Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Committee Charter Renewal, 24607-24608 [05-9301]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24607-24608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9301]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[CGD 17-05-005]


Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Committee 
Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of recertification.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the 
Coast Guard has recertified the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' 
Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) as an alternative voluntary advisory group 
for Prince William Sound, Alaska. This certification allows the PWSRCAC 
to monitor the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers 
under the Prince William Sound Program established by statute.

DATES: This recertification is effective for the period from March 1, 
2005, through February 28, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard 
District, Marine Safety Division, Response Branch by phone at (907) 
463-2804, or by mail at P.O. Box 25517; Juneau, Alaska 99802.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    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), 33 U.S.C. 2732, to foster a long-term partnership among 
industry, government, and local communities in overseeing compliance 
with environmental concerns in the operation of crude oil terminals and 
oil tankers.
    On October 18, 1991, the President delegated his authority under 33 
U.S.C 2732 (o) to the Secretary of Transportation in Executive Order 
12777, section 8(g) (see 56 FR 54757; October 22, 1991) for purposes of 
certifying advisory councils, or groups, subject to the Act. On March 
3, 1992, the Secretary redelegated that authority to the Commandant of 
the USCG (see 57 FR 8582; March 11, 1992). The Commandant redelegated 
that authority to the Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and 
Environmental Protection (G-M) on March 19, 1992 (letter 
5402).
    On July 7, 1993, the USCG published a policy statement, 58 FR 
36504, to clarify the factors that shall be considered in making the 
determination as to whether advisory councils, or groups, should be 
certified in accordance with the Act.
    The Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental 
Protection (G-M), redelegated recertification authority for advisory 
councils, or groups, to the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District 
on February 26, 1999 (letter 16450).
    On September 16, 2002, the USCG published a policy statement, 67 FR 
58440, that changed the recertification procedures such that applicants 
are required to provide the USCG with comprehensive information every 
three years (triennially). For each of the two years between the 
triennial application procedure, applicants submit a letter requesting 
recertification that includes a description of any substantive changes 
to the information provided at the previous triennial recertification.

Discussion of Comments

    The January 12, 2005, the USCG published a Notice of Application 
Submission Deadline; Request for Comments for Recertification of Prince 
William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 2181). We received 17 letters commenting on the 
proposed action. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Of 
the 17 comments received, 16 were positive. These letters in support of 
the recertification consistently cited PWSRCAC's broad representation 
of the respective community's interests, appropriate actions to keep 
the public informed, improvements to both spill response preparation 
and spill prevention, and oil spill industry monitoring efforts that 
combat complacency--as intended by the Act.
    The USCG received one comment in opposition to PWSRCAC's 
recertification. The Native Village of Eyak (NVE) recommended the Coast 
Guard de-certify the PWSRCAC because it neither represents the NVE, nor 
can it afford representation to the NVE through membership on the 
PWSRCAC Board of Directors. The NVE stated that a separate Tribal 
oversight group should be created. They further stated that advisory 
group funding should be directed to this Tribal oversight group, and 
that this group would exist in addition to, not in place of, the 
PWSRCAC. NVE has twice before voiced this opposition in letters of 
comment on PWSRCAC's 2001 and 2002 recertification. Commandant, 
Seventeenth Coast District answered NVE's opposition, with direct 
responses dated September 7, 2001, and July 11, 2002. For the purpose 
of public record, those responses are provided here:

[[Page 24608]]

