[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 171 (Friday, September 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53335-53338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG-2000-7833]


Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vessel and 
Facility Response Plans for Oil; On-Water Mechanical Recovery Capacity 
Increase for 2003 and Alternative Removal Technologies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its intent to prepare and circulate 
a draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the 
development of appropriate regulations to increase the oil removal 
capacity (Caps) requirements for tank vessels and marine 
transportation-related (MTR) facilities and thus, increase the 
available spill removal capability for oil discharges. The Coast Guard 
also seeks public and agency input on the development (scope) of the 
PEIS. Specifically, the Coast Guard requests input on any environmental 
concerns that the public may have related to the alternatives for 
increasing spill removal capability for an oil discharge, suggested 
analyses or methodologies for inclusion in the PEIS, and possible 
sources of relevant data or information.

[[Page 53336]]


DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material are not 
entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of 
the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2000-7833), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20590-0001.
    (2) By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket 
on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this 
proposed regulatory action, contact Mr. Brad McKitrick, Office of 
Standards Evaluations and Analysis, U.S. Coast Guard, 202-267-0995 or 
via email [email protected]. For questions on viewing, or 
submitting material to the docket, contact Dorothy Beard, Chief, 
Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to submit written 
data, views, or comments. Persons submitting comments should please 
include their name and address, and identify the docket number (USCG-
2000-7833). You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand 
delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at 
the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and 
material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or hand 
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 they were received, please enclose a 
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    The Coast Guard invites comments and suggestions on the proposed 
scope of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The 
scoping process will help the Coast Guard ensure that a full range of 
appropriate issues related to this proposal and all reasonable 
alternatives are addressed.
    The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the 
comment period.

Background and Purpose

    Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380), and 
Executive Order 12777, the Coast Guard is authorized to issue 
regulations requiring the owners and operators of tank vessels and 
marine transportation-related (MTR) facilities to prepare and submit 
response plans. In 1996, the Coast Guard published final tank vessel 
response plan regulations (33 CFR part 155) and final MTR facilities 
response plan regulations (33 CFR part 154). These regulations contain 
requirements for on-water oil removal capacity that planholders 
transporting or transferring petroleum oil are required to meet in 
planning for an oil discharge.
    These regulations also state that the Coast Guard will periodically 
review the existing oil removal capacity (Caps) requirements, to 
determine if increases in mechanical recovery systems, and additional 
requirements for new response technologies, are practicable. In 1999, 
the Coast Guard completed an in-depth response equipment review, and 
subsequently increased existing mechanical on-water recovery 
requirements by 25% effective as of April 5, 2000 (65 FR 710). Based on 
that review, the Coast Guard also initiated an evaluation for the 
potential for additional increases in mechanical on-water recovery and 
new requirements for other response technologies, which would, if 
practicable, become effective in 2003.
    Preliminary scoping indicates that there may be both beneficial and 
potentially adverse effects to the environment. The Coast Guard 
believes the effects on the environment, as a whole, will be 
significantly beneficial. However, since significant beneficial 
environmental effects are probable in conjunction with potential 
adverse effects, the Coast Guard has decided to prepare a PEIS. The 
implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality's 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) state that a significant 
environmental impact may exist even if an agency believes that the net 
balance of environmental effects are beneficial.
    The PEIS for developing this regulation will be programmatic in 
nature and will examine the possible impacts to the environment on a 
national level. The PEIS will be limited in scope to the discussion of 
the general impacts resulting from implementing the action. The PEIS 
will also be prepared in accordance with NEPA, the Council on 
Environmental Quality's ``Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 
Provisions of NEPA,'' and the Coast Guard's NEPA procedures and 
policies--as specified in, ``National Environmental Policy Act: 
Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental 
Impacts,'' COMDTINST M16475.1C.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the development of appropriate regulations 
to increase the oil removal capacity (Caps) requirements for tank 
vessels and MTR facilities and thus, increase the available removal 
capability for oil discharges.

