[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31366]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 21, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 168

[CGD 91-202a]
RIN: 2115-AE56

 

Escort Vessels in Certain U.S. Waters

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will conduct a public meeting to discuss 
criteria for identifying U.S. waters where escort vessels should be 
required. Public comment is sought on how to evaluate the navigational 
risks of a waterway (with respect to a ship experiencing a loss of 
propulsion or steering control or both), and how to determine if 
escorting is an effective strategy to offset those risks.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 23, 1995, from 9:00 a.m. to 
3:00 p.m. Written comments must be received not later than February 13, 
1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in room 2415, Coast Guard 
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW, Washington, DC. Written comments 
may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-
LRA), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW, Washington, DC 20593-
0001, or may be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Comments will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection or copying at room 3406, Coast Guard Headquarters, between 8 
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Jordan, Project Manager, 
Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90), phone (202) 267-6740. This telephone is 
equipped to take messages on a 24-hour basis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Participation in the Public Meeting

    Attendance is open to the public. With advance notice, and as time 
permits, members of the public may make oral presentations during the 
meeting. Persons wishing to make oral presentations should notify the 
person listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 
the day before the meeting. Written material may be submitted prior to, 
during, or after the meeting.

Reason for Public Meeting

    On April 27, 1993, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on U.S. waters where tanker 
escorts should be required, and what other vessels should also be 
escorted (58 FR 25766). At that time, however, the escort regulations 
of 33 CFR part 168 had not yet been published, nor did the ANPRM 
include any special guidance on how waterways should be evaluated and 
nominated for escorting. Therefore, public comments in response to the 
ANPRM were made without the benefit of either 33 CFR part 168 or any 
guidance criteria.
    Numerous comments were received in response to the ANPRM. In 
general, there was no consensus among the comments; in fact, some 
waterways were nominated both for and against escorting. In most cases, 
arguments were subjective and without supporting data. For example, 
arguments against escorting frequently cited substantial adverse 
economic impact, but did not include any cost analyses. Similarly, 
nominations for a waterway were frequently made on the basis of 
environmental sensitivity to oil spills, but did not include any 
analyses of navigational hazards to vessels.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard is developing criteria for evaluating 
the navigational risks of a waterway, and how to determine if escorting 
is an effective strategy to offset those risks. The purpose of the 
public meeting is to seek more direct comment on the criteria (refer to 
Discussion paragraph (5) further in this notice).

Background and Regulatory History

    Section 4116(c) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 
101-380) requires the Secretary of Transportation to initiate 
rulemaking to define areas where single-hulled tankers over 5,000 gross 
tons (GT) transporting oil in bulk must be escorted by at least two 
``towing vessels'' (as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101) or other vessels 
deemed appropriate. By statute, these defined areas must include Prince 
William Sound, Alaska and Puget Sound, Washington (and associated 
waters). Rulemaking authority under this section has been delegated to 
the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (49 CFR 1.46(11)).
    The Secretary also has broad authority under the Ports and 
Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S. Code 1221-1236, to control vessel 
traffic in areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States which 
the Secretary determines to be hazardous by, among other things, 
establishing vessel operating conditions. Rulemaking authority under 
this section has been delegated to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (49 
CFR 1.46(n)(4)).
    The Coast Guard is implementing vessel escorting regulations in two 
separate rulemaking projects: CGD 91-202 addresses escort requirements 
for the Prince William Sound and Puget Sound waters, and CGD 91-202a 
addresses escort requirements for other U.S. waters. A final rule for 
the first rulemaking action (Prince William Sound and Puget Sound) was 
published on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42962). This final rule created 33 
CFR part 168. A notice of partial suspension of effectiveness was 
published on November 1, 1994 (59 FR 54519) which suspended one of the 
final rule provisions (the crash-stop criteria) from going into effect 
pending further technical study and public comment.
    With respect to the second rulemaking project, the Coast Guard 
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (58 FR 
25766; April 27, 1993) seeking comment on other U.S. waters where an 
escort should be required, and other vessels that should also be 
escorted.
    In addition to the published notices for both rulemakings, the 
Coast Guard also conducted public hearings in Anchorage, Alaska on June 
3, 1993, Valdez, Alaska on June 5, 1993 and Seattle, Washington on June 
7, 1993 (58 FR 25959; April 29, 1993, and 58 FR 29157; May 19, 1993). 
The Alaska hearings were also teleconferenced to include several 
outlying communities in the Exxon Valdez impact area.

