addresses safe speed and properly 
    leaves the precise determination up to the vessel master based upon 
    existing conditions. During the 1991 salmon fishing season, Puget Sound 
    Vessel Traffic Service (PSVTS) issued a VTS direction which included an 
    8 knot speed limit. During the first half of the season, the direction 
    encouraged the use of the 8 knot speed limit, but allowed vessel 
    masters the discretion to transit at what they determined to be a safe 
    speed. Most vessels slowed to some degree when approaching areas of 
    congestion, but many deep draft vessels chose to transit in the 10-12 
    knot speed range for reasons of increased control and maneuverability. 
    The inconsistent speeds made it difficult for PSVTS to predict the 
    precise arrival times of vessels following the TSS. During the second 
    half of the season, the Coast Guard made the 8 knot speed limit 
    mandatory except for those vessels whose handling characteristics made 
    it impracticable. Most vessels following the TSS transited at 8 knots 
    and it was noted that arrival times were more easily predicted and 
    fishing boats were able to clear the lanes prior to arrival of the 
    approaching vessel. Based on comment and experience gained during the 
    1991 season, PSVTS issued a VTS direction that set an 11 knot speed 
    limit for the 1992 salmon fishing season. The speed limit was imposed 
    on occasions when hazardous levels of vessel congestion were deemed to 
    exist by PSVTS. These occasions included congestion caused by not only 
    the commercial salmon fishing season, but recreational fishing and 
    other marine activities. This speed limit was better received by the 
    local maritime community and was followed without complaint by vessels 
    following the TSS. The 11 knot speed limit has been included in the 
    final rule.
        The Coast Guard chose 11 knots for several reasons. Some commenters 
    acknowledged the benefit of a speed limit, but felt that 8 knots was 
    too slow. During the 1991 trial of the 8 knot speed limit, a few 
    vessels reported that 8 knots was too slow for adequate maneuvering, 
    but none claimed that they needed a speed greater than 11 knots. PSVTS 
    Watch Supervisors noted that 10-11 knots was the typical speed at which 
    vessels objecting to the 8 knot speed limit traveled. Also, 11 knots is 
    the voluntary transit speed for tankers in adjoining Rosario Strait.
        (8) Deviation From the Regulation. The SNPRM proposed a new section 
    which provided criteria for the Coast Guard to authorize, in advance, 
    deviations from the rule. Four comments were received in support of the 
    provision proposed in the SNPRM to allow the Coast Guard to authorize 
    deviations from the rule. No comments were received in opposition to 
    the rule. However, one commenter noted that certain on-scene 
    emergencies require immediate action which may prevent advance approval 
    of a request for deviation. The rule takes this into account by 
    providing that the master, pilot, or other person directing movement of 
    a vessel may deviate from the rule to the extent necessary to avoid 
    endangering persons, property, or the environment and shall report the 
    deviation to the Vessel Traffic Center (VTC) as soon as possible.
    
    Regulatory Evaluation
    
        This regulation is not a significant regulatory action under 
    section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an 
    assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 
    that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of 
    Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant under the 
    regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
    (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
        The economic impact of this action has been determined to be so 
    minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This decision 
    is based on the infrequency of fishery openings, the arrival rate of 
    vessels following the TSS, the usual practice of reducing speed when 
    transiting areas of congestion, and the short distance to which the 
    speed limit is applied. No adverse economic impact is expected on 
    vessels following the TSS, as a result of this rule. Because of the 
    infrequency of fishery openings the prohibited fishing areas are 
    expected to have little or no impact on the overall success rate of the 
    commercial fishing fleet. The requirement for gillnetters who fish in 
    the TSS to mark their nets with an all-around white light should impose 
    no economic impact on this group, because the majority already have 
    this equipment. In addition, the light should reduce net loss and 
    damage through net strikes by passing vessels.
    
    Small Entities
    
        For reasons already given in the Regulatory Evaluation Section of 
    this preamble, the Coast Guard expects this rule to have minimal impact 
    on all entities coming under its provisions. In addition, no 
    substantive comments concerning economic hardship due to the imposition 
    of the rule, were received from potentially affected parties. 
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the 
    Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will 
    not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
    entities.
    
    Collection of Information
    
        This rule contains no collection of information requirements under 
    the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    
    Federalism
    
        The Coast Guard has analyzed this action in accordance with the 
    principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has 
    been determined that this final rule does not have sufficient 
    federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
    Assessment. None of the comments received in response to the NPRM or 
    SNPRM indicated that the rule would have an adverse impact on state 
    fisheries regulations or Native American fishing rights.
    
    Environment
    
        The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this action 
    and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is 
    not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
    Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection and 
    copying where indicated under ``ADDRESSES''. After reviewing the 
    comments received and considering the effects of this action, it was 
    concluded that the only environmental impact of this rulemaking would 
    be to decrease the likelihood of either an oil spill or release of 
    hazardous materials into the environment resulting from vessel 
    collisions or groundings.
    
    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
    
        Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
    recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    
    Final Regulation
    
        For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
    CFR Part 165 as follows:
    
    PART 165--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for Part 165 of Title 33, Code of Federal 
    Regulations continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 49 CFR 1.46 
    and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5.
    
        2. Section 165.1301 is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 165.1301  Puget Sound, and Adjacent Waters in Northwestern 
    Washington--Regulated Navigation Area.
    