    The September 7, 2001, U.S. Coast Guard response to the Native 
Village of Eyak letter dated July 24, 2001, states ``[I] have received 
and reviewed your letter that does not support the recertification of 
the PWSRCAC. Thank you for you input. Although I understand your 
position and concerns that the Native Village of Eyak has never been 
represented by the PWSRCAC and therefore the Native Village of Eyak 
does not feel the PWSRCAC is broadly representative of the interests 
and communities in the area, after careful consideration, I do not feel 
this single issue would justify the U.S. Coast Guard not recertifying 
the PWSRCAC. In light of your concerns, I have requested, in writing, 
that the PWSRCAC board contact your Tribal Council and open a dialogue 
with you to ensure your concerns are reflected in the PWSRCAC's 
Activities. Additionally, I recommend that you open a dialog, if you 
desire, with the PWSRCAC Board of Directors concerning membership on 
the Board, as membership native villages is consistent with Section 
2732(d)(A)(iii) of OPA 90. To respond to your question regarding an 
investigation into the finances of the RCAC, the Coast Guard is 
currently conducting a ``best practices'' audit to assist the PWSRCAC 
in decreasing their administrative overhead. This audit is still 
ongoing, and it would be premature for me to further comment on the 
potential outcome prior to its completion. My staff and I look forward 
to working with you on our common goal of improving the safe and 
environmentally sound transport of oil in PWS and surrounding 
communities.''
    The July 11, 2002, U.S. Coast Guard response to the Native Village 
of Eyak letter dated July 29, 2002, states ``I have received and 
reviewed your letter concerning the recertification of the Regional 
Citizens' Advisory Council (RCAC) for Prince William Sound (PWS). The 
Coast Guard greatly values the important role the Native Village of 
Eyak Traditional Council (NVETC) plays in the PWS community. Thank you 
for your input and for this opportunity to consult with you about the 
PWS RCAC and The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).''
    The history, background, and legal character of the PWS RCAC, along 
with its funding and responsibilities are unique and worthy of more 
discussion. The PWS RCAC is an independent, non-profit organization 
founded in 1989. Though it received Federal oversight like many 
independent, non-profit organizations, it is not a Federal agency. The 
PWS RCAC is a local organization that predates the passage of OPA 90. 
The existence of the PWS RCAC was specifically recognized in OPA 90 
where it is defined as an ``alternate voluntary advisory group.''
    The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company pays the PWS RCAC $2 million 
annually in the form of a long-term contract. In return for this 
funding, the PWS RCAC must annually show that it ``fosters the goals 
and purposes'' of OPA 90 and is ``broadly representative of the 
communities and interests in the vicinity of the terminal facilities 
and Prince William Sound.'' In March 1991, then-President Bush 
initially certified the PWS RCRC as meeting these broad goals. That 
certification responsibility was delegated to the Coast Guard in 1991, 
and for the last ten years the Coast Guard has unconditionally 
recertified the PWS RCAC annually.
    Alyeska funds the PWS RCAC, and the Coast Guard makes sure the PWS 
RCRC operates in a fashion that is broadly consistent with OPA 90. For 
example, the PWS RCAC's responsibilities under OPA 90 are limited to 
monitoring crude oil terminal and tanker operation in PWS. As such, the 
PWS RCAC had no role in the response to the F/V WINDY BAY oil spill, 
which was a diesel fuel oil spill. In such cases, however, the PWS RCAC 
can and does offer advice based on it local knowledge and in fact 
facilitated our close cooperation in response to that spill.
    In your letter, you made three specific requests. The first was the 
``the PWS RCAC be decertified on the basis of not broadly representing 
interests and communities in the area.'' I have the authority to grant 
that request, but cannot grant it. I find that the PWS RCAC does 
broadly represent the PWS community. The PWS RCAC board includes a 
broad spectrum of the native and non-native community, the fishing and 
oil industry, and environmental and recreational organizations as 
prescribed by OPA 90. Last year after you made similar critical 
recertification comment, the PWS RCAC invited the NVETC to seek a seat 
on the board of the RCAC. You decided not to act on that offer. I 
cannot find your decision not to join the PWS RCAC to be basis for 
decertification.
    Your second request was the ``a new group following strict letter 
of the law in OPA 90 be formed.'' Unfortunately, I have neither the 
authority to grant this request nor the expertise to help you achieve 
it on your own. The Coast Guard did not create the PWS RCAC and cannot 
act to create a competing alternative.
    Your third request was that ``a Tribal oversight group with equal 
status to the U.S. government and State of Alaska be created.'' Again I 
have neither the authority nor the expertise to create such an 
organization. I do encourage you to reconsider your decision not to 
seek a seat on the PWS RCAC. Though the PWS RCAC is an independent, 
non-federal, non-profit organization over which I have limited 
influence, I would ask the PWS RCAC seriously consider a renewed 
request by you for a seat on the board.
    In your letter, you suggested the formation of a Tribal Council of 
the Native Tribes and Villages in PWS that would exist in addition to 
PWS RCAC. I appreciate that such a network would facilitate the 
discussion of mutual issues and concerns. Though the Coast Guard is not 
empowered to sponsor such an enterprise, I would welcome the 
information and advice such a group could offer. You may wish to 
approach the PWS RCAC about such a tribal group.
    I would also like to assure you that the Coast Guard recognizes its 
government-to-government consultative relationship with the Native 
Village of Eyak. I am grateful for this opportunity to consult with 
you. I hope to continue to work you on emergent cases like the F/V 
WINDY BAY case and on any other matters of mutual concern.''
    NVE has voiced no new opposition for 2005. The USCG, standing by 
its direct responses above, likewise offers no new response to NVE's 
running opposition.
    Recertification: By letter dated March 2, 2005, 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 February 28, 2006.

    Dated: March 4, 2005.
James C. Olson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 05-9301 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P