[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21140]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 29, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD13-90-003]
RIN 2115-AE84
Regulated Navigation Area; Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters in
Northwestern Washington
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule revises the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) in Puget
Sound and adjacent waters in northwestern Washington.
This amendment is needed due to the large numbers of user conflicts
and potentially hazardous situations which frequently develop during
periods of vessel traffic congestion within the area, e.g., all
citizens gillnet fishery. The intended effect of this action is to
prevent vessel collisions and groundings, loss of property, loss of
life, and environmental damage, resulting from conflicts between the
varied users of these waters, including fishing vessels, pleasure
craft, ferries, towboats, and deep draft vessels.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR M. E. Ashley, USCG, Puget Sound
Vessel Traffic Service, telephone (206) 217-6040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Drafting Information
The principle persons involved in drafting this regulation are LCDR
M. E. Ashley, USCG, Project Manager and LT L. Argenti, USCGR, Project
Counsel.
Regulatory History
On October 1, 1990, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Regulated Navigation Area; Puget Sound, WA
in the Federal Register (55 FR 39986). Based on oral testimony at an
October 11, 1990 public hearing and written comments received through
November 15, 1990, the Coast Guard determined the need for substantial
revision and additional comment. On July 31, 1991 the Coast Guard
published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in the
Federal Register (56 FR 36121). Based upon 13 written comments received
in response to that notice, and experience gained during trials of the
procedures conducted during the 1990, 1991, and 1992 salmon fishing
seasons, the Coast Guard submits this final rule.
Background and Purpose
On August 13, 1984 the Coast Guard published a final rule to
establish a Regulated Navigation Area in Puget Sound and adjacent
waters in northwestern Washington. The final rulemaking re-established
provisions of a former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulation. The
regulation also established procedures for Puget Sound Vessel Traffic
Service (PSVTS) to activate Temporary Special Traffic Lanes (TSTL) to
facilitate the safe and orderly passage of navigation during periods of
vessel traffic congestion. When activated, the TSTL was a temporary
1000 yard wide traffic lane that was required to be vacated for through
vessel traffic. Activating the TSTL confined two way ship traffic to a
one-half mile wide lane and eliminated the separation zone of the
Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). After several years of experience, the
TSTL proved to be ineffective in reducing user conflicts. Vessels
following the TSTL were forced to maneuver to avoid concentrations of
boats and nets, resulting in frequent close-quarters situations, both
with fishing vessels and with opposing through traffic within the TSTL.
The October 1, 1990 NPRM proposed to eliminate provisions for the
TSTL and associated implementing requirements. The NPRM also proposed
the following new requirements: non-through traffic to clear the
Traffic Lanes 15 minutes before the arrival of through traffic;
prohibited fishing areas in the Edmonds/Kingston, Mukilteo/Clinton, and
Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth ferry crossing routes; a prohibited
fishing area at the Hood Canal bridge; and, vessels in the TSS to
monitor the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) VHF working frequency.
The July 31, 1991 SNPRM proposed to: (1) Discontinue the TSTL; (2)
require non-through traffic to clear the Traffic Lanes 15 minutes
before the arrival of through traffic; (3) prohibit fishing in the
Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lane and in the vicinity of the
drawspan of the Hood Canal Bridge (the prohibitions against fishing in
the Mukilteo/Clinton, and Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth ferry crossing
lanes proposed in the NPRM, were deleted from the SNPRM); (4) encourage
vessels in the TSS to monitor the PSVTS marine radio frequency, vice
require, as proposed in the NPRM; (5) delete the requirement proposed
in the NPRM for vessels transiting the TSS to sound special signals
when approaching areas of congestion; (6) limit speed by vessels
transiting the TSS to 11 knots, vice 8 knots, as proposed in the NPRM;
(7) require vessels engaged in gillnet fishing to display a 32 point
white light at the end of the net most distant from the vessel (deleted
from final rule because already included in existing rule); (8) provide
for means of authorizing deviations from rule.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The following discussion is based on the 13 written comments to the
SNPRM and the experience gained through the procedural trials during
the 1990, 1991, and 1992 salmon fishing seasons:
(1) Elimination of the TSTL. Three comments were received in
support of elimination of the TSTL. No comments were received in
objection to the proposal. Experience with the TSTL has demonstrated
that even with enforcement vessels on scene, the Coast Guard had
difficulty keeping the TSTL clear. Deep draft vessels following the
lane were forced to maneuver to avoid concentrations of boats and nets,
resulting in frequent close-quarters situations, both with fishing
vessels and with opposing deep draft traffic within the single lane.
