[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53740-53743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21031]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 161 and 167

[USCG-2001-10254]
RIN 2115-AG20


Traffic Separation Scheme: In Prince William Sound, AK

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the existing Traffic Separation 
Scheme (TSS) in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The amendments were 
adopted by the International Maritime Organization and validated by a 
recent Port Access Route Study (PARS). These amendments provide 
straight traffic lanes between the Bligh Reef Pilot Station and Cape 
Hinchinbrook and reduce risk for vessels operating in the area.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 18, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-2001-10254 and are available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, room PL-401, 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: If you have questions on this final 
rule, call LT Keith Ropella, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, 
Valdez, AK, telephone 907-835-7209, e-mail [email protected]; 
or George Detweiler, Coast Guard, Office of Vessel Traffic Management 
(G-MWV), telephone 202-267-0574, e-mail [email protected]. If 
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, 
Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 53741]]

Regulatory History

    On February 6, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled ``Traffic Separation Scheme: In Prince William Sound, 
Alaska'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 5538). We received no letters 
commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and 
none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The Prince William Sound (Alaska) Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) 
is an internationally recognized routing measure used to minimize the 
risk of collision by separating vessels, through traffic lanes, into 
opposing streams of traffic. The original TSS in Prince William Sound 
ran from the vicinity of Cape Hinchinbrook through Prince William Sound 
and into the Valdez Arm (the entrance to Port Valdez). The 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted this TSS in 1992. It 
is reflected on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
nautical chart 16700 and in ``Ships Routeing,'' Seventh Edition 1999, 
International Maritime Organization.
    On August 26, 1999, we published the results of a study in the 
Federal Register (64 FR 4662), which concluded that modifications to 
the original TSS were needed to improve vessel traffic management and 
safety and to reduce the risk of drift groundings.

Discussion of the Rule

    This rule amends the original TSS in Prince William Sound by 
adopting the following amendments, as implemented by IMO on June 1, 
2001:
    1. Establishing a precautionary area southeast of Cape Hinchinbrook 
at the entrance to Prince William Sound.
    2. Straightening the Prince William Sound portion of the TSS to 
eliminate a course change.
    3. Establishing a precautionary area at the Bligh Reef Pilot 
Station. This precautionary area divides the present TSS into two 
separate traffic separation schemes--a Prince William Sound traffic 
separation scheme and a Valdez Arm traffic separation scheme. The new 
Valdez Arm TSS is slightly wider than the Valdez Arm portion of the 
original TSS.
    Since IMO has already adopted and implemented the proposed traffic 
separation schemes and precautionary areas in its ``Ships'' Routeing 
Guide,'' this rule aligns title 33, part 167, of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) with that guide.

Discussion of Changes Since the NPRM

    We have made one change, a minor one, to the proposed regulatory 
text presented in the NPRM. This change should have no impact on the 
mariner, other than to avoid confusion, and is explained as follows.
    In Sec. 160.60(b) of the NPRM, we proposed to enlarge the Valdez 
Narrows Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Special Area to include the 
portion of the TSS located in the Valdez Arm. This would have given the 
Commanding Officer of the VTS the authority to direct vessels into the 
separation zone if, for example, the traffic lanes became partially 
blocked by ice from the Columbia Glacier. Enlarging the Valdez Narrows 
VTS Special Area as proposed also meant that the existing regulations 
for the current special area would apply to the newly included 
geographic area. We re-analyzed this proposal and determined that the 
regulations for the Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area are not appropriate 
for the new, enlarged special area. Were we to make the regulations 
applicable to this new, enlarged area, we might confuse the mariner 
transiting to and from the Port of Valdez. Therefore, instead of 
enlarging the existing Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area, we have decided 
to create a separate Valdez Arm VTS Special Area. (See new 
Sec. 161.60(b) in this final rule.) The geographic area encompassed by 
the two separate VTS Special Areas is identical to that of the enlarged 
Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area originally proposed in the NPRM. 
Mariners who transit to and from the Port of Valdez are very familiar 
with the Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area as it exists today. Leaving it 
as it is and creating a new Valdez Arm VTS Special Area will have no 
substantive effect on the mariner, other than to avoid confusion. In 
fact, the new regulation will be transparent to the mariners as they 
transit to and from the Port of Valdez.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does 
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not 
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact 
of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under 
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is 
unnecessary. The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below:

Costs

    Vessel operators would incur the minimal cost of plotting new 
coordinates on their existing charts or purchasing updated charts when 
available.

