[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25786-25788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10941]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[CGD17-00-002]


Annual Certification of Prince William Sound Regional Citizen's 
Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of recertification.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Oil Terminal and 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.

DATES: This certification is effective from January 31, 2000 to January 
31, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information regarding the 
PWS RCAC or viewing material submitted to the docket, contact LCDR 
Larry Musarra, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, Marine Safety 
Division, (907) 463-2211.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
Congress passed the Oil Pollution 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 Prince William Sound (PWS), 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 
Prince William Sound Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (PWS RCAC). 
The authority to certify alternative advisory groups was subsequently 
delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard and redelegated to the 
Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
    On January 6, 2000, the Coast Guard announced in the Federal 
Register the availability of the application for recertification that 
it received from the PWS RCAC and requested comments (65 FR 800). 
Twenty-seven comments were received.

Discussion of Comments

    Of the 27 comments received, 24 were supportive of recertification 
and generally noted the positive efforts, good communication, and broad 
representation of PWS communities as PWS RCAC carries out its 
responsibilities as intended by the Act. Three commenters recommended 
the Coast Guard conditionally certify the PWS RCAC due to what they 
perceived were substantial non-conformities with the Council's By Laws 
and the intent of OPA-90. The following summarizes the Coast Guard's 
analysis of the issues raised during the review process.
    Two commented that the PWS RCAC is confrontational or adversarial, 
engaging in ``polarizing/politicization'' behavior, noting that such 
relations were not consistent with fostering cooperation, as per the 
Act. However, the majority of the commenters did not share that view. 
While the Act promotes developing trust, cooperation, and consensus 
between the industry, government and local citizens, it also 
establishes that local citizens (through the PWS RCAC) should provide 
advice and recommendations regarding environmental concerns of crude 
oil terminal and tanker operations in PWS. Based on 24 positive 
comments received, the action taken by PWS RCAC is consistent with 
their advisory role in representing the interests of local citizens on 
environmental concerns.
    One commenter criticized the resolution passed by PWS RCAC 
regarding the proposed BP acquisition of ARCO. The resolution urged 
that certain factors be taken into consideration, and that certain 
commitments be sought from BP if the acquisition was approved. The 
commenter suggested this was a tactic based on ``unsubstantiated and 
subjective judgments'' of various issues. Upon review, the Coast Guard 
concludes that the resolution offered advice to regulators to help 
ensure that environmental safety would be preserved during the proposed 
BP acquisition of ARCO, an action within the scope of the purposes of 
the Act.
    Three commenters complained that the PWS RCAC's activities 
regarding the PWS tanker contingency plan were not consistent with 
their role under the Act, showing lack of clarity in their role and 
moving from the role of advisor to adversary. The complaints in this 
area center around changes suggested by the PWS RCAC to the 1998 tanker 
contingency plans and advice provided to the government regarding an 
appeal of the Conditions of Approval of the plans. The Coast Guard 
finds that the advice and suggestions provided by PWS RCAC was within 
the scope of the purposes of the PWS RCAC in their role to review and 
advise on the adequacy of oil spill prevention and contingency plans 
for the terminal facilities and crude oil tankers operating in Prince 
William Sound.
    Three commenters believe that PWS RCAC has shown an increasing 
tendency to expand its scope beyond ``environmental monitoring for 
terminal facilities in Prince William Sound and the crude oil tankers 
operating in Prince William Sound.'' However, the PWS RCAC may be 
recertificated so long as 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.

[[Page 25787]]