The standard Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) is designed to promote
safety by directing vessel traffic through distinct, separated routes.
The TSS's are clearly delineated on all official marine charts of the
Puget Sound region. Use of the TSS without the TSTL should eliminate
confusion among waterway users.
(2) Requirement for Congesting Traffic to Clear the Traffic Lanes.
Five comments were received in support of the proposed requirement for
vessels not following the TSS to clear the lanes at least 15 minutes
before the arrival of a vessel following the TSS. No comments were
received in objection to the proposal. The Coast Guard remains
convinced that the 15 minute rule is an important safety element in
managing vessel traffic, especially in conjunction with the speed limit
provision included in this final rule. The requirement for vessels
engaged in fishing or other operations to draw in their gear, maneuver,
or otherwise clear the traffic lane no later than 15 minutes before
arrival of a vessel following the TSS applies to both lanes of the TSS.
Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service (PSVTS) will broadcast the estimated
time of arrival (ETA) of vessels following the TSS when such vessels
are approaching areas of vessel traffic congestion. Vessels operating
in but not following the TSS must clear the traffic lane when a vessel
following the TSS approaches. In addition, when operating in the TSS
east of New Dungeness, vessels not following the TSS must also clear
the adjacent separation zone and connecting precautionary areas. The
requirement for vessels engaged in fishing, sailing vessels, and
vessels of less than 20 meters in length not to impede vessels
following a TSS is delineated in Rule 10 of the International
Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea (72 COLREGS).
(3) Prohibited Fishing Areas. Two comments were received in support
of the proposed prohibited fishing areas in the Edmonds/Kingston ferry
crossing lanes and at the Hood Canal Bridge. No comments were received
in objection to the proposal.
In 1984, when the TSTL was first implemented, the 15 minute rule
was applied to the Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lanes. This rule
proved to be ineffective as a traffic management tool. Ferry transit
frequency coupled with the time required to set and retrieve nets
caused ferries to be constantly stopped and delayed. The Coast Guard
received numerous complaints from ferry commuters. Members of the
Washington Congressional delegation also received numerous complaints
and asked the Coast Guard to find a solution. During the 1990 and 1991
fishing seasons, PSVTS issued a ``Vessel Traffic Service Direction'',
which prohibited fishing in the Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lanes
when a hazardous level of vessel congestion was deemed to exist by
PSVTS. During the 1992 fishing season, the Washington Department of
Fisheries established a fisheries exclusion zone which prohibited ``all
citizen'' fishing in an area encompassing the entire Edmonds/Kingston
ferry crossing. These actions significantly decreased conflicts between
ferries and fishing vessels, resulting in a much improved flow of ferry
traffic along the route. There has also been a sharp reduction in the
number of complaints received regarding ferry delays attributed to
fishing vessels. Fishing will continue to be allowed within the
Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lanes during nighttime periods when
ferries do not operate.
Commanding Officers of U.S. Navy Trident Submarines and Commander,
Submarine Group 9 have expressed grave concerns regarding the safety of
fishing vessels that congregate near the drawspan of the Hood Canal
Bridge and interfere with the passage of submarines. Submarines, while
traveling on the surface at slow speed display poor maneuver
capabilities. Fishing vessels clustered in the vicinity of the draw put
themselves in danger and present an unnecessary hazard to transiting
submarines. One supporter of the proposal described an extremely unsafe
situation whereby vessels fishing in the area caused evasive
maneuvering by a transiting U.S. Navy nuclear submarine. This rule
establishes a prohibited fishing area within a one half nautical mile
radius of the center of the draw of the Hood Canal Bridge to be in
effect only when public vessels are transiting the draw.
