[Federal Register: January 27, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 17)] [Notices] [Page 4169-4170] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27ja99-103] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Coast Guard [USCG-1998-4272] Annual Certification of Cook Inlet 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 Cook Inlet, Alaska. This certification allows the advisory group to monitor the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers under the Cook Inlet 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 Cook Inlet, Alaska. The period of certification is being administratively adjusted to allow realignment of the recertification process with the annual budget year of the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (CIRCAC). The effective period of this recertification is from June 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information regarding the CIRCAC contact LT Pittmen, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection Directorate, Office of Response, (G-MOR-1), (202) 267-0426. For questions on viewing material 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 Cook Inlet, 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 Cook Inlet. Accordingly, in 1991, the President granted certification to the CIRCAC. The authority to certify alternative voluntary 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, in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard announced the availability of the application for recertification that it received from the CIRCAC and requested comments (63 FR 42475). It received 14 comments to the docket. Discussion of Comments One commenter indicates that the CIRCAC did not obtain adequate input from the city of Homer. In a meeting with the Executive Director the Coast Guard learned that the Mayor of Homer is now on the Board of the CIRCAC; in addition, the City of Homer offered no letter to the docket indicating any dissatisfaction with the CIRCAC. We believe the CIRCAC has successfully taken steps to resolve this potential difficulty. One commenter believes the government should fund the CIRCAC. The statute does not authorize federal funding of the CIRCAC. Another commenter complains that the CIRCAC is underfunded. This comment does not pertain directly to the determination of recertification but rather to contractual provisions. Two commenters complain that the CIRCAC has no vision, goals, and objectives. The CIRCAC indicated in a letter to the Coast Guard clarifying concerns and questions related to recertification that they use the goals and objectives of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) as identified in the context of the alternative voluntary advisory groups. Considering the fact [[Page 4170]] that Congress used the terms ``fostering the goals and purposes of'' referring to wording within the Act, the Coast Guard agrees that the Congressionally identified goals satisfy the requirement for vision goals and objectives. Two commenters indicate a belief that the CIRCAC applies inadequate internal oversight. Based upon the bylaws of the CIRCAC and comments of all other submitters this comment appears unfounded. In the wording of the Act, regional citizens' advisory councils are allowed to be self- governing. The meaning of this is very clear. The Act with respect to the CIRCAC as an alternative voluntary advisory group is even less restrictive by allowing the CIRCAC to foster the goal of self- government. Two commenters express concern regarding accountability of members to their constituents. Accountability exists in the annual ability of the area or interest group represented by the member to withhold their letter of endorsement. Two commenters indicate general concerns regarding conflict of interest. The CIRCAC has a conflict of interest policy that is available to the public upon request. There is no specific allegation in either comment of conflict of interest. Two commenters recommend the Coast Guard require a policy and controls audit. The CIRCAC is encouraged in its recertification letter to conduct an audit and make the results available as part of the next recertification application process. One commenter indicates that members are sometimes uncooperative. The Coast Guard reminds members of the CIRCAC in its recertification letter of the importance of cooperation. Twelve commenters recommend recertification. Two commenters suggest that the CIRCAC should not be certified as an alternative voluntary advisory group ``but rather as a ``Council'' under the statute. Since the commenters show numerous examples, and CIRCAC shows additional examples in their application, of fostering the goals and purposes of Section 5002, there is no basis to disallow certification for the purpose of assigning a ``Council''. In light of the many positive comments received regarding CIRCAC'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 CIRCAC to conduct a policy and controls audit and include documentation in its application next year explaining how each of the issues raised in the comments has been addressed. Such documentation should include recent correspondence from the CIRCAC to the Coast Guard resolving concerns. RECERTIFICATION: By letter dated November ____, 1998, the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection certified that the CIRCAC qualifies as an alternative voluntary advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This recertification terminates on July 31, 1999. Dated: January 13, 1999 R.C. North Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection. [FR Doc. 99-1879 Filed 1-26-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-M