    One commenter suggested that last year's recertification provided 
for insufficient scrutiny and follow-up in assessing PWS RCAC's 
compliance with OPA-90 and called for an audit and the establishment of 
new performance criteria beyond that provided by law. The Coast Guard 
does not agree that last year's process was insufficient and does not 
agree that establishment of measurable performance criteria beyond that 
provided by law is necessary.
    One commenter complained that there is a lack of accountability for 
the scope and application of funded studies by the PWS RCAC and called 
on the Coast Guard to provide oversight of the projects undertaken and 
funded by the PWS RCAC to ensure the studies are within the scope of 
the organization and have practical application. The Coast Guard 
reviewed the funded studies and found all met the intent of the Act. 
Procedures exist for the government and industry to provide input on 
such projects. The PWS RCAC provides the Coast Guard and industry 
written information on their projects and invites both the Coast Guard 
and industry to attend meetings of RCAC's technical advisory 
committees. The Coast Guard encourages interested parties to utilize 
these avenues of communication.
    One commenter believes that there is a need for ``improving 
representation of regional citizens and communities'' and calling for 
recertification to be conditioned on ``completion of assessments with 
public comment opportunities'' in this and other areas. Upon review, 
the 19-member board, with members from all areas of the PWS region as 
well as from various interest groups with stakes in the region 
represents citizens and communities in a way that satisfies the demands 
of OPA-90. Additionally, this year's recertification notice drew 
numerous letters of support from citizens and communities in the 
represented area in response to the ``public comment opportunities'' 
provided by the Federal Register and Alaska media notification of the 
recertification process. The requirements of the Act were met.
    One commenter suggested that PWS RCAC should hold ``monthly 
meetings in various communities throughout the Sound'' to improve 
communications with the communities. The Coast Guard finds the PWS RCAC 
is presently doing this through having the board meet in member 
communities, as well as having staff members, board members and 
committee volunteers attending public hearings, oil spill drills and 
exercises in affected communities. Additionally, PWS RCAC technical 
advisory committee meetings are held in member communities and the 
RCAC's executive director, the community liaison and other staffers 
periodically travel to member communities to share with city councils, 
borough assemblies, and the public the state of oil spill prevention 
and response issues.
    One commenter noted conflicts of interest of the PWS RCAC 
leadership. This comment was made as a result of an incident at an 
international conference on environmental protection. This problem was 
limited to a single individual, and was resolved to the Coast Guard's 
satisfaction.
    Two commenters stated that PWS RCAC has engaged in litigation, 
which is barred under OPA-90. Upon review, the Coast Guard concludes 
the two examples cited are not engaging in litigation. PWS RCAC's 
actions in the 1995 contingency plan approvals were reviewed during 
last year's recertification process by the Coast Guard and were found 
to be appropriate. The PWS RCAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief with 
the U.S. Supreme Court in the Intertanko case. The friend-of-the-court 
brief was in the role of analyst and adviser to industry and government 
(not as a litigation party) in a case that could clearly affect the 
regulation of oil shipping in PWS.
    Two commenters were concerned over the residency standards for 
membership on the PWS RCAC board. This issue was raised last year and 
addressed by the PWS RCAC board in adopting a new residency definition, 
which was included with this year's recertification application.
    One commenter raised an issue that the PWS RCAC Code of Conduct 
does not specify consequences to an employee or volunteer for non-
compliance. In exploring this issue the Coast Guard found the Executive 
Director of PWS RCAC is responsible for the management of employees. 
Violations of the Code of Conduct exposes an employee to the full range 
of sanctions traditionally at management's disposal, from counseling in 
minor cases up to dismissal in the most serious cases. For volunteers, 
the PWS RCAC's Board addresses dealing with Code of Conduct violations 
with actions ranging from advising the sponsoring entity of the problem 
to denial of the board or committee seat.
    The PWS RCAC has asked the Coast Guard to consider whether a 
different recertification process would be more efficient. The Coast 
Guard is willing to consider alternatives and will request comments and 
suggestions from interested parties.
    As a result of the above analysis the Coast Guard recommends PWS 
RCAC continue to seek ways to foster trust and cooperation, and lead 
from confrontation to partnership on the important issues of oil 
terminal and tanker operations in PWS. The Coast Guard encourages 
industry to raise issues with PWS RCAC at the working level to also 
foster cooperation and consensus.

PWS RCAC's Response to Coast Guard Comments

    In its last recertification letter (dated Jan. 13, 1999) to the 
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council, the Coast 
Guard made several recommendations. The following is a summary of each 
recommendation, and an explanation of the council's response:
    The Coast Guard recommended that organizations receiving inaccurate 
information from council board or staff members about council positions 
should be provided with feedback from the council. Response: This issue 
has not arisen in the current certification period, but it is the 
council's intention to respond appropriately should it arise in the 
future.
    The Coast Guard recommended that the council revisit the issue of 
who is an Alaska resident for purposes of membership on the council 
board. Response: The council considered this issue over the spring and 
summer of 1999, and unanimously adopted the following definition of 
residency at its September 1999 board meeting: A resident is a person 
who intends to make Alaska his or her home, does not claim residency in 
any other state, and meets two of the following criteria: (1) Is a 
registered voter in Alaska and is not registered to vote in any other 
state. (2) Has a current Alaska driver's license and does not maintain 
a driver's license from any other state. (3) Earns primary income in 
Alaska and is not employed full-time in another state.
    The Coast Guard recommended that the council conduct an internal 
policy-controls audit. Response: In September 1998, the council board 
appointed a committee of board members to revise the policy manual. The 
final draft was presented to the board in December 1998 and approved 
after minor revisions.
    The Coast Guard requested the PWS RCAC include a copy of their By 
Laws as part of their recertification application. Response: The By 
Laws were included with the request for recertification. The Coast 
Guard is satisfied with the PWS RCAC responses to these 
recommendations.
    Upon review of the comments received regarding the PWS RCAC's

[[Page 25788]]

performance during the past year and the information provided by the 
RCAC in their annual report and recertification package the Coast Guard 
finds the PWS RCAC meets the criteria established under the Oil 
Pollution Act, and that recertification in accordance with the Act is 
appropriate.

Recertification

    By letter dated April 4, 2000, the Commander, Seventeenth Coast 
Guard certified that the PWSRCAC qualifies as an alternative voluntary 
advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This recertification terminates 
on January 31, 2001.

    Dated: April 4, 2000.
T.J. Barrett,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 00-10941 Filed 5-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P