[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