(4) Requirement to Listen to the VTS. Four comments were received
in support of the proposed requirement for vessels in the TSS to
monitor the VTS frequency. No comments were received in objection to
the proposal. Despite the support of commenters to retain the VTS
frequency monitoring requirement from the previous rule, this
requirement has been deleted. The Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act
limits VHF requirements to certain classes of vessels which include
power driven vessels of 20 meters and over in length. The majority of
vessels which cause congestion in the TSS are less than 20 meters in
length. Although not required to maintain a listening watch on the VTS
Frequency, it is considered prudent for vessels of less than 20 meters
in length to do so, and is highly encouraged. Experience and feedback
from vessels following the TSS has shown that a key element to a safe
transit through congested areas is the ability of fishing vessels and
other craft to maintain a listening watch on VTS communications. PSVTS
broadcasts the location, course, speed, and ETA of vessels following
the TSS over VTS Frequencies. This information helps vessels causing
congestion in the TSS to clear the traffic lanes and thereby comply
with this regulation and the provisions of Rule 10 of the International
Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea (72 COLREGS). The
information provided is particularly useful at night when darkness
complicates maneuvering situations. Commenters noted that VHF
communications between vessels allows a mariner to better discern a
vessel's intentions, an integral element of safe passage. A safe
alternative to the radio listening watch is to stay clear of the TSS.
(5) Lights for Marking Fishing Gear. The NPRM proposed to delete
the provision of the existing rule that requires vessels engaged in
fishing or other operations along the path of an approaching vessel in
a traffic lane to show a quick flash of light and illuminate their nets
or gear. Experience gained during previous salmon fishing seasons has
shown this requirement to be ineffective and visually chaotic in
congested areas. No comments were received on this proposal. The
existing requirement for gillnetters to show a 32 point white light at
the end of the net most distant from the fishing vessel has proven to
be effective and has been retained in the final rule.
(6) Sound Signal for Transiting Congested Areas. Four comments were
received in response to the proposal to allow the use of special sound
signals by vessels transiting an area with heavy concentrations of
vessels engaged in fishing or other operations. Two commenters opposed
the use of any sound signal. One commenter stated that the signal
should be voluntary and one commenter stated that the signal should be
mandatory. Opponents of the sound signal argued that it was in conflict
with Rule 36 of the International Regulations for the Prevention of
Collisons at Sea (72 COLREGS). This argument was reinforced by comments
received from the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC). In
response to the NPRM of October 1, 1990, NAVSAC acknowledged that
mandatory use of the proposed signal may cause confusion with
provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Most commenters asserted that the signals
prescribed in Rule 34 and the guidance provided in Rule 36 of the 72
COLREGS should suffice when approaching areas of congestion. Commenters
opposed to the signal were adamant that the Coast Guard should not
define a signal to attract attention. In consideration of the comments
received the Coast Guard will no longer define a specific signal to
attract attention, but will continue to promote and encourage the use
of such signals. Therefore, the sound signal provision has been
eliminated from the final rule.
(7) Speed Limit. The SNPRM proposed an 8 knot speed limit for
vessels making through transit of areas of congestion. Nine comments
were received in response to the proposal. Three commenters, although
not objecting to a speed limit, felt that 8 knots was too slow. Six
commenters were adamantly opposed to the imposition of any speed limit.
They argued that the existing regulations mitigate the need for a
vessel following the TSS to reduce speed. Some argued that a speed
reduction would create severe economic impact on carriers by causing
delays and difficulties in meeting freight schedules. Some pointed out
that Rule 6 of the 72 COLREGS already addresses safe speed and properly
leaves the precise determination up to the vessel master based upon
existing conditions. During the 1991 salmon fishing season, Puget Sound
Vessel Traffic Service (PSVTS) issued a VTS direction which included an
8 knot speed limit. During the first half of the season, the direction
encouraged the use of the 8 knot speed limit, but allowed vessel
masters the discretion to transit at what they determined to be a safe
speed. Most vessels slowed to some degree when approaching areas of
congestion, but many deep draft vessels chose to transit in the 10-12
knot speed range for reasons of increased control and maneuverability.
