[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20232-20234]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-25]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 168
[Docket No. USCG-2006-23556, formerly CGD91-202a]
RIN 1625-AA10, formerly RIN 2115-AE56
Escort Vessels in Certain U.S. Waters
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its intent to withdraw a 1993
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). Because of the length of
time since the ANPRM was published, the Coast Guard requests additional
public comment before proceeding with withdrawal. The rulemaking deals
with supplementing a statutory requirement that single-hulled oil
tankers in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and Puget Sound, Washington,
be accompanied through those waters by escort vessels. It would extend
those requirements to other U.S. waters, and possibly to vessels other
than single-hulled oil tankers. Subject to reconsideration in light of
public comment, the Coast Guard believes that this rulemaking is
inappropriate and inefficient and therefore not the best way to
consider such extensions.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before July 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2006-23556 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
contact Lieutenant Commander Vivianne Louie, U.S. Coast Guard,
telephone 202-372-1358 or e-mail Vivianne.W.Louie@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms.
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We request public comment on our intent to withdraw this
rulemaking. In particular, we are interested in comments that tell us:
Why we should not withdraw this rulemaking;
How to go about this rulemaking, if it continues; and
What criteria should govern the extension of escort vessel
requirements to waters other than Prince William Sound and Puget Sound,
or to vessels other than single-hulled oil tankers.
All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
[[Page 20233]]
provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy
Act'' paragraph below.
Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please identify the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2006-23556) and give the reason for
each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission. You may submit your comments by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments by only one means. If you
submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments received during the comment
period.
Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, go to http://
www.regulations.gov at any time. Enter the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2006-23556) in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.''
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room W12-140 on
the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Changes in Docket Numbering
This notice is the first document published since 1994 for a
rulemaking that began in 1993, under Coast Guard docket number CGD 91-
202a. Until now, public comment letters and other material pertinent to
CGD 91-202a were only available for public inspection at Coast Guard
Headquarters in Washington, DC. Beginning in 1998, the Coast Guard
adopted a new docket numbering system in order to make its Headquarters
rulemaking documents available to the public on the Internet. The
format of the new docketing system is incompatible with the ``CGD''
system that we used in 1993. Therefore, in order to complete the CGD
91-202a rulemaking in a way that makes our actions visible to the
public on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site, we opened an
Internet-compatible docket number, USCG-2006-23556. The public comments
we received on CGD 91-202a will be placed in the http://
www.regulations.gov docket for USCG-2006-23556.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard has broad authority under the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act (PWSA, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) to control vessel traffic in
navigable waters of the United States. In addition, section 4116(c) of
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90, Pub. L. 101-380) required the
Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to identify any navigable waters
of the United States on which single-hulled oil tankers over 5,000
gross tons should require escort vessels. OPA 90 specified that escort
vessels must be provided in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and in Puget
Sound, Washington. Requirements for escort vessels in Prince William
Sound and Puget Sound were set in a rulemaking that was originally
docketed as CGD 91-202, and completed in 2005 under docket number USCG-
2003-14734; the final rule appears at 70 FR 55728 (Sep. 23, 2005), and
the regulations appear in 33 CFR part 168. The CGD 91-202 rulemaking
originally sought to deal with escort vessel requirements in waters
other than Prince William Sound and Puget Sound, but in 1993 the Coast
Guard opened a new docket, CGD 91-202a, to address those other waters.
Public meetings held in 1993, in Anchorage and Valdez, Alaska, and in
Seattle, Washington, addressed both rulemakings.
In an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM; 58 FR 25766,
April 27, 1993) issued under docket number CGD 91-202a, the Coast Guard
asked for public comment on three general questions: (1) Whether escort
vessel requirements should apply to any navigable waters of the United
States other than Prince William Sound and Puget Sound; (2) whether
escort vessel requirements should apply to vessels other than single-
hulled oil tankers; and (3) what an escort vessel should be expected to
do. In its discussion, the ANPRM listed numerous subsidiary questions
to put the general questions in perspective.
In 1994, the Coast Guard published a notice of meeting and request
for comments (59 FR 65741, Dec. 21, 1994) to follow up on the ANPRM.
The 1994 notice said that numerous comments had been received in
response to the ANPRM, but that they lacked consensus and tended to be
based on subjective arguments without supporting data. The notice
acknowledged that the 1993 ANPRM had been issued before publication of
the Prince William Sound and Puget Sound regulations in 33 CFR part
168, and included no special guidance on how waterways should be
evaluated or nominated for escort vessel requirements. Accordingly, the
1994 notice sought to engage the public's assistance in developing
criteria for evaluating the navigational risks of a waterway, and how
to determine if escorting is an effective strategy to offset those
risks. Noting that OPA 90 called for oil tankers to have two escort
vessels and that, in some circumstances, this could be undesirable, the
notice stated that any escort vessel requirements for waters other than
Prince William Sound or Puget Sound would rely on PWSA in addition to
OPA 90.
The 1994 notice proposed 13 criteria, derived from the PWSA, for
use in determining when escort vessels are necessary, and illustrated
the scope of each criterion through a set of follow-on questions. It
announced a public meeting in Washington, DC on January 23, 1995, and
asked for comment on these and other criteria that could be used in
evaluating waterways with respect to escorting.
