[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4170-4172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1880]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard
[USCG-1998-4271]


Annual Certification of Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' 
Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Recertification.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight 
Act of 1990, the Coast Guard may certify on an annual basis, an 
alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a regional citizens' 
advisory council for Prince William Sound, Alaska. This certification 
allows the advisory group to monitor the activities of terminal 
facilities and crude oil tankers under the Prince William Sound Program 
established by the statute. The purpose of this notice is to inform the 
public that the Coast Guard has recertified the alternative voluntary 
advisory group for Prince William Sound, Alaska. The period of 
certification is being administratively adjusted to allow realignment 
of the recertification process with the annual budget year of the 
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWSRCAC). The 
effective period of this recertification is from June 1, 1998 to 
January 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information regarding the 
PWSRCAC contact LT Pittman, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection 
Directorate, Office of Response, (G-MOR-1), (202 267-0426. For 
questions on viewing materials submitted to the docket, contact Dorothy 
Walker, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-
366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 
Congress passed the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight 
and Monitoring Act of 1990 (the Act), Section 5002, to foster the long-
term partnership among industry, government, and local communities in 
overseeing compliance with the environmental concerns in the operation 
of terminal facilities and crude-oil tankers. Subsection 5002(o) 
permits an alternative voluntary advisory group to represent the 
communities and interests in the vicinity of the terminal facilities in 
the Prince William Sound, in lieu of a council of the type specified in 
subsection 5002(d), if certain conditions are met.
    The Act requires that the group enter into a contract to ensure 
annual funding, and that it receive annual certification by the 
President to the effect that it fosters the general goals and purposes 
of the Act, and is broadly representative of the communities and 
interests in the vicinity of the terminal facilities and Prince William 
Sound. Accordingly, in 1991, the President granted certification to the 
PWSRCAC. The authority to certify alternative advisory groups was 
subsequently delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard and 
redelegated to the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and 
Environmental Protection.
    On August 7, 1998, the Coast Guard announced in the Federal 
Register the availability of the application for recertification that 
it received from the PWSRCAC and requested comments (63 FR 42475). It 
received twenty-one comments to the docket.

Discussion of Comments

    One commenter expresses concern about the ``jurisdiction limits of 
the PWSRCAC''. Contrary to a ``Council'' that would have operating 
limits clearly delineated, the alternative voluntary advisory group is 
limited to certain regions or terminal facilities but not in the scope 
of its allowable actions. This stems from the wording of the statute 
itself. The Act does not preclude actions often termed ``outside of the 
intent'' of OPA 90 as long as the voluntary alternative group meets the 
recertification threshold for alternative voluntary advisory groups, as 
follows: ``fosters the general goals and purposes of this section and 
is broadly representative * * *.'' Due to the fact that the action in 
question (evaluation of a proposed pipeline) appears ``representative 
of the communities and

[[Page 4171]]