Need for Action

    As mandated by OPA 90, and other statutes, one of the primary 
missions of the Coast Guard is protection of the marine environment, 
including implementing a variety of oil pollution prevention, 
preparedness and response strategies. In carrying out this 
responsibility, the Coast Guard promulgated regulations (33 CFR part 
154) and (33 CFR part 155) in 1996, requiring the industry to have 
certain oil spill response equipment available by contract or other 
means. Based on a recently completed review of those regulations, and 
adoption of regional and local area pre-authorization agreements for 
dispersant and in situ burning use in accordance with the National 
Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR part 300), the Coast Guard needs to 
examine the practicability of a regulatory change which could do any 
one of, or a combination of, the following:
     Change the amount of mechanical recovery equipment 
available for response.
     Impose a requirement for stockpiling of dispersant 
equipment.
     Impose a requirement for the stockpiling of in situ 
burning equipment.

[[Page 53337]]

    The need for this action is outlined below.
    1. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). This public law was enacted 
in response to the EXXON VALDEZ oil spill in Alaska and other oil 
spills. One of the important goals of OPA 90 was to increase the 
overall spill response capability in the United States. The Coast Guard 
was one of several agencies tasked with implementing OPA 90. OPA 90 
requires--
     The Coast Guard to monitor and oversee the oil 
transportation industry's capability to respond to oil pollution 
incidents from vessels and facilities engaged in transport of oil by 
water. To implement OPA 90, the Coast Guard promulgated regulations to 
require vessels and marine transportation-related facilities to develop 
plans describing how they will respond to an oil pollution incident, 
including a worst case oil discharge (refer to 2 and 3 of the Need for 
Action section); and
     Changes in the National Response System (described in 40 
CFR part 300), including the establishment of Area Committees. Area 
Committees in cooperation with existing Regional Response Teams (RRT) 
were tasked with determining potential oil spill risks and with 
devising strategies to mitigate oil spills in the most environmentally 
protective manner practicable (refer to 4 and 5 of the Need for Action 
section).
    2. Regulatory Requirements. In response to the OPA 90 mandate, the 
Coast Guard published tank vessel response plan regulations (33 CFR 
part 155) and MTR facilities response plans (33 CFR part 154). These 
regulations were published as Interim Final Rules on February 5, 1993 
(58 FR 7376 and 58 FR 7330 respectively), and as Final Rules on January 
12, 1996 (61 FR 1052), for vessel regulations and on February 29, 1996 
(61 FR 7890), for MTR facility regulations. The goal of these 
regulations was to ensure prompt response to and clean up of oil 
discharged anywhere within United States waters.
    The regulations required vessel and facility planholders to have 
available, by contract or other approved means, mechanical recovery 
equipment suitable for removing spilled oil from the environment. In 
establishing mechanical recovery equipment standards, the Coast Guard 
recognized that there were technological, and availability limits on 
mechanical recovery equipment. Therefore, the regulations established 
Caps on the amount of mechanical recovery resources that vessel and 
facility planholders were required to ensure available.
    Capability to employ other potentially environmentally protective 
response technologies (i.e., dispersants, and in situ burning) were not 
