[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 184 (Friday, September 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49310-49311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23520]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
[CGD 95-005]
Area To Be Avoided Off the Washington Coast
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of results of public meeting and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard recently held a public meeting and requested
written comments on whether the applicability of the Area To Be Avoided
off the Washington Coast should be expanded to include vessels other
than those carrying cargoes of oil or hazardous materials. The Area To
Be Avoided, as adopted by the International Maritime Organization,
recommends that all ships, including barges, carrying cargoes of oil or
hazardous materials avoid the area. Based on the information received
at the public hearing and in the written comments, the Coast Guard has
determined that changes to the applicability of the Area To Be Avoided
are not warranted at this time.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and the transcript of the public meeting
are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Headquarters,
2100 Second Street, SW., room 3406, Washington, DC 20593; Thirteenth
Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, Room 3410, Seattle, WA 98174;
and at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 138 W. First
Street, Port Angeles, WA 98362-2600 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Margie G. Hegy, Project Manager, Vessel Traffic Services Division,
phone (202) 267-0415. This telephone is equipped to take messages on a
24-hour basis.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 7, 1994, the Maritime Safety Committee of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the Area To Be
Avoided off the Washington Coast (ATBA), recommending that all ships,
including barges, carrying cargoes of oil or hazardous materials avoid
the area. The ATBA, which was established to reduce the risk of marine
casualty and resulting pollution and damage to the environment of the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, became effective on June 7,
1995. The boundaries of the ATBA do not overlay the Sanctuary
boundaries, but are in close proximity.
On January 27, 1995, the Coast Guard published a request for
comments and notice of meeting in the Federal Register (60 FR 5454) to
obtain comment on whether the ATBA should apply to additional
categories of vessels. Forty-two people attended the meeting, which was
held on February 23, 1995, in Seattle, Washington. In response to
comments, on March 6, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice in the
Federal Register (60 FR 12276) to extend the comment period until April
17, 1995.
The eighteen attendees who made oral statements at the meeting
represented the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Coalition of
Washington Ocean Fishermen, Washington Public Ports Association,
American Waterways Operators, Washington Environmental Council, Mayor
of City of Hoquiam, Port of Grays Harbor, American Factory Trawler
Association, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State
Office of Marine Safety, Puget Sound Steamship Operators, Arctic Storm,
Inc., Tyson Seafood Group, Jones Stevedoring Company, Makah Tribal
Council, United Catcher Boats, Port of Seattle, and the Center for
Marine Conservation. In addition to the oral statements, the Coast
Guard received 48 written comments from individuals, the fishing
industry, charter boat owners and operators, vessel associations,
shipping agents, environmental organizations, ports officials, Chambers
of Commerce, Congress of the United States, Washington State
Legislature, and city, county, state, and Federal Government agencies.
Six of the eighteen speakers also provided written
[[Page 49311]]
comments. Over 50% of the written comments were from people who derive
a significant portion of their income from fish caught within the
boundaries of the ATBA. Fifteen of the speakers at the meeting and 45
of the 48 written comments were opposed to any changes to the ATBA; 5
commenters requested change in the applicability of the ATBA.
Discussion of Comments
Comments Recommending Changes
Five commenters recommended that the categories of vessels to which
the ATBA applies be expanded. One commenter noted that the ATBA applies
to only 15 percent of vessels that currently navigate the area. One
commenter recommended that all vessels and barges, in addition to those
carrying oil or hazardous materials as cargo, avoid the area. Four
commenters want all vessels over 500 gross tons to avoid the area, and
two of these commenters would exempt fishing, military vessels, nature
tour vessels, and tugs pulling barges carrying non-hazardous cargoes.
Four commenters were concerned with the consequences of a spill of
large amounts of bunker fuel. They noted that the tank vessels and
barges to which the ATBA currently applies are not the only vessels
carrying large quantities of oil. They specifically mentioned
freighters and bulk carriers which carry large quantities of bunker
fuel. One commenter stated that 55 percent of the vessels, navigating
in the area and greater than 80,000 dead weight tons, are bulk
carriers. When inspected by the Washington State Office of Marine
Safety, 59 percent of these vessels had deficiencies. These commenters
believed that age and poor condition of these ships, and the history of
oil spills and the environmental sensitivity of the area are ample
reasons to expand the applicability of the ATBA to additional vessels.
Comments Recommending No Change
On behalf of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, the Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary Manager stated that the original ATBA
proposal was aimed at providing enhanced protection from the greatest
threat to Sanctuary resources, i.e., vessels carrying cargoes of oil or
hazardous materials. NOAA also stated that the Sanctuary is not an
exclusion area and that safe marine transportation and commercial
fishing are two commercial uses compatible with sanctuary designation.
Commenters generally agreed that the ATBA as adopted should not be
changed. These commenters were generally concerned that any changes
would adversely impact trade competitiveness and jobs in struggling
coastal Washington communities. They felt that expanding the
applicability of the ATBA to additional categories of vessels would
adversely affect current and future users of this area who depend on it
for fishing, recreation, and maritime trade. They were also concerned
about the safety of any additional vessels recommended to operate
outside the ATBA boundaries which might increase the crossing or
meeting situations and the probability of vessel collisions.
Economic Concerns: Commenters who wanted no change in the
applicability of the ATBA discussed a variety of issues concerning the
economic competitiveness of Washington ports. They stated that marine
transportation is a crucial part of the state's economy and the ability
to compete in the full range of shipping markets would be compromised
by an expansion of the applicability of the ATBA. They were
particularly concerned that Washington ports could lose their natural
advantage in cargo movements to Asia, South America and other regions.
Commenters also stated that changing the applicability of the ATBA
would adversely affect the loggers. Due to the drop in log exports,
only partial loads are being taken by vessels calling in a Columbia
River port, Grays Harbor, and a Puget Sound port. Additionally, if the
ATBA were not available for use by fishing vessels, it would adversely
affect their ability to maintain family-wage jobs.
Safety Concerns: Commenters discussed the following factors as
affecting safety of additional vessels operating outside the ATBA: (1)
Sea state and weather changes outside the ATBA; (2) increased
probability of vessel collisions immediately west of the ATBA boundary
if vessels currently operating in the ATBA remain outside; (3)
increased transit time caused by operating outside the ATBA could
result in vessels operating at higher speeds to make up time lost; and,
(4) interference between commercial vessel traffic and military
operations.
Conclusion
The Coast Guard has carefully considered all the comments received
and concludes that expanding the applicability of the ATBA to include
vessels and barges other than those carrying cargoes of oil or
hazardous materials is not justified at this time.
Dated: September 15, 1995.
Rudy K. Peschel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation, Safety and
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 95-23520 Filed 9-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