interests in the vicinity of the terminal facilities and Prince William 
Sound,'' the action is not outside of the scope of the Act.
    Three commenters express concern regarding individual staff and 
board members representing their personal opinions as those of PWSRCAC 
during official meetings with other organizations. This is an internal 
issue for the PWSRCAC. The Coast Guard identified one specific instance 
of a member of the PWSRCAC presenting a personal position as that of 
the PWSRCAC. The Executive Director of the PWSRCAC personally visited 
the mayor of the city from which the representative came; the city 
appointed a different representative for the next term. After this 
conflict occurred, the PWSRCAC revised the code of conduct. This 
revised code of conduct was included in this year's recertification 
application. the Coast Guard agrees that corrective actions should be 
reported to the organizations that received a misrepresentation of the 
PWSRCAC's position in order to maintain trust and open communications. 
These commenters recommend the Coast Guard require a policy and 
controls audit. In the recertification letter, we have asked the 
PWSRCAC to conduct an internal audit based upon its rules for self-
government. One commenter recommends the PWSRCAC continue to maintain 
offices in two cities. Presently, the Coast Guard is unaware of any 
plans to change this. One commenter suggests that the RCAC should not 
be certified as an alternative voluntary advisory group but rather as a 
``Council'' under the statute. Since most commenters mention many 
examples how the PWSRCAC fosters the goals and purposes of the Act, 
there is no basis to disallow certification for the purpose of 
assigning a ``Council''. Several commenters indicate the PWSRCAC does 
not act like more rigidly structured organizations such as government 
agencies or oil companies. Congress did not intend to impose a highly 
structured organization on voluntary alternative groups.
    Three commenters indicate a desire to have greater accountability 
of PWSRCAC members to their constituencies. Appointment of a 
representative to the PWSRCAC under its by-laws and membership 
provisions, together with subsequent endorsements of the localities or 
interest groups they represent, constitutes a de facto acknowledgement 
that they speak for a constituency. There is no mandate under OPA 90 to 
further limit the alternative voluntary advisory group through a 
detailed proscription of its functions.
    Three commenters question the efficacy of alternative voluntary 
advisory groups as models for other United States ports. The input to 
the docket will be maintained for consideration during such a potential 
study in the future.
    The commenter challenges the residency status of one PWSRCAC member 
representative. PWSRCAC indicates that the member representative in 
question meets the Alaska State minimum standards for residency; 
however, his residency status is under question by an Alaska court. 
PWSRCAC indicated in follow up discussion with the Coast Guard the 
intent to follow the decision by the Alaska court to set their future 
actions regarding citizenship standards. The Coast Guard also has 
concerns about the ability of a resident to adequately represent a 
constituency when the resident is only present two months of the year. 
The PWSRCAC has been asked to resolve this by the next recertification 
period in the recertification letter. Two commenters express concern 
that PWSRCAC members are sometimes uncooperative. The statute requires 
the PWSRCAC to foster the goal and purpose of cooperation. The majority 
of commenters underscored the cooperativeness and effectiveness of the 
RCAC at representing constituent views. There is nothing in the statute 
that requires the PWSRCAC to agree with industry or government 
positions. The PWSRCAC is advisory in nature. The Coast Guard 
determined that concern stems from the contrast between the way a 
voluntary organization builds consensus vice a structured chain of 
command. One commenter criticized the PWSRCAC's press conferences. The 
Act includes language that encourages cooperation but in no way 
precludes the use of press conference.
    One commenter expresses concern regarding special interests of 
members and their representatives. The diverse interests of members are 
inherent in the process of obtaining appointed representatives.
    One commenter states that advisory groups should not encroach on 
technical compliance with regulations. This comment is directed at 
comments, provided by PWSRCAC in their advisory role, related to the 
implementation of regulations by the state and federal governments. 
There is nothing in the Act that restricts advice provided under the 
Act from covering regulatory compliance, especially regarding the topic 
areas specifically identified under the Act. One commenter suggests 
difficulty in staff communications. The Coast Guard's discussions with 
commenters indicate that this problem pertains to one or two 
individuals. The Coast Guard encourages the PWSRCAC to take steps to 
resolve actions of specific individuals who may be undermining 
communications by appropriate use of its self-governing process.
    One commenter indicates a concern about efforts aimed at long-term 
partnering. Based upon remarks of numerous commenters, overall actions 
of the PWSRCAC appear to foster goal of building long-term 
partnerships. The PWSRCAC clearly does not agree with all activities 
undertaken by industry or government; however, the actions of the 
PWSRCAC identified by virtually every commenter show a pattern of 
partnering. Two commenters direct complaints at a lack of management 
control over staff. Based upon Coast Guard calls to clarify this item 
there seem to be two underlying concerns: draft documents that were 
used in a litigation by a private citizen (the litigating citizen also 
happens to be a representative of a member of the PWSRCAC's Board). 
There is a circumstantial link but no direct evidence that the PWSRCAC 
Staff members passed these draft documents. There were others on the 
working group who could have also passed these draft documents. The 
other concern was that a specific staff member was being uncooperative. 
Therefore, encouragement of the PWSRCAC to conduct an internal audit is 
merited. The problem is not widespread, as such it should be resolved 
through the internal ``self-government'' process of the PWSRCAC.
    One commenter expresses concern regarding alleged staff support of 
legal efforts without Board consideration or approval. The reference 
appears to refer to information provided to various parties involved in 
an action that ultimately became litigation. The PWSRCAC appears to 
have supported all parties requesting information, similar in nature to 
a Freedom of Information Act response by the government. The Executive 
Director indicated to the Coast Guard that such support actions were 
approved by the Board in the session immediately prior to provision of 
the information.
    Two commenters complain of unfair or inadequate present funding. 
The statements were not supported and the level of funding is a 
contractual issue. One commenter indicates that RCAC should be held to 
legal and regulatory mandates. The Act requires voluntary alternative 
advisory groups to foster the goals and purposes of the Act. The Coast 
Guard holds the RCAC to this standard.

[[Page 4172]]

    One commenter indicates that the advisory group process has not 
evolved into effective partnerships. There is not sufficient evidence 
to support such a claim; rather, the contrary is evidenced through the 
many items identified annually by commenters and in the recertification 
application that demonstrate efforts to enhance marine safety. In 
letters expressing concern to the contrary there was indication of 
sufficient partnering efforts to indicate the PWSRCAC fosters such a 
goal.
    One commenter believes that individual members should obtain 
PWSRCAC approval before litigating. Based upon Coast Guard calls, the 
litigation in question was a private matter between a representative of 
a member of the PWSRCAC, not acting under the capacity of their PWSRCAC 
office. There is no requirement in the Act that precludes members of 
the PWSRCAC from initiating and conducting personal litigation against 
any entity. The Act merely precludes others from litigation against 
``Councils''.
    One comment criticizes the PWSRCAC for not accepting outcomes 
counter to those indicated in its advice. The Act does not preclude the 
PWSRCAC from continuing to pursue initiatives that it believes to be in 
its best interest. Two commenters offer specific examples for the 
previous comment. As an alternative voluntary advisory group, the 
PWSRCAC is not compelled to adopt a position that seems based only upon 
science. It is responsible to represent its regional interests.
    Twenty commenters to the docket recommend recertification. One 
commenter does not oppose recertification but stops short of 
recommending recertification.
    Three additional positive letters were received after the docket 
closed, two from members of Comgress and one from the Governor of 
Alaska.
    As a result of the above analysis, the following recommendations 
were conveyed to the PWSRCAC in the recertification letter: that the 
PWSRCAC revisits the Alaska residency issue as part of the ``self-
governing process''; that the PWSRCAC conducts an internal policy and 
controls audit; that the PWSRCAC makes results of the previous two 
items and any actions stemming from an audit available in the next 
recertification application; and, that the PWSRCAC includes a copy of 
the by-laws as part of the recertification package for the next 
recertification and in subsequent years following changes to the by-
laws.
    In light of the many positive comments received regarding the 
PWSRCAC's performance during the past year and the above analysis, the 
Coast Guard has determined that recertification in accordance with the 
Act is appropriate. The Coast Guard has requested the PWSRCAC to 
include documentation in its application next year indicating how each 
of the issues has been addressed. Such documentation should include 
recent correspondence from the PWSRCAC to the Coast Guard resolving 
concerns.

RECERTIFICATION: By letter dated November ____, 1998, the Assistant 
Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection certified 
that the PWSRCAC qualifies as an alternative voluntary advisory group 
under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This recertification terminates on January 30, 
2000.

    Dated: January 13, 1999.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety 
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 99-1880 Filed 1-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M