        The following is a regulated navigation area--All of the following 
    northwestern Washington waters under the jurisdiction of the Captain of 
    the Port, Puget Sound: Puget Sound, Hood Canal, Possession Sound, 
    Elliott Bay, Commencement Bay, the San Juan Archipelago, Rosario 
    Strait, Guemes Channel, Bellingham Bay, U.S. waters of the Strait of 
    Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and Georgia Strait, and all 
    lesser bays and harbors adjacent to the above.
        (a) Definitions as used in this section:
        (1) Vessels engaged in fishing are as identified in the definition 
    found in Rule 3 of the International Regulations for Prevention of 
    Collisions at Sea, 1972, (72 COLREGS), found in Appendix A, Part 81 of 
    this chapter.
        (2) Hazardous levels of vessel traffic congestion are as defined at 
    the time by Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service.
        (b) This section is intended to enhance vessel traffic safety 
    during periods and in locations where hazardous levels of vessel 
    traffic congestion are deemed to exist by Puget Sound Vessel Traffic 
    Service. Operations potentially creating vessel traffic congestion 
    include, but are not limited to, vessels engaged in fishing, including 
    gillnet or purse seine, recreational fishing derbies, regattas, or 
    permitted marine events.
        (c) General regulations. (1) Nothing in this section shall be 
    construed as relieving any party from their responsibility to comply 
    with applicable rules set forth in the 72 COLREGS.
        (2) Vessels engaged in fishing or other operations--that are 
    distinct from vessels following a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) or a 
    connecting precautionary area east of New Dungeness, may not remain in, 
    nor their gear remain in, a traffic lane or a connecting precautionary 
    area east of New Dungeness when a vessel following a TSS approaches an 
    area where hazardous levels of vessel traffic congestion are deemed to 
    exist. Vessels not following a TSS or a connecting precautionary area 
    east of New Dungeness shall draw in their gear, maneuver, or otherwise 
    clear these areas so that their action is complete and the traffic lane 
    and connecting precautionary area is clear at least fifteen minutes 
    before the arrival of a vessel following the TSS. Vessels which are 
    required by this section to leave the traffic lane or connecting 
    precautionary area must also remain clear of the adjacent separation 
    zone when in a TSS east of New Dungeness.
        (3) Vessels engaged in fishing or other operations--that are 
    distinct from vessels following a TSS or a connecting precautionary 
    area east of New Dungeness and which are not required by the Bridge to 
    Bridge Radiotelephone Regulations to maintain a listening watch, are 
    highly encouraged to maintain a listening watch on the Puget Sound 
    Vessel Traffic Service (PSVTS) VHF-FM radio frequency for the area in 
    which the vessel is operating. A safe alternative to the radio 
    listening watch is to stay clear of the TSS.
        (4) Vessels engaged in fishing in a traffic lane or connecting 
    precautionary area east of New Dungeness shall tend nets or other gear 
    placed in the water so as to facilitate the movement of the vessel or 
    gear from the traffic lane or precautionary area upon the approach of a 
    vessel following the TSS.
        (5) Vessels engaged in gill net fishing at any time between sunset 
    and sunrise in any of the above-listed waters shall, in addition to the 
    navigation lights and shapes required by Part 81 of this title (72 
    COLREGS), display at the end of the net most distant from the vessel an 
    all-round (32-point) white light visible for a minimum of two nautical 
    miles and displayed from at least three feet above the surface of the 
    water.
        (6) A vessel following the TSS may not exceed a speed of 11 knots 
    through the water when transiting areas where hazardous levels of 
    vessel traffic congestion are deemed to exist.
        (d) Prohibited fishing areas. Vessels engaged in fishing, including 
    gillnet and purse seine fishing, are prohibited in the following areas:
        (1) Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lanes, to include the waters 
    within one-quarter nautical mile on either side of a straight line 
    connecting the Edmonds and Kingston ferry landings during the hours 
    that the ferry is operating.
        (2) The Hood Canal Bridge, to include the waters within a one-half 
    nautical mile radius of the center of the main ship channel draw span 
    during the immediate approach and transit of the draw by public 
    vessels.
        (e) Authorization to deviate from this section. (1) Commander, 
    Thirteenth Coast Guard District may, upon written request, issue an 
    authorization to deviate from this section if the proposed deviation 
    provides a level of safety equivalent to or beyond that provided by the 
    required procedure. An application for authorization must state the 
    need for the deviation and describe the proposed alternative operation.
        (2) PSVTS may, upon verbal request, authorize a deviation from this 
    section for a voyage, or part of a voyage, if the proposed deviation 
    provides a level of safety equivalent to or beyond that provided by the 
    required procedure. The deviation request must be made well in advance 
    to allow the requesting vessel and the Vessel Traffic Center (VTC) 
    sufficient time to assess the safety of the proposed deviation. 
    Discussions between the requesting vessel and the VTC should include, 
    but are not limited to, information on vessel handling characteristics, 
    traffic density, radar contracts, and environmental conditions.
        (3) In an emergency, the master, pilot, or person directing the 
    movement of the vessel following the TSS may deviate from this section 
    to the extent necessary to avoid endangering persons, property, or the 
    environment, and shall report the deviation to the VTC as soon as 
    possible.
    
        Dated: July 11, 1994.
    J. W. Lockwood,
    Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 13th Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 94-21140 Filed 8-26-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
08/29/1994
Department:
Transportation Department
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
94-21140
Dates:
September 28, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: August 29, 1994, CGD13-90-003
RINs:
2115-AE84: Regulated Navigation Areas
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2115-AE84/regulated-navigation-areas
CFR: (1)
33 CFR 165.1301