Discussion

1. Escort Vessel Requirements of OPA 90 and the PWSA

    Section 4116(c) of OPA 90 provides authority to require the use of 
a minimum of two escort vessels for laden single hull oil tankers over 
5,000 GT operating in Prince William Sound, Puget Sound, and other U.S. 
waters determined to be appropriate. Therefore, any regulations issued 
under section 4116(c) must require a minimum of two escort vessels. 
Further, section 4116(c) provides no authority to require the use of 
escort vessels for ships other than laden, single-hulled oil tankers 
over 5,000 GT. In contrast, the PWSA has no such limitations.

2. Performance-Based Escort Regulations

    The escort vessels are to assist a ship that becomes disabled from 
a loss of propulsion or steering control; the immediate presence of the 
escort vessels will reduce its chances of colliding or running aground.
    In 33 CFR part 168, the Coast Guard adopted a performance-based 
approach: The escort vessels must be capable of controlling the 
disabled tanker within the navigational limits of the waterway (taking 
into account transit conditions and certain other factors), and the 
tanker must be operated within the performance capabilities of its 
escorts.
    Performance-based regulations do not need to stipulate any 
particular number of escort vessels because the compliance process will 
lead to an appropriate number being utilized (which, in turn, will 
depend upon the performance capabilities of the escorts).
    OPA 90, however, makes no allowances for the performance 
capabilities of different escort vessels, nor does it recognize that 
smaller ships are easier to control than larger ones. The Coast Guard 
realizes that there may be circumstances where a single, high-
performance escort vessel can effectively control a disabled ship 
within the performance requirements of 33 CFR part 168. In such cases, 
a second escort vessel may significantly increase costs without any 
commensurate increase in environmental protection. In fact, just the 
opposite effect might occur: the presence of unnecessary escort 
vessels, particularly in congested waterways, increases the risks of 
collision.

3. Determination of Other Appropriate Waters for Escorting in 
Accordance With OPA 90

    In consideration of the preceding discussion, the Coast Guard has 
determined that, although there may be other U.S. waters where tanker 
escorting could be beneficial, there is no need to prescribe an 
absolute minimum of two escort vessels in those waters. Likewise, it 
may be appropriate to require escorts for ships other than laden oil 
tankers in excess of 5,000 GT.
    Therefore, designating any other U.S. waters for escorting 
requirements will be accomplished using the Coast Guard's authority 
under the PWSA, which allows greater flexibility concerning the ships 
to be escorted and the number of escort vessels to be required.

4. Use of PWSA With Respect to Escorting

    The use of PWSA authority is intended to complement OPA 90, not 
replace it. PWSA will only be used in ways that will allow greater 
flexibility in escorting while still preserving the environmental 
protection goals of OPA 90. For example, PWSA can be used to:
    (a) Recognize the capabilities of high-performance escort vessels 
by allowing applicable ships to be escorted by a single escort vessel 
so long as it can still control the ship within the performance 
criteria of 33 CFR part 168. This will reduce the risks (and economic 
burden) of providing a second escort vessel when it is not necessary;
    (b) Recognize that not all waterways warrant escorting under benign 
conditions. This allows escorts to be required only when sea or weather 
conditions deteriorate beyond an appropriate threshold;
    (c) Similarly, to recognize that not all waterways are so 
constrained as to present navigational hazards to smaller ships. This 
allows escorts to be required only for ships exceeding an appropriate 
size threshold greater than the 5,000 GT size established by section 
4116(c) of OPA 90; or
    (d) Require escorting of ships transporting certain potentially 
hazardous cargoes, if appropriate.
    The Coast Guard does not intend to use PWSA to circumvent other 
escorting mandates of OPA 90. For example, PWSA will not be used to 
provide relief from the two-escort-vessel minimum for Prince William 
Sound and Puget Sound because section 4116(c) of OPA 90 clearly 
requires the use of two escort vessels by laden oil tankers over 5,000 
GT operating in those waters.

