sponsibility to: assess the naviestian impactof other 
permit resquestsefled with EPA. 
nother affected agency was the Federal Maritime 
Commission, which was assigned responsibility for 
assessing the financial responsibility of tanker oper- 
ators to meet the liability provisions of the Act. In 
addition, numerous other agencies and programs in 
the water resource area were affected significantly 
by provisions of this comprehensive legislation. A 
more extensive discussion of this legislation is in- 
cluded in the chapter on Marine Environment. 
The second piece of legislation passed in 1972 
which expanded the scope of Coast Guard environ- 
mental authority was the Ports and Waterways 
Safety Act. Before enactment of this legislation, 
Coast Guard port safety authority was based on 
various laws, including the Espionage Act of 1917, 
the Dangerous Cargo Act, the Tank Vessel Act, and 
the 1950 Magnuson Act. These legislative authori- 
ties generally limited Coast Guard port safety and 
security activities to periods during which a state of 
national emergency had been declared by the Presi- 
dent. Under the terms of Executive Order 10173, 
President Truman provided the Coast Guard with 
the Presidential authority needed to pursue the port 
safety program. The regulations promulgated under 
the Magnuson Act and under Executive Order 10173 
established Captains of the Port in 55 major port 
areas in the continental United States, Alaska, 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. These Coast Guard 
units were charged with enforcing regulations con- 
cerning vessel movements, anchorages, cargo trans- 
fer operations including both storage and stowage, 
and waterfront facility fire and safety regulations. 
With enactment of the Ports and Waterways 
Safety Act in 1972, the Coast Guard was given re- 
sponsibility for the establishment of minimum design, 
construction, alteration and repair standards for all 
oil carrying vessels using U.S. ports and navigable 
waters. Specifically, this act imposed a requirement 
for establishing standards pertaining to improved 
vessel maneuverability and improved stopping ability 
in an effort to reduce the likelihood of collision or 
grounding, and required the establishment of stand- 
ards to reduce the quantity of cargo loss arising from 
an accident. In addition, standards for reducing 
environmental damage arising from normal vessel 
operations are required and a tankerman certification 
program is authorized. Furthermore, this legislation 
authorized the establishment of vessel traffic services 
and systems in congested traffic areas and the use 
of a variety of vessel traffic controls. Finally, this 
act authorized the establishment of safety zones, 
waterfront facility and environmental investigations, 
waterfront structure safety requirements, hazardous ~ 
materials procedures, and pilotage requirements.*° 
26 Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972. Public Law 92-340, 
July 10, 1972. 86 Stat. 424. 
Together with the environmental responsibilities 
undertaken in the 1960s, the Port and Waterway 
Safety Act and the 1972 Amendments to the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act have greatly enlarged 
Coast Guard authority with respect to marine en- 
vironmental protection. At the same time other new 
Federal environmental agencies and functions have 
emerged which also exert a significant influence on 
marine transportation. 
Under the terms of Section 102 of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, for example, all 
proposed Federal actions significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment must now be ac- 
companied by a comprehensive environmental im- 
pact statement. In addition, the agency undertaking 
such action must obtain comments from all other 
interested Federal agencies having jurisdiction or 
special expertise with respect to the action in ques- 
tion. This process has significantly influenced Federal 
activities in support of the U.S. water transportation 
system by requiring explicit and detailed advance 
consideration of the likely environmental conse- 
quences of many Federaliy-supported water tran- 
sportation-relaced activities. This process frequently 
extends the time required to achieve approval of a 
particular project or activity, increases the analytic 
effort required, and increases the visibility of nega- 
tive environmental consequences which can further 
delay a project or result in its cancellation. This 
specific and detailed consideration of environmental 
consequences is, of course, the intended purpose of 
the new procedure and although the process itself 
no doubt imposes some additional costs, there seems 
to be a general consensus that the cost of failing to 
systematically include envirenmental considerations 
in the decision-making process would be far greater 
in the long term. 
The 1969-National Environmental Policy Act also 
established the Council! on Environmental Quality. 
(CEQ), which is composed of three members and a 
staff in the Executive Office of the President. In 
carrying out its broad mandate to analyze the quality 
of the environment and make policy recommenda- 
tions to improve that quality, CEQ has become an 
important strategic actor in shaping Federal marine 
transportation policies in light of environmental con- 
siderations. In 1970, for example, CEQ published 
the National Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution 
Contingency Plari, which sets forth procedures to be 
followed in responding to a water pcllution emerg- 
ency. The objective of the plan is to assure a co- 
ordinated, efficient, and effective response to mini- 
mize the negative environmental consequences of 
such an incident. In 1973, CEQ played a major role 
in analyzing the environmental consequences of off- 
shore dee Bue er port facilities including an assess- 
ment of the shereside implications of such offshore 
facilities. From these exaimples it is clear that in dis- 
V-14 