The inconsistent speeds made it difficult for PSVTS to predict the
precise arrival times of vessels following the TSS. During the second
half of the season, the Coast Guard made the 8 knot speed limit
mandatory except for those vessels whose handling characteristics made
it impracticable. Most vessels following the TSS transited at 8 knots
and it was noted that arrival times were more easily predicted and
fishing boats were able to clear the lanes prior to arrival of the
approaching vessel. Based on comment and experience gained during the
1991 season, PSVTS issued a VTS direction that set an 11 knot speed
limit for the 1992 salmon fishing season. The speed limit was imposed
on occasions when hazardous levels of vessel congestion were deemed to
exist by PSVTS. These occasions included congestion caused by not only
the commercial salmon fishing season, but recreational fishing and
other marine activities. This speed limit was better received by the
local maritime community and was followed without complaint by vessels
following the TSS. The 11 knot speed limit has been included in the
final rule.
The Coast Guard chose 11 knots for several reasons. Some commenters
acknowledged the benefit of a speed limit, but felt that 8 knots was
too slow. During the 1991 trial of the 8 knot speed limit, a few
vessels reported that 8 knots was too slow for adequate maneuvering,
but none claimed that they needed a speed greater than 11 knots. PSVTS
Watch Supervisors noted that 10-11 knots was the typical speed at which
vessels objecting to the 8 knot speed limit traveled. Also, 11 knots is
the voluntary transit speed for tankers in adjoining Rosario Strait.
(8) Deviation From the Regulation. The SNPRM proposed a new section
which provided criteria for the Coast Guard to authorize, in advance,
deviations from the rule. Four comments were received in support of the
provision proposed in the SNPRM to allow the Coast Guard to authorize
deviations from the rule. No comments were received in opposition to
the rule. However, one commenter noted that certain on-scene
emergencies require immediate action which may prevent advance approval
of a request for deviation. The rule takes this into account by
providing that the master, pilot, or other person directing movement of
a vessel may deviate from the rule to the extent necessary to avoid
endangering persons, property, or the environment and shall report the
deviation to the Vessel Traffic Center (VTC) as soon as possible.
Regulatory Evaluation
This regulation is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of
Management and Budget 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).
The economic impact of this action has been determined to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This decision
is based on the infrequency of fishery openings, the arrival rate of
vessels following the TSS, the usual practice of reducing speed when
transiting areas of congestion, and the short distance to which the
speed limit is applied. No adverse economic impact is expected on
vessels following the TSS, as a result of this rule. Because of the
infrequency of fishery openings the prohibited fishing areas are
expected to have little or no impact on the overall success rate of the
commercial fishing fleet. The requirement for gillnetters who fish in
the TSS to mark their nets with an all-around white light should impose
no economic impact on this group, because the majority already have
this equipment. In addition, the light should reduce net loss and
damage through net strikes by passing vessels.
Small Entities
For reasons already given in the Regulatory Evaluation Section of
this preamble, the Coast Guard expects this rule to have minimal impact
on all entities coming under its provisions. In addition, no
substantive comments concerning economic hardship due to the imposition
of the rule, were received from potentially affected parties.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this action in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has
been determined that this final rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. None of the comments received in response to the NPRM or
SNPRM indicated that the rule would have an adverse impact on state
fisheries regulations or Native American fishing rights.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this action
and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is
not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection and
copying where indicated under ``ADDRESSES''. After reviewing the
comments received and considering the effects of this action, it was
concluded that the only environmental impact of this rulemaking would
be to decrease the likelihood of either an oil spill or release of
hazardous materials into the environment resulting from vessel
collisions or groundings.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Final Regulation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 165 as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 165 of Title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 49 CFR 1.46
and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5.
2. Section 165.1301 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1301 Puget Sound, and Adjacent Waters in Northwestern
Washington--Regulated Navigation Area.
The following is a regulated navigation area--All of the following
northwestern Washington waters under the jurisdiction of the Captain of
the Port, Puget Sound: Puget Sound, Hood Canal, Possession Sound,
Elliott Bay, Commencement Bay, the San Juan Archipelago, Rosario
Strait, Guemes Channel, Bellingham Bay, U.S. waters of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and Georgia Strait, and all
lesser bays and harbors adjacent to the above.
(a) Definitions as used in this section:
(1) Vessels engaged in fishing are as identified in the definition
found in Rule 3 of the International Regulations for Prevention of
Collisions at Sea, 1972, (72 COLREGS), found in Appendix A, Part 81 of
this chapter.