5. Waterway Evaluation Criteria

    As previously discussed, the Coast Guard is developing criteria for 
evaluating waterways where escorting should be required.
    The criteria under consideration are based on certain general 
factors which must be taken into account when issuing regulations under 
the PWSA. These factors are located in section 5 of the PWSA (33 U.S.C. 
1224).
    The criteria which the Coast Guard is considering using in making 
determinations with regard to the necessity of escort vessels are as 
follows (the criteria are further elaborated by a series of questions 
which are intended to more-specifically focus the criteria on 
escorting):
    (a) Scope and degree of risk or hazard involved. What are the 
navigational limitations of the waterway? How much sea room (open 
water, deep water) is available? What hazards (reefs, shoals, oil 
platforms, etc.) or constrained points (narrow channels, bridge 
abutments, etc.) are along the waterway?
    What are the risks of grounding, and what is the nature of the 
bottom (hard, soft, mud, coral, etc.)?
    What are the risks of collision?
    Are there other risk conditions such as currents, tides, ice, fog, 
or severe weather patterns?
    (b) Vessel traffic characteristics. What are the traffic routes 
through the waterway?
    Who are the other users of the waterway (commercial, military, 
fishing, recreational) and what traffic density do they create?
    (c) Port and waterway configuration. Where are the terminals 
located?
    How many transits (per year) of ships carrying oil and other 
potentially hazardous cargo? What are the sizes of such ships, and are 
they constrained in their ability to maneuver?
    (d) Need for granting exemptions for small vessels. Should small 
vessels be exempted from escorting? If so, how small?
    (e) Proximity to fishing grounds, oil and gas drilling or 
production operations, or other conflicting activity. How would these 
activities be affected by escorting?
    (f) Environmental factors. Where are the environmentally-sensitive 
areas of the waterway? How close do ships carrying oil and other 
potentially hazardous cargoes transit?
    (g) Economic impact and effects. What are the suggested escort zone 
boundaries? How long (time and distance) are the escorted routes?
    What are the costs for escort services (hourly rates for tugs of 
various sizes)?
    (h) Existing vessel traffic services. Is the waterway served by a 
vessel traffic system?
    Are there regulated navigation areas (RNAs), safety zones, or areas 
to be avoided?
    (i) Local practices and customs. Are there existing (or 
anticipated) escort requirements for the waterway, such as State 
regulations or local Federal requirements? If so, how do they compare 
with the 33 CFR part 168 escort regulations?
    Are there informal escorting programs already in effect?
    (j) Disabled vessel response strategies. What self-help measures 
could be utilized by a disabled ship (for example, how feasible is 
anchoring)?
    Are escort vessels needed continuously at all points along the 
waterway, or can a rescue tug be stationed at a strategic point? Is 
there adequate sea room for a disabled ship to safely drift while 
waiting for assistance?
    How available are suitable tugs-of-opportunity of various sizes?
    (k) Effectiveness of escort vessels. Can the waterway effectively 
benefit from vessel escorting?
    In constrained or congested waterways, can escort vessels accompany 
a ship without increasing the risk of collision with other vessels?
    Can the escort keep position where it can maneuver and react in 
time to assist the disabled ship?
    Are there other environmental or operating factors which reduce an 
escort vessel's ability to safely respond?
    (1) Graduated requirements. Are graduated requirements appropriate? 
For example, should escorts only be required for ships that exceed a 
size threshold, or when sea or weather conditions degrade below a 
minimum threshold? If so, what are those thresholds?
    (m) Other risk management strategies. Are there other ways that 
collision or grounding risks of a disabled ship can be reduced, such as 
establishing one-way traffic lanes, designating areas to be avoided, or 
other measures?
    Rulemaking issued under PWSA authority must discuss these factors 
with respect to each affected waterway. Therefore, when waterways are 
nominated for escorting in the future, the nominations should include 
information related to these factors.
    These criteria will be the principle topic at the public meeting. 
The Coast Guard is seeking comment on the criteria, as well as 
additional criteria which could be used in evaluating waterways with 
respect to escorting.

    Dated: December 15, 1994.
G.A. Penington,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and 
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 94-31366 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M