Benefits

    The amendments to the TSS in Prince William Sound, Alaska, will 
increase the margin of safety for all vessels accessing the Port of 
Valdez. The new Precautionary Areas and amended traffic lanes will 
decrease the chance of collisions, allisions, and drift groundings were 
a vessel to become disabled. Vessels transiting the Prince William 
Sound TSS should experience cost savings through decreased operational 
costs, because the new transit lanes in the Sound are shorter.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises 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.
    This rule will have a reduced economic impact on vessels operated 
by small entities. The rule amends an existing TSS. This action 
improves safety for commercial vessels using the TSS by reducing the 
risk of collisions, allisions, and drift groundings. Vessels that tend 
to use the TSS's are commercial vessels, such as tankers. These vessels 
are usually large and capable of operating in an offshore environment. 
Vessels voluntarily transiting the TSS will transit 1.5 to 2.5 nautical 
miles fewer per trip. The reduced transit distance results in decreased 
vessel operating costs, which would positively affect the overall cost 
of the complete voyage.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that 
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule 
affects your small business, organization, or governmental

[[Page 53742]]

jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please consult George Detweiler, Coast Guard, 
Marine Transportation Specialist, at 202-267-0574.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under 
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for 
federalism.
    Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et. 
seq.) (PWSA) authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations to 
designate and amend traffic separation schemes (TSS's) to protect the 
marine environment. In enacting PWSA in 1972, Congress found that 
advance planning and consultation with the affected States and other 
stakeholders was necessary in the development and implementation of a 
TSS. Throughout the development of the TSS in Prince William Sound, we 
consulted with the Valdez Marine Operators Committee (VMOC), the 
affected State and Federal pilot's associations, vessel operators, 
users, and all affected stakeholders. The VMOC includes individuals who 
represent the interests of local commercial shipping and industry, as 
well as members from the Regional Citizens Advisory Council, and the 
State of Alaska. The VMOC was an active participant in various meetings 
with the Coast Guard and has contributed to this rulemaking.
    Presently, there are no Alaska State laws or regulations concerning 
the same subjects as are contained in this proposed rule. We understand 
that the State does not contemplate issuing any such rules. However, it 
should be noted, that by virtue of the PWSA authority, the TSS in this 
rule will preempt any state rule on the same subject.
    In order to be applicable to foreign flag vessels on the high seas, 
TSS's must be submitted to, approved by, and implemented by IMO. The 
Coast Guard is the principal United States agency responsible for 
advancing the interests of the United States at IMO. In this role, we 
work with all interested parties to advance the goals of this TSS to 
make Prince William Sound more safe and environmentally secure.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory 
actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in 
the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one 
year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule 
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and 
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(i), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. This rule adjusts an existing traffic 
separation scheme. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is 
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 161

    Harbors, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Vessels, and Waterways.

33 CFR Part 167

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Waterways.


    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR parts 161 and 167 as follows:

PART 161--VESSEL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

    1. The authority citation for part 161 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1221; 33 U.S.C. 1223; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. In Sec. 161.60, redesignate paragraphs (b) through (d) as 
paragraphs (c) through (e), respectively, and add a new paragraph (b) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 161.60  Vessel Traffic Service Prince William Sound.