(2) Hazardous levels of vessel traffic congestion are as defined at
the time by Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service.
(b) This section is intended to enhance vessel traffic safety
during periods and in locations where hazardous levels of vessel
traffic congestion are deemed to exist by Puget Sound Vessel Traffic
Service. Operations potentially creating vessel traffic congestion
include, but are not limited to, vessels engaged in fishing, including
gillnet or purse seine, recreational fishing derbies, regattas, or
permitted marine events.
(c) General regulations. (1) Nothing in this section shall be
construed as relieving any party from their responsibility to comply
with applicable rules set forth in the 72 COLREGS.
(2) Vessels engaged in fishing or other operations--that are
distinct from vessels following a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) or a
connecting precautionary area east of New Dungeness, may not remain in,
nor their gear remain in, a traffic lane or a connecting precautionary
area east of New Dungeness when a vessel following a TSS approaches an
area where hazardous levels of vessel traffic congestion are deemed to
exist. Vessels not following a TSS or a connecting precautionary area
east of New Dungeness shall draw in their gear, maneuver, or otherwise
clear these areas so that their action is complete and the traffic lane
and connecting precautionary area is clear at least fifteen minutes
before the arrival of a vessel following the TSS. Vessels which are
required by this section to leave the traffic lane or connecting
precautionary area must also remain clear of the adjacent separation
zone when in a TSS east of New Dungeness.
(3) Vessels engaged in fishing or other operations--that are
distinct from vessels following a TSS or a connecting precautionary
area east of New Dungeness and which are not required by the Bridge to
Bridge Radiotelephone Regulations to maintain a listening watch, are
highly encouraged to maintain a listening watch on the Puget Sound
Vessel Traffic Service (PSVTS) VHF-FM radio frequency for the area in
which the vessel is operating. A safe alternative to the radio
listening watch is to stay clear of the TSS.
(4) Vessels engaged in fishing in a traffic lane or connecting
precautionary area east of New Dungeness shall tend nets or other gear
placed in the water so as to facilitate the movement of the vessel or
gear from the traffic lane or precautionary area upon the approach of a
vessel following the TSS.
(5) Vessels engaged in gill net fishing at any time between sunset
and sunrise in any of the above-listed waters shall, in addition to the
navigation lights and shapes required by Part 81 of this title (72
COLREGS), display at the end of the net most distant from the vessel an
all-round (32-point) white light visible for a minimum of two nautical
miles and displayed from at least three feet above the surface of the
water.
(6) A vessel following the TSS may not exceed a speed of 11 knots
through the water when transiting areas where hazardous levels of
vessel traffic congestion are deemed to exist.
(d) Prohibited fishing areas. Vessels engaged in fishing, including
gillnet and purse seine fishing, are prohibited in the following areas:
(1) Edmonds/Kingston ferry crossing lanes, to include the waters
within one-quarter nautical mile on either side of a straight line
connecting the Edmonds and Kingston ferry landings during the hours
that the ferry is operating.
(2) The Hood Canal Bridge, to include the waters within a one-half
nautical mile radius of the center of the main ship channel draw span
during the immediate approach and transit of the draw by public
vessels.
(e) Authorization to deviate from this section. (1) Commander,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District may, upon written request, issue an
authorization to deviate from this section if the proposed deviation
provides a level of safety equivalent to or beyond that provided by the
required procedure. An application for authorization must state the
need for the deviation and describe the proposed alternative operation.
(2) PSVTS may, upon verbal request, authorize a deviation from this
section for a voyage, or part of a voyage, if the proposed deviation
provides a level of safety equivalent to or beyond that provided by the
required procedure. The deviation request must be made well in advance
to allow the requesting vessel and the Vessel Traffic Center (VTC)
sufficient time to assess the safety of the proposed deviation.
Discussions between the requesting vessel and the VTC should include,
but are not limited to, information on vessel handling characteristics,
traffic density, radar contracts, and environmental conditions.
(3) In an emergency, the master, pilot, or person directing the
movement of the vessel following the TSS may deviate from this section
to the extent necessary to avoid endangering persons, property, or the
environment, and shall report the deviation to the VTC as soon as
possible.
Dated: July 11, 1994.
J. W. Lockwood,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 13th Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 94-21140 Filed 8-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M