imposed by the regulations due to the lack of available equipment to 
deploy these options. However, the regulations did allow certain 
planholders to apply for a reduction in the amount of mechanical 
recovery equipment if the planholders could establish a dispersant 
capability based on certain conditions. These conditions were proven to 
be too restrictive, and no planholder applied for the ``dispersant 
mechanical recovery offset.''
    The regulations recognized that changes in technology, equipment 
availability and general acceptance of certain other response 
technologies might occur over time. Therefore, the regulations required 
the Coast Guard to initiate a review of these original Caps (Response 
Plan Equipment Caps Review) to determine whether the mechanical 
recovery Caps should be increased and whether other response 
technologies in addition to mechanical recovery were practicable (refer 
to 3 of the Need for Action section).
    3. Response Plan Equipment Caps Review. In conducting the Response 
Plan Equipment Caps Review (Caps Review), the Coast Guard evaluated 
improvements in technology, availability, and general acceptance of 
mechanical recovery equipment and other response technologies since the 
original tank vessel and MTR facility response plan regulations were 
promulgated (refer to 4 and 5 of the Need for Action section). The 
review concluded that there have been sufficient improvements in these 
areas to initiate a new regulatory project. The new regulatory project 
would be aimed at increasing oil removal capacity even further and 
thus, ensure that planholders have even better capabilities available 
to respond to oil discharges in the future. As outlined in the 
Alternatives section of this notice, the Coast Guard is examining the 
possibility of creating a new regulation which could do any one of, or 
a combination of, the following:
     Change the amount of mechanical recovery equipment 
available for response.
     Impose a requirement for stockpiling dispersant equipment.
     Impose a requirement for stockpiling in situ burning 
equipment.
    4. National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (40 CFR part 300) was 
modified in accordance with OPA 90 mandates to encourage more active 
government planning at the local and regional levels, and focused on 
developing and implementing environmentally appropriate oil spill 
response strategies. Specifically, the NCP directs RRTs and Area 
Committees to consider, as part of their planning activities, the 
desirability of using other response technologies in addition to 
mechanical recovery in mitigating the environmental impacts of an oil 
spill. The NCP also directs that the response technologies to be 
employed on any spill are those that best minimize the overall impact 
to the environment.
    5. Pre-authorization Plans. In carrying out the NCP mandates, RRTs 
and Area Committees around the country have engaged in intensive 
examination of the environmental tradeoffs involved in responding to 
oil spills using mechanical recovery, dispersants and in situ burning. 
Based on these local and regional environmental evaluations, almost 
every RRT and coastal Area Committee has now adopted a pre-
authorization or expedited approval agreement to allow the use of 
dispersants and in situ burning in response to oil spills. All of these 
agreements are limited in geographic extent and conditions for use. All 
were developed and approved through an agreement of appropriate federal 
and state natural resource trustees. The general acceptance of these 
response options imposes on the Coast Guard the responsibility to 
ensure their availability in the event of a spill incident where use 
may provide environmental benefit.