* * * * *
    (b) The Valdez Arm VTS Special Area consists of the waters of the 
Valdez Arm Traffic Separation Scheme (described in Sec. 167.1703 of 
this chapter); the waters northeast of a line drawn from shoreline to 
shoreline through the points 60 deg.58.04'N, 146 deg.46.52'W and

[[Page 53743]]

60 deg.58.93'N, 146 deg.48.86'W; and southwest of a line bearing 
307 deg. True from Tongue Point at 61 deg.02.10'N, 146 deg.40.00'W.
* * * * *

PART 167--OFFSHORE TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEMES

    3. The authority citation for part 167 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223; 49 CFR 1.46.


    4. Add Secs. 167.1700 through 167.1703 to read as follows:


Sec. 167.1700  In Prince William Sound: General.

    The Prince William Sound Traffic Separation Scheme consists of four 
parts: Prince William Sound Traffic Separation Scheme, Valdez Arm 
Traffic Separation Scheme, and two precautionary areas. These parts are 
described in Secs. 167.1701 through 167.1703. The geographic 
coordinates in Secs. 167.1701 through 167.1703 are defined using North 
American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).


Sec. 167.1701  In Prince William Sound: Precautionary areas.

    (a) Cape Hinchinbrook. A precautionary area is established and is 
bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 deg.20.59'N............................  146 deg.48.18'W
60 deg.12.67'N............................  146 deg.40.43'W
60 deg.11.01'N............................  146 deg.28.65'W
60 deg.05.47'N............................  146 deg.00.01'W
60 deg.00.81'N............................  146 deg.03.53'W
60 deg.05.44'N............................  146 deg.27.58'W
59 deg.51.80'N............................  146 deg.37.51'W
59 deg.53.52'N............................  146 deg.46.84'W
60 deg.07.76'N............................  146 deg.36.24'W
60 deg.11.51'N............................  146 deg.46.64'W
60 deg.20.60'N............................  146 deg.54.31'W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Bligh Reef. A precautionary area is established of radius 1.5 
miles centered at geographical position 60 deg.49.63'N, 
147 deg.01.33'W.
    (c) Pilot boarding area. A pilot boarding area located near the 
center of the Bligh Reef precautionary area is established. Regulations 
for vessels operating in these areas are in Sec. 165.1109(d) of this 
chapter.


Sec. 167.1702  In Prince William Sound: Prince William Sound Traffic 
Separation Scheme.

    The Prince William Sound Traffic Separation Scheme consists of the 
following:
    (a) A separation zone bounded by a line connecting the following 
geographical positions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 deg.20.77'N............................  146 deg.52.31'W
60 deg.48.12'N............................  147 deg.01.78'W
60 deg.48.29'N............................  146 deg.59.77'W
60 deg.20.93'N............................  146 deg.50.32'W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) A traffic lane for northbound traffic between the separation 
zone and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 deg.20.59'N............................  146 deg.48.18'W
60 deg.49.49'N............................  146 deg.58.19'W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) A traffic lane for southbound traffic between the separation 
zone and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 deg.49.10'N............................  147 deg.04.19'W
60 deg.20.60'N............................  146 deg.54.31'W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 167.1703  In Prince William Sound: Valdez Arm Traffic Separation 
Scheme.

    The Valdez Arm Traffic Separation Scheme consists of the following:
    (a) A separation zone bounded by a line connecting the following 
geographical positions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 deg.51.08'N............................  147 deg.00.33'W
60 deg.58.60'N............................  146 deg.48.10'W
60 deg.58.30'N............................  146 deg.47.10'W
60 deg.50.45'N............................  146 deg.58.75'W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) A traffic lane for northbound traffic between the separation 
zone and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 deg.49.39'N............................  146 deg.58.19'W
60 deg.58.04'N............................  146 deg.46.52'W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) A traffic lane for southbound traffic between the separation 
zone and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 deg.58.93'N............................  146 deg.48.86'W
60 deg.50.61'N............................  147 deg.03.60'W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: July 26, 2002.
Paul J. Pluta,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, 
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 02-21031 Filed 8-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P