Discussion of Comments
In response to the 1993 ANPRM and 1994 notice, the Coast Guard
received nearly 700 written comments as well as the oral testimony of
hundreds of attendees at four public meetings. We thank all these
commenters for their interest. For convenience, we discuss the comments
under four subheadings:
Escort vessel criteria. We received many thoughtful comments
analyzing the 13 criteria we proposed and offering background
information or constructive criticism. Most of these commenters
stressed the importance of understanding local waters and the specific
vessels and cargoes transiting those waters. A number of commenters
suggested development of a nationwide risk assessment program, in order
to allocate escort vessel or other safety resources in an objective way
that prioritizes where those resources can do the most good. A
nationwide risk assessment program may be a good concept but it would
be very expensive and time-consuming to implement. The reliability of
such an assessment would be hard to validate, making its usefulness
questionable.
[[Page 20234]]
We agree with many commenters that local conditions are very
important in determining what safety measures should be taken. If the
need for specific resources in specific waters can be shown, it is
better to focus directly on addressing that need, than on the more
conceptual exercise of ranking that need relative to the needs of other
areas. For many years the Coast Guard has sponsored Ports and Waterway
Safety Assessments (PAWSAs) that bring public and private stakeholders
together to identify major safety hazards in specific local waterways,
evaluate potential mitigation measures including escorting, and set the
stage for implementing selected measures. You can get more information
about PAWSAs at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/projects/pawsa/PAWSA_
home.htm, or read reports on any of the 38 PAWSAs conducted to date, at
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/projects/pawsa/PAWSA_FinalReports.htm.
We believe that the PAWSA program provides a more comprehensive
alternative for evaluating local risks and conditions. Therefore, we
think it is neither appropriate nor beneficial to continue developing
nationwide Coast Guard escort vessel criteria within the context of
this 1993 rulemaking.
Escort vessel effectiveness. Most commenters who discussed the
effectiveness of escort vessels agreed that different ``escorts'' have
different capabilities, and that under certain conditions it is
unrealistic to think that escorts will provide added safety. While some
commenters recommended that we specify the capabilities desired in an
escort vessel, many others pointed out that escort vessels should be
considered as just one of many tools available for enhancing the safety
of specific waters, along with aids to navigation, local regulated
navigation areas, vessel traffic services, response vessels, or other
means. We agree with these commenters that any consideration of escort
vessels should begin by assessing specific local conditions and
analyzing other possible safety measures. As previously described, the
Coast Guard's PAWSA program can provide this assessment and analysis.
Therefore, we think it is neither appropriate nor beneficial to
continue a nationwide Coast Guard assessment of escort vessel
effectiveness within the context of this 1993 rulemaking.
Specific waters other than Cook Inlet; vessels other than single-
hulled oil tankers. Numerous commenters made recommendations for or
against requiring escort vessels in specific waters other than Prince
William Sound or Puget Sound. A few commenters also recommended
extending escort vessel requirements to vessels other than single-
hulled oil tankers. As noted above, we have concluded that any such
requirements should be considered by the Coast Guard at a local level,
in light of local conditions and the possibility of increased
effectiveness of alternative safety measures. The Coast Guard's PAWSA
program can provide that consideration. Therefore, we think it is
neither appropriate nor beneficial to continue the consideration of
escort vessels for use in specific waters or with specific types of
vessel within the nationwide context of this 1993 rulemaking.
Cook Inlet. Between 1993 and 1995, hundreds of commenters focused
on whether or not escort vessels should be required in Cook Inlet,
Alaska. Those opposed to requiring escort vessels in Cook Inlet tended
to cite favorable local conditions, the availability of alternative
safety measures, and adverse economic impact as their reasons. Those in
favor of requiring escort vessels in Cook Inlet tended to cite
unfavorable local conditions, the superiority of escort vessels to
other possible safety measures, and the economic and environmental
risks posed by tanker traffic as their reasons. The Coast Guard has
carefully considered the 1993-1995 comments, but finds that they are
inconclusive on the merits of extending escort vessel requirements to
Cook Inlet. Further study, in light of current conditions, would be
needed before the Coast Guard would propose such an extension.
In 2000, a Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment was conducted for
Cook Inlet. The PAWSA report is available at http://
www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/projects/pawsa/PAWSA_FinalReports.htm. It
noted a ``significant drop off in oil spills'' over the preceding 5
years, and listed 9 ``existing mitigations'' in place to control the
risk from petroleum cargoes. Although escort vessels for oil tankers
were considered, they were not among the new mitigation measures
adopted by the PAWSA final report.
The Coast Guard understands that concerns over navigational safety
in Cook Inlet persist. We take these concerns seriously, because they
relate directly to two of the Coast Guard's strategic goals: Maritime
safety and maritime stewardship.
The Alaska-based Coast Guard Seventeenth District is planning to
conduct additional studies of the local waterways in an effort to more
fully define the need for risk reduction measures or other mitigating
factors in areas such as Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound and the
Aleutian Islands. Any findings from these risk assessments would be
addressed in local Coast Guard policies or rulemakings. Therefore, we
think it is neither appropriate nor beneficial to continue considering
Cook Inlet's navigational safety within the nationwide context of this
1993 rulemaking.
Conclusion
The Coast Guard has tentatively decided that nationwide Coast Guard
action to extend statutory escort vessel requirements is not advisable,
and that escort vessels may be required in other waters or for vessels
other than single-hulled oil tankers only after specific Coast Guard
consideration of local conditions and possible alternative safety
measures. We request public comment on this tentative decision. If,
after receiving public comment, we affirm this tentative decision, we
will withdraw the rulemaking, using another Federal Register notice to
do so.
Please note that, regardless of our final decision to withdraw or
continue this rulemaking, you may request Coast Guard regulatory action
for specific U.S. waters, by using the Coast Guard rulemaking petition
process detailed in 33 CFR 1.05-20. Send your request to the Marine
Safety and Security Council (CG-0943), United States Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
Dated: April 4, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine,
Safety, Security and Stewardship.
[FR Doc. E8-7935 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P