Purpose of Proposed Action

    The purpose of the proposed action is to increase the oil removal 
capability (Caps) requirements for tank vessels and MTR facilities and 
thus, increase the available spill removal capability for oil 
discharges.

Alternatives

    Reasonable alternatives that meet the established purpose and need 
will be evaluated and considered in detail. Currently, the Coast Guard 
is proposing that the PEIS examine the following alternatives:
    (1) No Action. This alternative would not implement any new 
response plan regulations. This alternative would maintain the current 
level of mechanical recovery equipment and credit for maintaining 
dispersant capability (33 CFR parts 154 and 155) for responding to an 
oil discharge. Although this alternative will not meet the purpose and 
need, it will be examined in the PEIS to provide a baseline by which 
decision makers and the public can compare the magnitude of

[[Page 53338]]

environmental effects of the action alternatives.
    (2) On-water Mechanical Recovery. Under this alternative, the Coast 
Guard would implement a regulation that would change the amount of 
mechanical recovery equipment planholders are required to have 
available to respond to an oil discharge. No other changes to existing 
regulations would be required. On-water mechanical recovery equipment 
is used to block the spread of oil, concentrate the oil into one area, 
and physically remove it from the water surface by the use of floating 
containment booms and skimmers.
    (3) On-water Dispersants Use. Under this alternative the Coast 
Guard would implement a regulation that would require planholders to 
have dispersant capabilities to respond to an oil discharge. The 
dispersant credit in the current regulations would be eliminated. No 
other changes to existing regulations would be required. Dispersants, 
which are applied by either aircraft or vessel, act to break the oil 
into small droplets. These small droplets are then dispersed into the 
water column to be naturally degraded.
    (4) On-water In situ Burning. Under this alternative the Coast 
Guard would implement a regulation that would require planholders to 
have in situ burning capabilities to respond to an oil discharge. No 
other changes to existing regulations would be required. In this 
alternative, oil would be removed off the water surface by use of 
floating containment booms and igniting the contained oil.
    (5) Combinations of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Under this 
alternative, the Coast Guard would implement a regulation requiring 
planholders to change oil removal capabilities based on any combination 
of alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
    None of the alternatives being considered under the proposed action 
would require the actual use of a particular technology, nor do they 
dictate the methods or circumstances with which any oil spill removal 
technology would be used for any specific oil spill incident. The 
actual use of such response technologies will continue to be at the 
discretion of the Federal On-scene Coordinator in accordance with the 
controlling guidance contained within the Regional Contingency Plans 
and Area Contingency Plans. However, the proposed action, depending on 
which alternative is chosen for implementation, may change localized 
infrastructure for mechanical recovery equipment, dispersant use and in 
situ burning resources. If either alternatives 3, 4 or 5, are 
implemented, it is anticipated that, in areas where dispersant use and 
in situ burning have been evaluated and determined to be potentially 
beneficial (e.g., where interagency pre-authorization agreements have 
been adopted), there would be increased opportunities to use 
dispersants and in situ burning at incidents where those options were 
previously not employed solely due to the lack of ready availability.
    Under all the alternatives, planholders would be required to have 
oil spill aerial tracking capabilities available by contract or other 
approved means. This requirement would provide planholders the ability 
to maintain visual observation of spill response operations and allow 
for efficient deployment of mechanical recovery resources, as well as 
dispersant application systems and in situ burning equipment.

Scope

    Certain environmental issues have been tentatively identified for 
analysis in the PEIS. These issues are presented to facilitate public 
comment during the scoping process of the PEIS. It is neither intended 
to be all-inclusive nor a predetermined set of potential impacts. 
Additions to or deletions of issues may occur as a result of the 
scoping process. These environmental issues include the following:
    (1) Endangered or threatened species: Potential impacts to 
endangered or threatened marine life and birds from each of the 
alternatives.
    (2) Essential fish habitat: Potential effects to waters and 
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 
to maturity from each of the alternatives.
    (3) Other Biological Habitats: Potential impacts to wetlands, 
estuaries, shorelines and benthos from each of the alternatives.
    (4) Coastal and Marine Birds: Potential impacts to coastal marine 
and birds from each of the alternatives.
    (5) Aquatic Resources: Potential effects to marine mammals, sea 
turtles, open ocean fisheries, nearshore fisheries, phytoplankton, 
zooplankton, aquatic vegetation, and benthic organisms from each of the 
alternatives.
    (6) Atmospheric Resources: Potential air quality impacts resulting 
from emissions from each of the alternatives.
    (7) Water quality: Potential impact to water quality resulting from 
each of the alternatives.
    (8) Archeological/Historic Resources: Potential impact to 
archeological/historic resources resulting from each of the 
alternatives.
    (9) Socio-economics: Potential impact to recreational activities, 
tourism, recreational fishing, and subsistence activities due to each 
of the alternatives.
    (10) Public Health and Safety: Potential impacts to public health 
and safety associated with each of the alternatives.
    Public scoping meetings may be scheduled if comments indicate that 
a meeting would yield useful information.
    Once the draft PEIS is published, the Coast Guard will hold a 
public meeting during the comment period. A notice of that meeting will 
be published in the Federal Register. All appropriate written and oral 
comments provided at the public meeting, will be considered in the 
preparation of the Final PEIS, and will become part of the public 
record (i.e., names, addresses, letters of comments, comments provided 
during the public meeting).

    Dated: August 28, 2000.
R.C. North,
Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 00-22316 Filed 8-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U